The Arts are HERE TO STAY: Policy Strategies to Further Revitalize San Jose's SoFA District by Susana Mercado Villalobos

THE ARTS ARE

HERE TO STAY: Policy Strategies to Further Revitalize San José’s SoFA District

Susana Mercado May 2016 1

Front Cover Photo: “San Jose Subzero Festival,” Source: See Appendix A for source information.

THE ARTS ARE HERE TO STAY: Policy Strategies to Further Revitalize San José’s SoFA District

A Planning Report Presented to The Faculty of the Department of Urban and Regional Planning

San José State University

In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Urban Planning

By Susana Mercado May 2016

Acknowledgements First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor Ginette Wessel, Ph.D. Her continuous support, patience, motivation, and immense knowledge helped bring this report to life. I could not have imagined having a better advisor and mentor during this yearlong process. To my forever boss and friend Ofelia Navarro, for her support and patience throughout my three years of combined full time employment and graduate studies. You have always looked out for my best interest and I am blessed to have initiated my career working for you. To Kristine Walker, my career coach and wonderful friend. Thank you for always bringing out the best in me and helping me discover my passion for urban planning. Last but not the least, I would like to thank my family: my parents Francisco and Maria and my sister Brenda, for supporting me spiritually throughout the writing of this report and my life in general. Everything is possible when you are surrounded by a strong and loving family. I am forever grateful for you.

Figure 1: Parque de los Pobladores Monument in SoFA, Source: Author Photograph

TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. The Evolution of SoFA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. The Investigation Begins: Research Question, Hypothesis, and Intended Audience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. Getting to a Successful Deliverble: Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i. Step One: Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii. Step Two: Review of Policies, Plans, and Regulations of San José and Successful U.S. Arts Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii. Step Three: A Comparative Analysis of Zoning Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv. Step Four: Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 2 4 4 4 5 6 7

II. The Power of Art: Revitalization, Economics, and Community Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. The Scholars Prove It: Literature Review on the Positive Effects of Arts and Culture Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. Arts and Culture Districts as Revitalization Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. Show Me the Money! Enhancing Economic Development through Arts and Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. Community Engagement as an Agenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9 10 10 11 13 15

III. Policy Analysis of Arts and Cultural Planning in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. The Heart of Silicon Valley: San José, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. Origins of Cultural Planning: Chicago, IL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. The Arts in One of America’s Most Livable Cities: Portland, OR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. 7x7 Miles of Creative Identity: San Francisco, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E. The Arts in the Mile High City: Denver, CO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F. A Strong pARTicipant: San Deigo, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G. Our Nation’s Capital Thrives Through Policy: Washington, D.C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. A Suburban Cultural Surprise: Phoenix, AZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

19 20 22 24 28 30 34 37 39

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTD.) IV. How Planning Allows for Artistic Expression and Identity: Zoning Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. Existing Zoning in San José’s SoFA District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. The Three Final Leaders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i. The Rugged and Creative Wicker Park: Chicago, IL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii. The Lively Uptown DUKE Arts District: Washington, D.C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii. Suburban Cities Can Thrive Too! Roosevelt Row: Phoenix, AZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

47 48 50 50 53 56

V. Applying Best Practices in San José, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. Summary of Policy Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. Primary Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i. Adopt an Arts and Culture Master Plan for SoFA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii. Adopt an Overlay Zoning Code for SoFA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii. Provide Affordable Housing for the Artist in SoFA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv. Use Underutilized Lots for Arts-Related Purposes to Increase Pedestrian Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v. Create an Arts Incubator Space in SoFA through Public/Private Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi Encourage Businesses to Incorporate Local Art in their Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii. Require Integration of Site Specific Public Arts in both Public and Private Developments within SoFA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. Study Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

63 64 65 65 66 66 67 68 68 69 69 70 70

Appendix A: Figure Credits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Appendix B: Policy Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Appendix C: Zoning Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

iii

LIST OF TABLES Table 1:

Policy Analysis Results, Source: Created by Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Table 2:

Arts and Culture Uses, Source: Chicago Planning Toolkit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Table 3:

Matrix for Zoning Analysis Source: Created by Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Table 4:

Zoning Ordinance in San José, Source: City of San José Code of Ordinances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Table 5:

Zoning in Wicker Park, Source: City of Chicago Zoning Ordinance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Table 6:

Arts-Related Uses in Wicker Park, Source: City of Chicago Zoning Ordinance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Table 7:

Base Zoning in D.C., Source: Government of District of Columbia Zoning Ordinance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Table 8:

Arts and Culture Overlay Zoning, Source: Government of District of Columbia Zoning Ordinance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Table 9:

Base Zoning for RoRo, Source: City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Table 10:

Arts, Culture, and Small Business Zoning in RoRo, Source: City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Table 11:

Arts and Culture Policy Recommendations for SoFA, Source: Created by Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1:

Parque de los Pobladores Monument in SoFA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 2:

SoFA Streetscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 3:

SoFA Back in Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 4:

SoFA Today . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 5:

The San Francisco’s Women’s Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 6:

Mural “Small Wonders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 7:

SoFA Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LIST OF FIGURES (CONTD.)

Figure 8:

ArtsPlace Funded Parque de los Poblares in SoFA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 9:

The Gateway to Wicker Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Figure 10:

Outdoor Civic Engagement in the Alberta Arts District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 11:

Creating Communities through Art in Alberta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 12:

Mixed-Use Artist Housing in Alberta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 13:

Mural “My Life in Silver Trinkets” in San Francisco’s Mission District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 14:

Art Filled Pocket Park in San Francisco’s Mission District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 15:

Beautifying Walls in River North . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 16:

Murals in North Park, San Diego . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 17:

The Gateway to North Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 18:

Proposed Improvements in DUKE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 19:

Beautifying Through Urban Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 20:

Successful Arts and Culture Strategies in Roosevelt Row . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 21:

Mural “My Dog Sighs” in Wicker Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 22:

Arts Features in Wicker Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Figure 23:

Revitalizing Through Mixed-Use in DUKE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 24:

Arts-Related Revitalization in DUKE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 25:

Arts, Culture and Small Business Overlay District (Acod) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 26:

Arts and Culture Features in RoRo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 27:

Mural “Valley of the Heart’s Delight” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 28:

Voices of SoFA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[Page Intentionally Blank]

Introduction

Figure 2: SoFA Streetscape, Source: See Appendix A for source information

A. The Evolution of SoFA

Figure 3: SoFA Back in Time, Source: See Appendix A for source information

Figure 4: SoFA Today, Source: Author Photograph

Since the 18th century, the South of First Street Area (SoFA) has served as a gateway district in Downtown San Jose. During the early 20th century, SoFA offered retail opportunities for residents, but suburban sprawl in the 1970s intrigued retailers to move away to other parts of San José.1 The lack of retail opportunities led to the formation of a red light district in the late 1970s, which was quickly resolved by zoning out the adult movie theatres and businesses. In the 1980s, SoFA began to take shape, with the development of nightclubs and other entertainment venues.2 According to City of San José’s Planning Division Manager, Michael Brilliot, SoFA began to develop into an arts, culture, and entertainment center in the 1980s, with the district being at its peak in the 1990s.3 During this time, the district was edgy, with street fairs

that featured grungy rock bands, beer, and “sweaty tattooed bodies.”4 Today, post a recession, SoFA continues to develop into an arts, culture, and entertainment district. Existing venues offer opportunities to enjoy shows at the renovated California Theatre, drinks at the SoFA Market and Continental Lounge, or live music at The Ritz.5 Additionally, the SoFA District hosts a monthly art walk called “South First Fridays,” which brings in crowds to engage in the temporary display of art, live music, a street market, and access to nearby galleries and museums.6 Although the existing amenities in SoFA have contributed towards urban revitalization and economic development in San José, the district is far from fully flourishing into a recognized arts and culture district

by San José citizens and tourists. Reasons for this include the lack of typical arts district amenities such as live/work dwelling units for artists, artist shops, empty storefronts, recording studios, and cultural facilities.7 Furthermore, the lack of public realm features within SoFA inhibit citizens from identifying it as an arts district. As one walks along the corridor, displays of murals, sculptures, and open space are limited.8 In cities with successful arts and culture districts such as Phoenix, policies require private developers to appropriate 2.5 percent of the total floor area of the development to arts-related uses, offer incentives for placement of artwork, and require the involvement of local artists throughout the design process of the development.9 Although the district is considered to have developed organically, adoption of strong policies and zoning regulations have helped sustain and support the area as an arts and culture district.10 Based on interviews, review of existing documents, and site visits, it is apparent that the City of San José has a vested interest in the further development of SoFA as an arts and culture district. The question is, where does the City of San José go from here? What can the city do to protect the existing arts-related spaces, provide affordable housing for artists, and continue to revitalize as an arts and culture district? The purpose of this investigation is to provide answers to all the questions mentioned above. It is my hope that this document can be used as a guide to support the vitality and longevity of SoFA for years to come. Key Terms: • Arts and Culture District Policy: Principles of action adopted by a government body to enhance arts and culture activity in their city.

• Arts and Culture District: For the purpose of this study, an arts district is defined as a “well-recognized, labeled, mixeduse area of a city in which a high concentration of cultural facilities serve as the anchor of attraction.” 11 • Public Realm: Public streets, pathways, right of ways, parks, and open space, as well as public and civic buildings.12 • Overlay Zoning: A regulatory tool used to create a special zoning district. This zoning code is placed over the existing base zones of a specific area in a city. An overlay zone allows for special use and encourages a specific type of development.13 • Property Based Improvement District: An initiative set up by a private entity “to manage and improve the environment of a business district with services financed by a self-imposed and self -governed assessment.”14 A PBID enhances existing City services such as streetscape improvements. • Artist Live/Work Unit: A unit that combines a workspace with a living space. Typically, an artist loft consists of a bedroom above the studio.15 • Cultural Facility: Facilities that consist of the performance spaces, museums, artist studios, arts-related retail shops, music or media production studios, dance studios, high schools or colleges for the arts, libraries, community centers, and arboretums and gardens.16

B. The Investigtion Begins: Research Question, Hypothesis, and Intended Audience The research question for this investigation states, “what arts (and culture) district policies and zoning regulations should the City of San José adopt to support the further revitalization of the South of First Street Area (SoFA)?” While the SoFA District does demonstrate signs of revitalization and increased popularity, I hypothesize that strong artsrelated policies can increase its recognition and longevity as an arts and culture district. Previous research shows that “culture as development” policies are developed to enhance economic development and improve city districts.17 Aside from enhancing economic development, arts and culture policies can encourage implementation of public art, sculptures, open space, outdoor activities, and artist-designed lighting that will increase artistic recognition in a neighborhood.18 These design features create an active public life that foster social cohesion and a sense of pride for the local community.19 Additional research has shown that cities like New York have adopted zoning regulations that provide affordable live/work spaces to artists.20 In doing this, New York City has been able to promote continuous artist presence in their city arts districts despite high rents. Cities like Phoenix have developed an overlay zoning code that allows flexibility in land uses to enhance arts and culture activities.21 This overlay zoning has provided “design guidelines that create a particular look and feel of an area, protect valuable resources, and help meet goals and objectives of the community.”22

The primary audience for this study will be the City of San José’s Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Division, whom is responsible for the development of policies regarding new developments, zoning, and permits in San José. Other potential audience members include San José’s Office of Cultural Affairs and Arts Commission, whom have a vested interest in policies that will increase arts and culture presence in San José.23 These organizations will be able to recommend the policies within this report to City Council, a very important audience member and stakeholder. Lastly, this report will empower community members and local artists to ask advocate for strong arts and culture policies in their respective city.

C. Getting to a Successful Deliverable: Methodology An in depth investigation consisting of empirical research, review of city documents, and interviews were conducted to formulate recommendations regarding arts policy and zoning regulations in SoFA. This section provides the steps taken to formulate the initial proposal for this investigation, as well as the steps taken to provide the recommendations discussed in Chapter 5.

i. Step One: Literature Review A literature review was conducted to obtain peer reviewed articles related to arts and culture districts. Conducting a literature review allowed me to gain knowledge of previous research conducted onarts and culture districts, and to situate my research in a broader on-going discourse in the field of urban planning. Empirical research that discussed the benefits of arts and culture districts in regards to revitalization,

zoning, economic development, and community engagement were the primary articles used in this investigation. Search engines such as Science Direct, Academic Search Complete, JSTOR, and Google Scholar were used to obtain peer-reviewed articles related to arts and culture district policies. Information on how arts and culture district policies can enhance revitalization, economic development, and community engagement of an arts and culture district were obtained in the review of over twenty-five scholarly articles. A summary of the findings from this step in the investigation can be found in Chapter 2 of this report.

ii. Step Two: Review of Policies, Plans, and Regulations of San JosĂŠ and Successful U.S. Arts Districts In order to conduct a comparative analysis, I conducted an in-depth review of policies, goals, and regulations within General Plans, Master, and Specific Plans of San JosĂŠ and successful U.S. arts and culture districts. I reviewed the documents mentioned above and noted all the arts and culture policies related to revitalization, economic development,

community engagement, and zoning for arts and culture. Additionally, cities with specific/master plans and an overlay zoning code became the strongest role models for the SoFA District in San Jose. Reviewing city documents helped determine if similarities in arts and culture district policies exist between the cities selected for this investigation. Chicago, Portland, San Francisco, Denver, San Diego, Washington DC, and Phoenix were selected for review due to the plethora of scholarly research available that discuss their successful arts and culture districts; some have even been identified as great places by the American Planning Association.24 Additionally, I have visited four (4) out of the seven districts, and have witnessed the strong artistic presence within them. Table 1 below outlines the overall findings of this in-depth document review. An overview of the policies identified for each city are discussed in Chapter 3 of this report (see Appendix B for a full list of policies by city).

Table 1: Policy Analysis Results, Source: Created by Author

City San Jose Chicago Portland

Master Plan of Arts Districts Adopted? No Yes Yes

San Francisco Denver San Diego

Yes Yes Yes

Washington D.C. Yes Phoenix Yes

Arts Overlay Zone Adopted? No Special Service Area Density Bonus Overlay (Not Arts) No No No

Revitalization Policies 21 77 32

Arts and Culture Related Economic Community Development Policies Engagement Policies 0 9 1 7 3 4

64 59 47

4 4 7

7 7 1

75 70 55

Yes Yes

33 34

1 0

6 6

40 40

Total 30 85 39

iii. Step Three: A Comparative Analysis of Zoning Regulations

Table 2: Arts and Culture Uses, Source: Chicago Planning Toolkit

Permanent Uses a. Art Galleries b. Arts and Craft Sales c. Restaurants d. Cultural Facilities - Performance Spaces - Museums - Dance Studios - Arts-Related Retail Shops - Music or Media Production - Dance Studios - High Schools or Colleges for the Arts - Libraries - Arboretums and Gardens e. Live Performance Venue/Theatre f. Microbrewery g. Live/Work Dwelling

In order to determine the influence that zoning has on implementation/revitalization of a successful arts district, I conducted a review of existing arts-related zoning in Chicago, Washington D.C., and Phoenix. These were selected due to their strong arts and culture policies identified in step two of this investigation. The zoning regulations for these top three cities were evaluated based on permitted or conditional uses related to arts and culture activity, and then compared to the existing arts-related zoning uses in SoFA. The zoning codes from the three selected cities were used to generate recommendations in Chapters four (4) and five (5) of this investigation. Arts and culture land use and activities are identified in Table 2.25 After identifying the particular features that define an arts and culture district, I developed a methodology matrix to highlight all the arts and culture land uses and activities permitted at the three districts and SoFA. Each zoning code was identified as type of use and whether it is permitted by right or conditionally permitted. Uses permitted by right do not require special review or approval. Uses permitted conditionally require further review and approval with conditions by a decision-maker

Temporary Uses a. Open Air Markets b. Outdoor Entertainment c. Mobile Food Trucks d. Storefront Gallery e. Farmersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Market f. Festivals

or decision-making body. Specific decision-making body and conditions were noted for uses that require a conditional use permit. Table 3 below is the sample format used in this investigation. Completed matrices with zoning regulations for each city can be found in Appendix C.

Table 3: Matrix for Zoning Analsysis, Source: Created by Author

Activity/Use

Permitted? (Zoning Type)

Base Code (If Applicable)

Conditions Conditional Use?

Approval By and Conditions

Art Gallery Arts and Crafts Farmersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Market Live Entertainment Mobile Food Trucks Live/Work Dwelling Cultural Facility

iv. Step Four: Interviews In the fall of 2015, I conducted interviews with city planning staff members in San Jose, Chicago, Washington D.C., and Phoenix to determine what policies they felt have contributed to the development of their arts and culture district. Additionally, interviews on local business owners and organizations that are heavily invested in revitalizing SoFA were conducted for San José. These interviewees are stakeholders/ owners at the SoFA Market, the MACLA Museum (Movimiento de Arte y Cultura LatinoAmerica), and the Museum of Quilts and Textiles. The interviewees from local organizations vested in the revitalization of SoFA were representatives from the San Jose Downtown Association and Aedis Architects. The purpose of these interviews were to gather thoughts on the district, the organizations willingness tocontribute towards public realm improvements, their knowledge of zoning limitations (if applicable), and their thoughts on using their business for alternate purposes during the day (if they are nightlife business owners).

Interviews took place over the phone for city planning staff outside of San José, while in-person interviews were conducted for all San José interviewees. Typed notes were taken during all interviews and a voice recorder was used for interviews that accepted. All interviews adhered to IRB requirements and all human subjects were made aware of the IRB process. Interviews were conducted to help determine how effective the current arts and culture policies, goals, objectives, and zoning have been in Chicago, Washington D.C., Phoenix, and San José. The information obtained helped create a world cloud to identify the common themes from the interviews. Additionally, the interview information was used as qualitative data to fill in gaps where missing information was identified in the documents. The results from these interviews can be found in Chapter 4 and 5 of this report.

Chapter 1 - Endnotes Metroactive, “Reupholstering SoFA,” Metro Silicon Valley, last modified September 12, 2000, http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/09.14.00/cover/sofa1-0037.html. [accessed November 12, 2015]. 1

Ibid.

Michael Brilliot, interviewed by Susana Mercado, San Jose, CA, March 2, 2016.

Metroactive, “Reupholstering SoFA.”

Ibid.

6 South First Fridays, “October 2, 2015—South First Fridays Art Walk,” South First Fridays, last modified September 27, 2015, http://www.southfirstfridays.com/ [accessed September 18, 2015].

Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP), Arts and Culture Planning: A Toolkit for Communities, Chicago: CMAP, 2012. P. 48. http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/ documents/10180/460065/FY14-0006+ARTS+AND+CULTURE+TOOLKIT+lowres.pdf/806f3498f35a-4b40-894b-a57a2efd441c [accessed on February 15, 2015]. 7

8 Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP), Arts and Culture Planning: A Toolkit for Communities, Chicago: CMAP, 2012. P. 49

City of Phoenix, Phoenix Arts District: A Policy Plan for the Phoenix Arts District, by City of Phoenix Planning Department (1991). https://www.phoenix.gov/pddsite/Documents/pdd_pz_ pdf_00047.pdf. [accessed September 20, 2015], P.54. 9

10 San José Redevelopment Agency, South First Area Strategic Development Plan, by San José Redevelopment Agency (2002). http://www.sjredevelopment.org/PublicationsPlans/ SOFAnewplan.pdf. [accessed September 25, 2015]. 11 Brooks, Arthur C., and Roland J. Kushner, “Cultural Districts and Urban Development,” International Journal of Arts Management 3, no. 2 (2001),

The Humber Centre for Excellence in the Built Environment, “Arc: Working with People to Make Great Places,”http://www.arc-online.co.uk/public-realm/what-is-public-realm.[accessed September 28, 2015], P.5. 12

Joyer, Jeffrey, “What Is a Live-Work Unit?” The Houston Chronicle. 2015. http:// smallbusiness.chron.com/livework-unit-35188.html. [accessed September 26, 2015] 15

Hilary Anne Frost-Kumpf, Cultural Districts: The Arts as a Strategy for Revitalizing Our Cities (New York: Americans for the Arts, 1998) P. 11 http://www.americansforthearts.org/sites/ default/files/Cultural%20Districts_0.pdf. [accessed September 22, 2015] 16

17 Strom, Elizabeth. “Cultural Policy as Development Policy.” International Journal of Cultural Policy 9, no. 3 (2003): P.248 18 Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP), Arts and Culture Planning: A Toolkit for Communities (2012). P. 12 19 Joshua Guetzkow, How the Arts Impact Communities: An Introduction to the Literature on Arts Impact Studies, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ (2002) P.6, https://www.princeton. edu/~artspol/workpap/WP20%20-%20Guetzkow.pdf [accessed March 20, 2015].

O’Sullivan, Mary, “Home is Where the Art Is: The Impact that Housing Laws and Gentrification Policies have had on the Availability and Affordability of Artist Live/Work Spaces,” Seton Hall Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law, no.23 (2013): P.464 20

21 City of Phoenix, “Arts, Culture and Small Business Overlay (Acod) District,” Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, last modified January 21, 2015 http://www.codepublishing.com/az/phoenix/ frameless/index.pl?path=./html/PhoenixZ06/PhoenixZ0669.html. [accessed March 10, 2015]

City of Somerville, “Best Practices Planning and Implementation Toolbox.” Sub Regional Planning. http://subregional.h-gac.com/toolbox/Implementation_Resources/Overlay_District_ Ordinances_Final.html. [accessed May 11, 2015]. 22

23 City of San José, “Office of Cultural Affairs: Arts Commission.” last modified August 7, 2015. http://www.sanJoséculture.org/index.aspx?nid=4214. [accessed September 26, 2015]. 24

Arthur C. Brooks and Roland J. Kushner, “Cultural Districts and Urban Development,” P. 5

25 Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP), Arts and Culture Planning: A Toolkit for Communities, Chicago: CMAP, 2012, P. 42-43.

Douglas Miskowiak and Linda Stoll, “Planning Implementation Tools: Overlay Zoning,” Center for Land Use Education, https://www.uwsp.edu/cnr-ap/clue/Documents/ PlanImplementation/Overlay_Zoning.pdf. [accessed September 26, 2015] 13

14 Larry Houstoun, “Business Improvement Districts and Urban Entertainment and Cultural Centers,” last modified 2016, https://lhoustoun.wordpress.com/business-improvementdistricts-2/bids-and-urban-entertainment-zones/. [accessed November 12, 2015].

II.

The Power of Art: Revitalization, Economics, and Community Engagement

Figure 5: The San Francisco Womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Building, Source See Appendix A for source information

A. The Scholars Prove It: Literature Review on the Positive Effects of Arts and Culture Districts The purpose of this literature review was to gain knowledge of previous research conducted on arts and culture districts. Specifically, the literature review themes investigated the effect that arts and culture districts have on revitalization efforts, economic development, and community engagement. Based on the substantial amount of research available, it is apparent that neighborhood revitalization through arts and culture is a topic studied by planning professionals, educators, and in some cases, lawyers. This review seeks to compare, contrast, and discuss what conclusions can be made regarding and arts and culture districts implementation, success, and longevity.

B. Arts and Culture Districts as Revitalization Tools Numerous studies support and acknowledge that an arts and culture district serves as a tool for urban revitalization. According to Brooks and Kushner’s case study on eight districts in the United States, an arts and culture district “can address the cultural and aesthetic needs of a city’s citizens while achieving a more livable downtown area and promoting tourism and economic growth.”1 Arts districts tend to be developed in areas around existing crime and vandalism, blighted buildings, and areas with falling income.2 Montgomery and Frost-Krumpf argue that an arts and culture district revitalizes a downtown core by beautifying

and animating a city, providing a mix of land uses, creating employment opportunities that increase foot traffic, and allowing opportunities for community creativity and innovation.3 All of these are what Montgomery describes as characteristics of an urban space.4 Frost-Krumpft’s study identified commonalities between twenty-four arts districts in the United States, while Montgomery’s study was focused on four districts outside of the U.S. However, despite the geographic location and size of the districts, both studies show that arts districts contribute towards revitalization of a specific area. In particular, Frost-Kumpft studies the different designations of arts and culture districts, but makes generalizable conclusions on their positive effects on revitalization. Both studies argue that effective leadership is needed to develop policies that support arts districts. These include policies related to zoning adjustments and tax incentives for development in arts districts.5 Previous research supports the idea that specific characteristics are needed to revitalize and contribute to the longevity of an arts and culture district. Montgomery’s findings showed that an arts and culture district needs to have a diversity of primary and secondary land uses, active frontages, improved streetscape features, meaningful gathering spaces, and an extensive and varying amount of cultural venues.6 The variety in cultural venues as a key element to a successful arts and culture district is also supported in Wansbourough and Mageean’s study on Manchester’s Northern Quarter. Although more limited in scope, this study determined that a mix of cultural activities within close proximity can support each other and revitalize derelict areas.7 Furthermore, Grodach’s study on cultural flagships supports this idea by concluding that a cultural flagship alone will not revitalize an area. What is needed is a mix of land uses within the local context to support the clustering of arts and culture activity.8 His study was conducted on arts and culture

districts in San Francisco and Los Angeles. Overall, all studies highlight the important role that urban design plays in the revitalization efforts through arts and culture. According to the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, an arts and culture district includes art galleries, dance studios, museums, performance spaces, and live/work dwellings for artists.9 Streetscape features include public art, artist-designed lighting, benches, and signs.10 Clustering of these elements in vacant properties or underused space revamps a once uninviting area, and increases pedestrian activity.11 Additionally, Mitrache shows that public art is used as a redevelopment tool through implementation on existing architecture and in public squares. Her study on three European cities demonstrates how public art creates a “scene of [for] the meeting between art and people.12 Although these amenities and features are primarily developed to enhance economic development, they have also demonstrated positive effects on crime reduction. The increased pedestrian activity along corridors and in public squares promotes public safety, while implementation of public art (i.e. murals) helps mitigate graffiti.13 These conclusions align with Rosenberg’s study on the effect that cultural facilities have had on crime reduction in two cities in New York. His results showed that the decrease in crime rates was due to the increased arts and culture activity implemented in the neighborhoods.14 As previously noted, one of the key features that contributes towards the revitalization of an arts and culture district is adoption of live/work units for local artists.15 Local governments are aware of the value that art and artists can bring to a neighborhood’s revitalization efforts. Recognizing this, they have developed tax incentives, land use, and zoning permissions that promote artist relocation in their designated arts district.16 In her case study, O’Sullivan notes how some cities have

adopted artist housing protection policies to assure that artists can continue to live in their city’s arts district. Cities like Convington, Kentucky have included an artist incentive in their revitalization plan that permits artists to apply for a $6,000 forgivable loan to renovate live/work spaces in their arts district.17 Although Chapple, Jackson, and Martin’s study on the development of formal and informal districts supports the idea that arts can serve as a catalyst for revitalization, it also warns local governments of the importance to develop formal tools to protect the local artist.18 In order to mitigate gentrification of the local artists once the area is revitalized, the study recommends that local governments develop specific tools that outline the goals to benefit the artist and art organizations, and not just focus on revitalizing for economic development.19 The art that these artists bring to the community creates the creativity and uniqueness needed to revitalize and increase tourism in a district.20 Artist protection policies are important because they will contribute towards an arts district revitalization, recognition, and longevity.

C. Show Me the Money! Enhancing Economic Development through Arts and Culture According to the American Planning Association (APA), the clustering of cultural facilities, artists live/work spaces, and firms bring the density and human capital needed to foster economic development.21 Additional elements noted by the APA as enhancers of economic development include; increasing the presence of public art, featuring the city’s cultural facilities during festivals, and implementation of adaptive reuse for other business purposes.22

Similar to the APA, Grodach and Sideris’ study also supports the notion of cultural elements and activities serving as economic development tools. Their survey on forty-nine (49) U.S. cities demonstrates that “providing opportunities for consumption through blockbuster events, cafes, merchandising, and contemporary cultural institutions fit well into urban revitalization.”23 These amenities bring an increase in tax revenues, tourism, and improve the image of the city. In addition, Frost-Kumpft’s case study on twenty-four (24) arts districts in the U.S. highlights their positive economic effects. In alignment with Grodach and Sideris, her findings support that arts and culture districts contribute towards increased tax revenues, employment, and tourism.24 An example of economic development due to implementation of an arts district can be seen in Tucson, Arizona, where the city saw a decrease in vacancy rates, an increase of 54% in business sales, and an overall increase of 11.7% in sales tax in their arts district.25 Although varying in scope size and methodology, generalizable conclusions from these studies can be made regarding the economic outcomes of an arts and culture district. The Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning’s toolkit for arts and culture districts highlights how location and placement of cultural amenities can enhance economic development. Clustering the amenities within close proximity leads to a higher presence of pedestrians, which results in more time and money spent in the area.26 Studies conducted by both Grodach and Santagata provide similar results regarding the economic effects that placement has for arts and culture districts. Santagata’s study notes how small and medium sized arts and culture amenities provide an avenue towards economic prosperity.27 The amenities studied by him include art markets, performing arts centers, museums, and design-based goods all within

close proximity in European communities.28 Grodach’s study on twelve (12) arts and culture amenities in Dallas and Fort Worth considered their location an important component of economic development.29 Having arts and culture amenities in close proximity increases business and preserves local culture.30 In addition, Grodach’s study discusses the influence that urban planners have on the development and preservation of arts and culture amenities.31 He notes how effective policymaking, zoning (especially for live/work spaces), and incentives around current arts spaces can further support a city’s economic development goals.32 All authors indicate how having arts and culture amenities in close proximity can bolster economic development. As previously discussed, development of arts-related policies will enhance a city’s potential to “anchor and sustain” their arts and culture district.33 Strom’s study on four arts districts in the U.S. notes that “culture as development” policies are developed to improve a cities branding and goals to increase tourism.34 Over the past couple of years, we have seen new alliances between city boosters, arts advocates, and place promoters to increase the economic value in the arts. These alliances have increased civic promotion, reframed arts policies, and promoted construction for arts related space as a tool for urban and economic development.35 The combined interests of all parties enhance culture, promote local businesses, and create a sense of place.36 In addition to Strom, Nicodemus and Markusen’s studies both support policy as an economic development tool. Specifically, Nicodemus discusses how creative placemaking in an arts and culture district is needed to increase attendance and enhance economic development.37 He argues that further analysis on existing placemaking projects in arts and culture districts will help improve the development of cultural policies in other cities.38

In addition to studies on placemaking policy, Markusen’s survey on twenty-even (27) U.S. cities determines the impact that artists have on the economy. Artists are of economic value because they enhance a community through public art, provide a variety of entertainment options to residents (i.e. museums), and spend money on arts supplies.39 According to Markusen, effective policy to protect artists’ centers, live/work spaces, and arts public education will attract (and keep) artists to cities.40 Although Strom, Nicodemus, and Markusen support arts-related policies for varying needs, all agree on the positive effects they bring to the economy. Unlike the commonly used case study approach, both Noonan and Borrup investigate the economic trends of arts and culture districts using a different set of methodologies. Noonan conducts neighborhood-level statistical analyses, while Borrup conducts roundtable focus group discussions.41 Noonan’s results conclude that implementation of an arts and culture district will increase property values, jobs, income levels, and decrease turnover in a neighborhood.42 Furthermore, Borrup’s focus group participants included organizations and community members from twenty-six (26) arts and culture districts in the U.S.43 In terms of economic impact, his study concludes that cultural districts produce higher tax revenues and attract high income residents.44 Similar to other authors noted, Borrup notes the opportunity for economic displacement of existing residents and artist, and recommends that cities develop policies to mitigate gentrification. Again, policies related to affordable work space for artists and zoning are made.45 Implementation of such policies will promote the equitable sustainability of an arts and culture district.46

D. Community Engagement as an Agenda Aside from enhancing a city’s revitalization and economic objectives, arts and culture districts also carry social benefits. According to Markusen and Gadwa’s case study, investing in arts and culture allows a city to increase a community’s sense of identity and forms “social cohesion by bridging across cultures, provides avenues for social and political critique, fosters self-esteem in individuals in communities, counteracts fear and insecurity, and offers pleasure, beauty, and food for the soul.”47 Participating in cultural activities such as gatherings, art development, performances, and festivals allows for interaction between citizens of different class and cultures.48 In Lee’s study on the positive effects of participating in an arts-related activity, a group of Somali children and American graduate students engaged in the development of a mural within their community.49 His investigation aligns with Markusen and Gadwa’s by demonstrating that participation in arts-related activities builds relationships, allows for cross-cultural interactions, and builds a cohesive multicultural community.50 Although more limited in scope compared to Markusen and Gadwa’s, Lee’s study provides a solid example of a participatory arts-related activity. In addition to these two studies, reviews by Mallonee and Guetzkow discuss the existing literature that supports the positive social effects of arts and culture districts.51 Mallonee’s findings highlight the specific activities that enhance a citizen’s sense of place, stabilize neighborhoods, and promote cross-cultural interaction.52 These activities include festivals and events hosted by the local artists’ establishments.53 Guetzkow’s review argues that the arts enhance social cohesion by providing venues where local community members can interact with each other, network, and foster a sense of pride for their community.54

As noted throughout this literature review, one of the key elements of an arts and culture district are artist live/ work spaces. Gadwa’s in-depth study focuses on how artists’ establishments enhance opportunities for community engagement. Her study concludes that clustering of artist space provides the critical mass needed for cultural experiences, which include art crawls and studio open houses.55 In addition to art crawls, arts and culture districts also bring opportunities for outdoor social activities, such as art fairs and music festivals, pop-up storefront galleries, open air markets, farmers markets, and mobile food trucks.56 According to Walker, people are attracted and attend more arts and culture events in community venues, which include open air parks and streets, as mentioned above.57 Based on his study, people attend these types of gatherings for social and family purposes.58 Furthermore, Derrett’s study focuses specifically on the positive effects of festivals. His observations, surveys, and interviews conclude that festivals create a sense of place by providing activities that represent the community values and interests.59 He also notes how festivals allow a community to attract visitors, all while making their neighborhood a distinctive place.60 Lastly, McCarthy focuses his research on the effects that farmer’s markets bring to a community, yet another important element of an arts and culture district. His research concludes that people attend farmer’s markets for reasons beyond shopping for groceries.61 He notes that farmer’s markets allow for residents to connect with their community and enhance social cohesion.62 Farmers markets bring people together who otherwise would not interact, and create a sense of belonging.63 Although the events vary in scope, all are important elements of an arts and culture district that foster social capital. The temporary uses noted benefit the community, enhance community engagement, and increase a person’s sense of identity with the district. These types of temporary uses can be implemented through the support of city officials.

Numerous authors investigate how public art affects community engagement. According to the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, an arts and culture district helps “define, preserve, and enhance” the character and identity of a community through the implementation public art.64 Participation in the making of public art (i.e. mural making) strengthens community relationships by allowing residents to express their values with each other.65 Sharp, Pollock, and Paddison also support the idea that public art fosters a sense of inclusion for the existing community residents. In order to mitigate resistance, the investigators highlight adopting policies that incorporate local community participation in the public art making process.66 Recognizing the existing community through public art is how “minority groups can affirm their history and physically mark their place within the layered histories of the urban space.”67 This type of community engagement enhances the local resident’s sense of place and mitigates their fear of gentrification.68 Solof also agrees that gentrification can be mitigated by developing the arts and culture district from within the existing community.69 He encourages participation from the local residents that have interest in the arts, rather than bringing people from the outside to implement the public art.70 Lastly, McCarthy’s study recommends that cities reach out to historical associations to retrieve insightful information on the community. He notes how historical associations can provide the “linkage between public art and local identity” to enhance quality of life and social inclusion for the local community.71

E. Conclusion Based on this research, an arts and culture district can help meet a city’s goals and objectives of revitalization, economic development, and community engagement. The adoption of effective policies related to land use, artist protection, and community engagement programs have worked in the city’s investigated, and generalizable conclusions regarding their positive effects can be made. However, one important theme brought up in most of the literature reviewed was the value of the artist. Throughout the literature, it is noted that a city primarily revitalizes derelict areas for economic development purposes. Once this goal is accomplished, they forget the foundation of what made the area a success, the artist. In order for an arts and culture district to be successful and socially equitable in the long-run, the artists need to remain. Artist protection policies are important because they contribute towards an arts district revitalization, recognition, and longevity. After all, what is an arts district without the actual artists?

Chapter 2 - Endnotes 1 Arthur C. Brooks and Roland J. Kushner, “Cultural Districts and Urban Development,” International Journal of Arts Management 3, no. 2 (2001): P. 5. 2 Hilary Anne Frost-Kumpf, Cultural Districts: The Arts as a Strategy for Revitalizing Our Cities, New York, by Americans for the Arts (1998), http://www.americansforthearts.org/sites/ default/files/Cultural%20Districts_0.pdf. [accessed September 22, 2015] P.20. 3

Ibid, P.11;

John Montgomery, “Cultural Quarters as Mechanisms for Urban Regeneration. Part 1: Conceptualizing Cultural Quarters,” Planning, Practice & Research 18, no.4 (2003): P.295. 4

Ibid.

Arthur C. Brooks and Roland J. Kushner, “Cultural Districts and Urban Development,” P.11;

Hilary Anne Frost-Kumpf, Cultural Districts: The Arts as a Strategy for Revitalizing Our Cities, P.23. 6 John Montgomery, “Cultural Quarters as Mechanisms for Urban Regeneration. Part 1: Conceptualizing Cultural Quarters,” Planning, Practice & Research 18, no.4 (2003): P.295. 7 Matthew Wansborough and Andrea Mageean, “The Role of Urban Design in Cultural Regeneration,” Journal of Urban Design 5, no. 2 (2000): P.195.

Carl Grodach, “Looking Beyond Image and Tourism: The Role of Flagship Cultural Projects in Local Arts Development,” Planning, Practice, and Research 23, no.4 (2008): P.511. 8

Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP), Arts and Culture Planning: A Toolkit for Communities, Chicago: CMAP, 2012, P. 42-43. 9

Ibid, P.12.

Ibid.

12 Georgica Mitrache, “Architecture, Art, Public Space,” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, no. 51 (2012): P. 562. 13 Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP), Arts and Culture Planning: A Toolkit for Communities, P. 13.

Robert C. Rosenberg, “More than a Pretty Facade: Art as Community Revitalization Driver,” Journal of Housing & Community Development 62, no. 1 (January 2005): P.10. 14

Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP), Arts and Culture Planning: A Toolkit for Communities, P. 42. 15

16 Mary O’Sullivan, “Home is Where the Art Is: The Impact that Housing Laws and Gentrification Policies have had on the Availability and Affordability of Artist Live/Work Spaces,” Seton Hall Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law, no.23 (2013): P.470. 17

Ibid, P.464.

Karen Chapple, Shannon Jackson, and Anne J. Martin, “Concentrating Creativity: The Planning of Formal and Informal Arts Districts,” City, Culture and Society 1, no. 4 (2010): P. 225.

Ibid, P.74.

34 Elizabeth Strom, “Cultural Policy as Development Policy,” International Journal of Cultural Policy 9, no. 3 (2003): 247-63. 35

Ibid, P.248.

Elizabeth Strom, “Cultural Policy as Development Policy,” P.261.

Ibid, P.233.

20 Mary O’Sullivan, “Home is Where the Art Is: The Impact that Housing Laws and Gentrification Policies have had on the Availability and Affordability of Artist Live/Work Spaces,” P. 463.

David J. Murray, How the Arts and Culture Sector Catalyzes Economic Vitality, American Planning Association (last modified 2015), https://www.planning.org/research/arts/ briefingpapers/vitality.htm [accessed February 20, 2015]. 21

Ibid.

Carl Grodach and Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris, “Cultural Development Strategies and Urban Revitalization,” International Journal of Cultural Policy 13, no.4 (2007): P.351. 23

24 Hilary Anne Frost-Kumpf, Cultural Districts: The Arts as a Strategy for Revitalizing Our Cities, P.9. 25 Hilary Anne Frost-Kumpf, Cultural Districts: The Arts as a Strategy for Revitalizing Our Cities (1998) P. 7. 26 Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP), Arts and Culture Planning: A Toolkit for Communities, Chicago: CMAP, 2012, P. 45.

Carl Grodach, “Art Spaces in Community and Economic Development: Connections to Neighborhoods, Artists, and the Cultural Economy,” Journal of Planning Education and Research 31, no.1 (2011): P. 75. ; Walter Santagata, “Cultural Districts, Property Rights, and Sustainable Economic Growth,” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 26, no.1 (2002): 9-23.

Anne Nicodemus, “Fuzzy Vibrancy: Creative Placemaking as Ascendant US Cultural Policy,” Cultural Trends 22, no.3-4 (2013): P. 213. 37

Ibid, P.220.

Ann Markusen and Greg Schrock, “The Artistic Dividend: Urban Artistic Specialization and Economic Development Implications,” Urban Studies 43, no.10 (2006): P. 1662. 39

Ibid, P.1683.

Douglas Noonan, “How U.S. Cultural Districts Reshape Neighborhoods,” Cultural Trends, no.22 (2013): 203-212.; Tom Borrup, Up From the Roots: Economic and Cultural Equity in Naturally Occurring Cultural Districts. Brooklyn, by Pratt Center for Community Development (2001), http://artsanddemocracy.org/uploads/downloads/NOCDsummarypaperFINAL.pdf. [accessed November 15, 2015]. 41

Douglas Noonan, “How U.S. Cultural Districts Reshape Neighborhoods,” P.12.

43 Tom Borrup, Up From the Roots: Economic and Cultural Equity in Naturally Occurring Cultural Districts. P.8. 44

Ibid, P.15.

Ibid, P.38-39.

Ibid, P.42.

28 Carl Grodach, “Art Spaces in Community and Economic Development: Connections to Neighborhoods, Artists, and the Cultural Economy,” P.75. 29

Ibid.

Ibid, P.74.

Ibid.

Ibid, P. 75-76.

Markusen, Ann, and Anne Gadwa, “Arts and Culture in Urban or Regional Planning: A Review and Research Agenda,” Journal of Planning Education and Research 29, no. 3 (2010): P.380 47

Ibid, P.385.

49 Dahyun Lee, “How the Arts Generate Social Capital to Foster Intergroup Social Cohesion,” Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society 43 (2013): P.4-17. 50 Ibid, P.15; Markusen, Ann, and Anne Gadwa, “Arts and Culture in Urban or Regional Planning: A Review and Research Agenda,” P.380.

51 Mallonee, Leigh D. Capturing Community Value: The Role of Local Arts Organizations in Revitalization, Civic Engagement, and Community-Building. University of Oregon (2010). https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/10443/L.Mallonee_ capstone2010.pdf?sequence [accessed November 12, 2015] 52

Ibid, P.18.

Ibid.

Joshua Guetzkow, How the Arts Impact Communities: An Introduction to the Literature on Arts Impact Studies, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ (2002) P.6, https://www.princeton. edu/~artspol/workpap/WP20%20-%20Guetzkow.pdf [accessed March 20, 2015].

Ibid, P.1007.

Ibid, P.1015.

69 Mark Solof, “Art for Community’s Sake: Creative Placemaking.” InTransition Magazine, (2014), http://www.intransitionmag.org/fall_2014/creative_placemaking.aspx [accessed November 9, 2015], P.5. 70

Ibid.

55 Anne Gadwa, How Artist Space Matters: Impacts and Insights from Three Case Studies drawn from Artspace Projects’ Earliest Developments, Minneapolis, by Metris Arts Consulting (2010) P.76, https://www.giarts.org/sites/default/files/How-Artist-Space-Matters.pdf [accessed November 12, 2015].

Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP), Arts and Culture Planning: A Toolkit for Communities (2012). P. 19 56

Chris Walker, Participation in Arts and Culture. Washington, D.C., by Urban Institute (2003) P.3, http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publication-pdfs/310795-Participationin-Arts-and-Culture.PDF [accessed November 20, 2015]. 57

Ibid, P.7.

59 Ros Derrett, “Making Sense of how Festivals Demonstrate a Community’s Sense of Place,” Event Management 8 (2003): P.50. 60

Ibid, P.57.

61 Richard McCarthy, Evaluating the Social, Financial and Human Capital Impacts of Farmers Markets, Crescent City, by Market Umbrella (2008) P.7, http://www.marketumbrella.org/ uploads/Evaluating_farmers_markets.pdf [accessed November 10, 2015]. 62

Ibid, P.8.

Ibid.

Ibid, P.6.

Chris Walker, Art & Culture: Community Connections, Washington, D.C., by Urban Institute (2002), http://www.urban.org/research/publication/arts-culture-community-connections/view/ full_report [accessed November 20, 2015], P.11. 65

66 Joanne Sharp, Venda Pollock, and Ronnan Paddision, “Just Art for a Just City: Public Art and Social Inclusion in Urban Regeneration,” Urban Studies 42, no.5/6 (2005): P.1004.

71 John McCarthy, “Regeneration of Cultural Quarters: Public Art for Place Image or Place Identity,” Journal of Urban Design 11, no.2 (2006): P.253.

[Page Intentionally Blank]

III.

Policy Analysis of Arts and Cultural Planning in the United States

Figure 6: Mural â&#x20AC;&#x153;Small Wonders,â&#x20AC;? Source: Author Photograph

A. The Heart of Silicon Valley: San José, CA The City of San José recognizes the importance that an arts and culture district can bring to a community. This can be seen in their Envision San José 2040 General Plan, where an entire chapter focuses on the overarching goals and policies needed to create a thriving community for San José residents.1 In addition, arts and culture serve as one of the seven community values for the City of San José. These sections provide arts focused revitalization policies related to integration of art and cultural amenities in private developments.2 Two policies specifically highlight a desire to support SoFA as an arts district, demonstrating the City’s commitment to support the further revitalization of the area.3 As noted in the Chapter 2 of this report, arts and culture districts can increase community engagement opportunities in any city. Policies within San José’s General Plan related to this theme include cultivation of signature public events, development of a long-term festival location in Downtown, incorporating cultural activities in publicly-owned spaces, and encouraging cultural presence in privately owned spaces.4 Although these policies demonstrate the city’s desire to increase community engagement, they do not specifically address the SoFA District and do not provide implementation strategies. For example, how can the City of San José encourage cultural presence in privately-owned spaces within SoFA? Is it through a tax break or some other form of incentive? My investigation will seek possible answers to this question.

Figure 7: SoFA Study Area, Source: See Appendix A for source information.

The San José Cultural Connection Plan was adopted by the City Council in 2011, and serves as the guide for cultural development in the City. In order to accomplish the community’s cultural vision, the Plan adopts ten goals based on the guiding principles from the General Plan’s cultural section.5 In summary, the goals are to increase civic participation and accessibility to arts and culture, increase availability of cultural facilities, promote Downtown as a creative and cultural center, implement more public art, improve urban design features in the City, develop mechanisms for cultural development, and support creative businesses.6 In my review of this document, I searched for recommendations related to revitalization, economic development, and community engagement in the SoFA District. The purpose was to identify

the specific recommendations for the site selected for this investigation (see Appendix B for full list of goals and recommendations). The City of San José’s Cultural Connection Plan does highlight the SoFA District as an opportunity area in some of their goals and recommendations. Goal 3 highlights the importance of making Downtown San José a cultural center, and notes how the existing facilities within SoFA have started to benefit from urban design improvements.7 The Plan recommends the development of SoFA into an “urban arts place” in order to strengthen the creative identity ofdowntown.8 Although SoFA is only named once throughout the document, some of the recommendations are relevant to its revitalization. These recommendations include enhancement of small-scale arts venues through removal of barriers (i.e. permitting, zoning), incorporating cultural uses in new parks and other public spaces, building additional cultural facilities, attracting new festivals and events, and fostering civic participation in the planning of public art.9 Although San José does have a strong public art program, no recommendations for implementation within the SoFA boundary were identified. As previously noted, the SoFA District is already contributing towards urban design and arts improvements in Downtown San José. This has been due to funds from ArtsPlace, the Redevelopment Agency (RDA), and the development of a Property Based Improvement District for Downtown San José.10 In the preliminary stages of this investigation, it was believed that the RDA’s SoFA Strategic Development Plan had served as the catalyst for these improvements, however it was later determined that this Plan was never approved or funded by the City. Although not adopted, this document does make recommendations that can continue to support the revitalization of SoFA. These recommendations include changes to building heights, land use, circulation, and public realm

improvements.11 Strong recommendations made include the zoning changes for live/work units, establishing a permitting process for the use of public space, and sidewalk widening.12 Overall, the plan is lacking in terms of incorporating arts and culture recommendations as a tool for revitalization. In summary, the City of San José does demonstrate an interest in becoming a culturally vibrant city. Both the General Plan and the Cultural Connection Plan provide limited arts and culture policies for the city as a whole, but none specifically to SoFA. In order for SoFA to fully thrive as an arts and culture district, policies and zoning regulations that address the district are needed.

Figure 8: ArtsPlace Funded Parque de los Pobladores in SoFA, Source: Author Photograph

B. Origins of Cutural Planning: Chicago, IL The City of Chicago demonstrates its identity as the originator of cultural planning through adoption of arts and culture policies in all of their comprehensive and specific plans. This is demonstrated in the City’s Go To 2040 Comprehensive Regional Plan, which aims to maintain a prosperous and sustainable city through the creation of livable communities, economic development, an effective government body, and regional mobility options.13 In order to meet these goals, the Citynotes the importance of remaining as an attractive location to live, work, and play.14 Specifically, the Plan notes the need for active arts and culture institutions that can contribute to the aforementioned goals. Aside from this arts-related goal, the document does not discuss policies, objectives or actions plans related to arts and culture. This is perhaps due to their very extensive cultural plan, arts and culture toolkit, and arts district plans that City of Chicago has developed. The City of Chicago updated its 1986 Cultural Plan in 2012, with the purpose to further incorporate art into the daily life of Chicagoans and tourists. It is important to note that Chicago was one of the first cities to actually develop a Cultural Plan, and has served as a leader city in the United States.15 Since the adoption of their first Plan, the City of Chicago has been able to meet many of their arts and culture development goals, such as the theatre district on Randolph Street and the redevelopment of Navy Pier.16 Overall, their most recent Cultural Plan highlights the importance of existing cultural assets and strategies to increase them, as well as strategies to promote civic participation in cultural activities that enhance quality of life.17

The 2012 Cultural Plan highlights a substantial amount of priorities related to the scope of this investigation. In terms of revitalization, the Plan recommends policies to revise zoning and building codes that promote live/work spaces for artists, as well as a need to provide incentives to enhance underutilized space for cultural use, and offer a streamlined permitting process for on street vendors, outdoor performances, and art displays.18 One specific revitalization strategy that could be effective in SoFA is the development of initiatives and guidelines that enhance infrastructure and programming in arts and culture districts.19 This policy specifically aims at special classification for artsrelated use within the City’s permitting, zoning, and licensing language.20 Furthermore, community engagement in Chicago is enhanced through an initiative that involves neighborhood residents in the selection of art in public spaces.21 Economic development is addressed throughout the document, but one arts-related policy that should be noted is the City’s desire to “strengthen all cultural organizations, big and small” to increase economic activity.22 Recommendations to achieve this policy include the identification of a festival site to enhance civic participation in cultural activities and sustain the economic vitality.23 Overall, this document offers strong policy recommendations that could potentially be implemented in SoFA. It is apparent that Chicago has a strong desire to be culturally appealing in more than one district. This investigation identified a total of four arts districts throughout the city, which include Pilsen, River North, West Loop, and Wicker Park.24 Pilsen predominantly consists of artist live/work spaces, while River North and West Loop offer large galleries and dining options.25 Wicker Park was selected for review due to its similarities with the SoFA District in San José. Both Wicker Park and SoFA are geographically located on the periphery of their city’s downtown

and serve as a gateway. The districts differ in that Wicker Park has a Master Plan adopted by the City of Chicago, and SoFA has no Master Plan adopted. The 2008 Master Plan for the Wicker Park Bucktown SSA offers specific recommendations to enhance artsand culture in the area. It should be noted that all the policies and recommendations identified in this report were developed during an elaborate community engagement process. In fact, promoting local arts is identified as one of the primary recommendations to maintain the creativity of Wicker Park and mitigate artist displacement. In order to promote local arts, the City adopts actions to create artist live/work space on vacant land, convert open parking space to café seating, implement local art on street furniture, and encourage businesses to integrate local art in their space.26 One creative action adopted by the City of Chicago includes the creation of a sign rebate program. This program “subsidizes the design and installation of store signage” and aims to use local artists in their creation.27 This type of recommendation not only enhances a City’s revitalization efforts, but could also lead to economic development by making the public realm a more attractive place. Lastly, the identification of Wicker Park as a Special Service Area allows for creative land use and zoning policies specific to the area.28 The City of Chicago was selected for further review due to their strong arts and culture policies, detailed Master Plan for Wicker Park, and elaborate arts and culture planning toolkit. There is no doubt that the originator of cultural planning will continue to thrive artistically for years to come in all of their arts districts. It should also be noted that the Master Plan for the Wicker Park Bucktown received the National

Figure 9: The Gateway to Wicker Park, Source: See Appendix A for source information.

Planning Excellence Award for Public Outreach by the American Planning Association in 2010.29 This award demonstrates that the City of Chicago excels in their community engagement/outreach efforts. For these reasons, further discussion on additional policies, zoning, and interviews with planning staff will be investigated in Chapters 4 and 5 of this report.

C. The Arts in One of America’s Most Livabe Cities: Portland, OR The City of Portland is considered an example of great urban planning, and excels in its arts and culture policies and development practices. The 1980 A Vision of Portland’s Future: Comprehensive Plan serves as the guideline for growth and development/re-development in the City.30 In order to provide a framework for future decisionmaking, the Plan outlines twelve (12) overarching goals and policies amended up to 2011. These sections include goals for neighborhoods, housing, economic development, transportation, energy, urban design,

Figure 10: Outdoor Civic Engagement in the Alberta Arts District, Source: See Appendix A for source information.

environment, public facilities and services, and citizen involvement.31 Revitalization policies within these goals consist of adaptive reuse for housing and employment, as well as creation of gateways and streetscape improvements for placemaking purposes.32 Policies related to art include incentives to include public art in private development projects and increasing opportunities to purchase/produce local art. Although the majority of the policies within this Plan do not use art as their primary revitalization tool, they can still create an urban fabric where arts-related use can be implemented in the future (i.e. murals, artist live/work). The most applicable arts related policy within this Plan can be found in the urban design goals and policies section, which discuss the importance of expanding the City’s public art program. The policy specifically addresses that proper placement of art within public realm is needed to highlight focal points and enhance the City’s streetscape. Although the policies within this Plan do take art into consideration, they are predominantly focused on public art, and do not address other potential arts-related recommendations. A more diverse set of arts-related policies and recommendations can be found in the Arts and Culture Portland Plan, Arts Plan and Albina Community Plan. Both the Arts Plan 2000+ and 2009 Arts and Culture Portland Plan examine the arts in the City and provide recommendations to support the artistic nature in Portland.33 The Arts Plan 2000+: Animating our Community is a community-based plan that focuses on revitalization strategies to support arts and culture. These strategies include providing cultural facilities (i.e. live/work) where artists can showcase their work and creating “arts incubators” for smaller arts organizations.34 Given that most Cities are fiscally constrained, the Plan recommends public/private partnerships to achieve these revitalization strategies.35 The 2011 Arts and Culture Plan highlights Portland’s successful community engagement

activities, which include Sunday Parkways, a diverse amount of festivals, and Saturday Markets.36 Key findings within this report also indicate Portlanders’ desire to see public art dispersed far beyond downtown, as well as recommendations to use vacant/underutilized land for temporary installations and artistic streetscape improvements.37 Community engagement recommendations include enhancing public space for outdoor dining, art displays, street theatre, and entertainment.38 It is important to note that the 2009 Plan does recommend the adoption of an arts and culture overlay, however no such code was found on the City’s website.39

the Albina District. Recommendations to achieve this objective include community engagement opportunities such as festivals, street fairs, art walks, and implementation of adaptive reuse for housing.43 By capitalizing on the rich history and art in Albina, the City of Portland created a strong sense of place and attracts tourists to meet their economic development goals. Lastly, the land use element does discuss land use designations and zoning changes to support the City’s revitalization efforts, but the zoning changes only pertain to a design density overlay zone.44 Specific arts-related zoning recommendations were not identified for the Albina District.

The Alberta Arts District in Northeast Portland consists of retail shops, galleries, various dining options, and a colorful streetscape.40 Alberta was selected for this investigation due to the similar land use patterns it has compared to SoFA. Although the district falls within the King, Concordia, and Albina neighborhoods, goals and policies related to art were only identified in the 1993 Albina Community Plan. Revitalization, economic development, and community engagement policies were identified throughout the Plan’s ten sections, with strong arts related policies in the community image and character element.41 In terms of revitalization and economic development opportunities, the Plan calls for an increase in open space and recreation facilities, as well as identification of a permanent cultural facility where artists can display and market their products.42 The Plan also discusses the need to celebrate and capitalize on the diverse community and architectural character of

Figure 11: Creating Communities through Art in Alberta, Source: See Appendix A for source information.

Although Portland was not selected for further investigation, recognition of the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s goals in regards to arts and culture is necessary. Portlandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s adopted arts-tax and policies enhance the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ability to thrive artistically by increasing cultural presence not only in Alberta, but in other districts throughout the city.45 In addition to the arts-tax, the City mitigates displacement concerns through creation of an artist housing (mixed-use) development called Milepost 5. This mixed-used development provides 103 live/work units for artists and other creatives, as well as space for future restaurants and performance venues at the ground floor level that will increase economic development for the city.46 Overall, Portland will continue to be one of the U.S. most livable cities with an immense artistic presence. The City was not selected for further evaluation because it does not use arts and culture overlay zoning in their revitalization efforts.

Figure 12: Mixed-Use Artist Housing in Alberta, Source: See Appendix A for source information.

Figure 13: Mural “My Life in Silver Trinkets” in San Francisco’s Mission District,

27 Source: See Appendix A for source information

D. 7x7 Miles of Creative Identity: San Francisco, CA There is no doubt that San Francisco’s artistic presence is felt throughout its small, yet creative 7x7 grid. Reasons for this include the 1996 Arts Element of the San Francisco Master Plan, which outlines a set of objectives to support arts and culture activities in the City. The arts policies were developed through an integrated approach that involved community members, the Arts Commission, and City staff members.47 Within each of the objectives, the document adopts an abundant amount of policies related to the scope of this investigation. Based on the policies adopted, San Francisco encourages arts as a revitalization tool their objectives to support existing and future development of artrelated spaces, as well as creation of art clusters throughout the city.48 Policies require that the City seek new funding mechanisms to support capital improvements of existing facilities and outdoor arts spaces to enhance community engagement opportunities. Revitalization through art is also encouraged through policies that require the City to “review, revise, and coordinate city permit policies and codes to better meet the needs of the arts,” which as a result can enhance incorporation of arts space in both public and private developments (Policy VI-1.8 and VI1.9).49 Furthermore, preservation of public art (murals, structures, etc.) and the artist are highlighted as an important aspect to maintaining arts vitality in the City. Policies that support this require the maintenance of existing public art displays, as well as protecting artists’ live/work

spaces.50 The City attempts to mitigate artist displacement by adopting a policy that supports their existing ArtHouse program, which requires seeking funding from other City of San Francisco departments (i.e. community development), and not just the Arts Commission and the California Arts Council51 Lastly, San Francisco recognizes that arts and culture enhance economic development through its objective to “increase the contribution of the arts to the economy of San Francisco.”52 The City recognizes that arts clusters attract the creative class to relocate nearby, as well as attract tourists. Additionally, supporting the renovation of cultural facilities and development of new ones creates jobs in construction, trucking, shipping, and other industries needed for the “production, performance, and exhibition of art.”53 All of the policies within this element contribute to the cultural expression and creative identity that is San Francisco.

“The City should remain committed to the development of live/work units by urging the inclusion of live/work units in planned developments.” - City and County of San Francisco

The Mission District in San Francisco is considered one of the strongest cultural centers in all of the City. For this reason, the City adopted a specific area plan with the following overarching goals:54 • Preserve diversity and vitality of the Mission • Increase the amount of affordable housing

• Preserve and enhance the existing Production, Distribution and Repair businesses

• Promote alternative means of transportation to reduce traffic and auto use

• Improve and develop additional community facilities and open space • Minimize displacement

Figure 14: Art Filled Pocket Park in San Francisco’s Mission District, Source: See Appendix A for source information.

Although the Mission Area Plan follows the same format as the City’s Master Plan, the policies within it focus more on preserving the existing character and identity of the district. Revitalization efforts in the Mission are stated in a few policies that encourage additional development of cultural facilities, promote adaptive re-use of historic buildings by offering city incentives, and improve walkability by limiting building setbacks.55 Preservation policies indicate a need to maintain existing commercial uses for economic goals, permit for small size retail shops, continue to support legal nonconforming rules for preexisting shops despite new zoning, and provide land and funding for affordable housing.56 Additionally, the Plan calls for a need to ensure that muralsremain visible to the public and are not demolished by new construction. Community engagement through arts and culture policies encourage public art in open spaces, increasing and maintaining the existing social and cultural institutions, and allowing the local Latino community to identify the cultural resources that need to be protected by the City.57 Revitalization in the neighborhood is also supported through adoption of developer impact fees that go to the Eastern Neighborhoods Public Benefit fund. These funds are used to provide enhancements to multi-modal opportunities, streetscape improvements, parks/ recreational facilities, and community facilities all within the Mission District.58 Although not necessarily arts-related, this impact fee enhances public spaces where arts activities take place, especially in a culturally prevalent district. San Francisco is the runner up in terms of arts and culture policies, next to Chicago. The City was not selected for further evaluation for two reasons, the first being that the Mission District is one of the most unaffordable places to live. Although the City has stringent policies to protect the existing murals and other art offerings, it does not protect the

artist.59 Second, the City does not have an overlay zoning code adopted for the Mission District. Regardless of these issues, the revitalization, economic development, and community engagement policies offer potential recommendations for SoFA. Although a discussion on them has already been provided in this section, the strongest policies will be summarized in the Chapter 5 of this report.

E. The Arts in the Mile High City: Denver, CO The guiding principles and policies developed in Denver’s citywide Comprehensive Plan 2000 and Blueprint Denver provide a roadmap for the eighty-one plans, assessments, and studies adopted for the neighborhoods within their city boundary.60 The Comprehensive Plan 2000 first mentions arts and culture as a key issue and challenge that must be addressed by the City. Although the City’s arts and cultural environment has evolved since the early 1990’s, the Plan notes the importance of maintaining the established cultural and artistic features of the city, even during tough economic times.61 In order to reinforce their commitment to the arts, strong arts and culture objectives are identified within the document, with various strategies outlined to meet each objective.62 These objectives include cultivating the arts, encouraging arts venues, using arts as an economic development tool, promoting cultural diversity, supporting artistic and cultural literacy, enhancing the arts in the public realm.63 The Blueprint Denver Plan adopted in 2002 serves as a supplemental document to the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and focuses on land use and transportation improvements needed create a vibrant city.64 In terms of arts and culture, the plan identifies “entertainment/cultural/exhibition” as a land use type, but limited discussion on arts and culture is provided.65

The goals and recommendations within the Downtown Area Plan are envisioned to “strengthen Downtown’s fabric and make it economically, socially and environmentally more vital.”66 The document is intended to serve as a policy platform for revitalization efforts in Downtown Denver, and makes sound recommendations related to arts and culture.67 In particular, this document adopts a very specific arts and culture policy that states the following:68 Cultivate arts and culture as key economic drivers by: • Retaining and expanding the clusters of world-class arts, cultural, and performance facilities in Downtown. • Providing temporary and permanent creative space to meet the broad spectrum of needs for administrative, rehearsal, performance and studio functions. • Establishing connections to emerging arts districts such as Santa Fe, Five Points, Golden Triangle and River North (RiNo). • Establishing an urban tourism program that highlights historic buildings and districts as part of Denver’s story. In addition to this policy, the Downtown Area Plan adopts policies related to revitalization of their Civic Center, an area identified as their cultural core.69 In order to enhance the vibrancy and economic vitality of the area, the plan adopts a policy to invest on the existing cultural facilities.70 Aside from this identified cultural core, the Downtown Area Plan identifies four other neighborhoods as arts- related districts, and has adopted neighborhood plans for three (3) out of the four (4).71 This demonstrates the City’s attempt to implement the Downtown Area Plan’s policy to interconnect all the arts districts, as mentioned above.

The IMAGINE 2020: Denver’s Cultural Plan supersedes the City and County of Denver’s Cultural Plan from 1989.72 This plan emphasizes four arts and culture priorities for the city, which include “addressing cultural deserts, infusing arts, culture and creativity into neighborhoods across Denver, using the arts to strengthen community, and embracing arts, culture, and creativity as a core value.”73 In order to accomplish these priorities, the Plan outlines a total of nine goals, which specific strategies for each.74 In reviewing this document, distinct goals related to revitalization, economic development, and community engagement were identified. In order to use arts and culture as tool for revitalization, the City of Denver wishes to incorporate additional art in their public realm (i.e. bike paths, roads, and transit stops) and implement zoning changes for temporary art displays.75 Economic vitality is emphasized through the adoption of goals and strategies that expand arts-related activities in businesses. Lastly, civic participation is enhanced through signature festivals and resident inclusion in the public art selection process.76 Overall, this plan demonstrates how valuable arts and culture is to the City and County of Denver. The success of several neighborhoods in Denver is based on the arts and culture amenities they have to offer. Aside from the Civic Center cultural core, the River North Arts District (RiNo) and Santa Fe are the older, more established arts districts in Denver. The River North Plan was adopted in 2003 due to its designation as an “Area of Change” within the Blueprint Denver Plan, and since then has influenced land use decisions in the district.77 Prior to 2003, RiNo was already developing into an arts district, but adoption of the plan emphasized the city’s desire towards maintaining the creativity of the district. Furthermore, the Destination Santa Fe: Art District as Catalyst Master Plan was adopted in 2012,

and consists of urban design guidelines to further revitalize the district through arts and culture.78 Specifically, this Master Plan proposes a mix of land uses to encourage pedestrian activity and increase nightlife entertainment.79 In addition, the Master Plan proposes the revitalization of alleys via the use of art and incorporation of art features in paving designs, light posts, and other public realm elements.80 The purpose of this is to create a sense of place and increase the identity of the Santa Fe Arts District.81 Prior to adoption of this Plan, Santa Fe was already successful due to its First Friday and Passport to the arts events, which have served as catalysts for other similar events throughout Downtown Denver.82 Although more limited in policy and goals recommendations, both of these documents serve as guides for urban design recommendations that incorporate art, which is considered an important revitalization tool.

Figure 15: Beautifying Walls in River North Denver, Source: See Appendix A for source information.

The Golden Triangle District is located south of Downtowns cultural core, and is recognized for its strong clustering of museums. In 2014, the Golden Triangle Neighborhood Plan was adopted to develop a clear vision for the further revitalization of the neighborhood. This policy document identifies public realm and public art as important revitalization tools. One of the strongest arts and culture goals within the document states the following:83 Creation of policies that encourage or require the incorporation of public art into development, streetscape and park improvements should likewise be examined to assure they promote public art to the greatest extent possible in all Golden Triangle development. Public art should be integrated into both public and private

The conglomeration of plans developed by the City of Denver demonstrates their commitment to thrive through arts and culture. From their Comprehensive Plan to their specific neighborhood plans, it is apparent that arts and culture serves as the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s backbone. Although some of the documents focus more on urban design guidelines, others (i.e. Golden Triangle) provide a substantial amount of information that can serve as a guide for short-term and long-term policy adoption in San JosĂŠ. Although the City of Denver does provide an abundant amount of arts policies, it was not selected for further evaluation due to its lack of an overlay zoning code for arts and culture.

development.

In addition to the goal mentioned above, this Neighborhood Plan recommends that the City identify funding opportunities to maintain plazas, parks, and parklets within the Golden Triangle.84 Lastly, goals to foster community engagement opportunities consist of streamlining the public event permitting process.85 This will promote greater use of streets for block parties, festivals and farmers markets.86 Compared to this River North Plan and Destination Sante Fe Plan, this document highlights arts and culture recommendations at a greater level.

Figure 16: Murals in North Park, San Diego, Source: See Appendix A for source information

F. A Strong pARTicipant: San Diego, CA With a total of nine arts districts, San Diego demonstrates its commitment towards thriving as a cultural city.87 The City’s dedication towards arts and culture is demonstrated through policies and recommendations within their General Plan and Community Plans. Additionally, the City of San Diego does have a Public Art Master Plan, but the recommendations focus more on the duties of the Commission for Arts and Culture. These responsibilities include establishment of neighborhood identity program, supporting artist’s involvement in community art decision making, and creating a sense of identity through place-making.88 Given that San José’s Public Art Master Plan is considered one of the top in the nation, no additional recommendations were identified in this report. Arts and culture policies related to the scope of this investigation can be found in the land use and urban design elements within the city’s 2006 General Plan.89 The land use element adopts a policy requiring development of site-specific community plans that focus on the needs of the community, enhance community character, and require special land use regulations for each district.90 The land use element also adopts a policy that requires proper integration of public plazas/space that promote and increase community engagement.91 To further support arts and culture, the urban design element requires street enhancement through the use of public art on benches and plazas, as well as proper placement of cultural facilities on ground floor of mixed-use

developments.92 The strongest urban design policy falls within the public art and cultural amenities section of this element. The policy is quite lengthy, but worth noting due to its strong correlation with this study:93 UD-F.1. Incorporate public art and cultural amenities that correspond, in complementary or contrasting ways, to their surroundings. Consider the unique nature of the community and character of the area in the development of artworks. a. Use arts and culture to strengthen the sense of identity of the Neighborhood and Urban Village Centers of each community. b. Use artwork and cultural activities to improve the design and public acceptance of public infrastructure projects. c. Use public art to enhance community gateways. d. Reinforce community pride and identity by encouraging artworks and cultural activities that celebrate the unique cultural, ethnic, historical, or other attributes of each unique neighborhood. e. Use public art and cultural amenities as a means to assist in implementation of community-specific goals and policies. f. Use public art and cultural amenities as community landmarks, encouraging public gathering and wayfinding. g. Encourage community planning group involvement in the decision making process regarding public art and cultural amenities.

This specific policy contributes towards the revitalization and community engagement efforts that arts and culture districts can foster. Additionally, encouraging public gatherings for festivals and other events can also contribute towards economic development for a city, another element of this investigation. Cultural amenities and public art bring quality of life improvements by creating animated public spaces and cultural locations that attract community members and tourists. San Diego’s General Plan arts-related policies do a great job at incorporating the community and the local artists throughout the development of their community plans. Perhaps this is why they have been successful in their implementation efforts of a substantial amount of arts districts. The 2006 pARTicipate San Diego report researches the current state of arts and culture in the city. Although not policy focused, the report provides information on San Diegoans involvement in artsrelated activities, which they define as participation in fine arts, ethnic and commercial arts, and cultural events (i.e. festivals).94 The document itself does not provide too much information related to scope of this investigation, but it does note a potentially feasible recommendation for the City of San José. Based on the research conducted in this report, approximately two-thirds of San Diego residents are willing to pay an artsrelated tax to support arts and culture in their city. Their wish is to have these taxes support arts and culture activities and facilities throughout their city.95 The biggest difference between San Diego and San José residents is that one considers arts and culture an imperative to daily life, whereas the interest of the San José population is questionable.96

In the review and investigation of San Diego’s arts and culture community plans, a total of two districts were identified as having strong similarities with the SoFA District in San José. First is the 1998 Centre City Arts Plan, whose overarching goal is “to make Centre City the dominant center of the region for music, theatre, dance and the visual arts, for dining and entertainment, and for public festivals.”97 This Plan was selected for review due to its focus on a downtown area, as well its strong arts and culture goals related to the scope of this investigation. The majority of the goals in this Plan concern public art in redevelopment projects, adaptive reuse for arts-related use, and creation of artist live/work space.98 All of these goals align with issues in SoFA and are important elements of arts districts, as identified throughout scholarly literature and plans developed by other cities. Since San José already has a strong public art program, the review of this Plan focused more on its adaptive reuse and artist live/work recommendations. The goal to achieve adaptive reuse focuses on the use of underutilized space for cultural uses, which require strong collaboration with property owners and developers. In order to encourage and support the arts, the Plan recommends a bonus option to developers and rehab loans for existing property owners.99 Lastly, the Centre City Arts Plan artist live/work actions recommend identification of underutilized space that can serve as live/ work, as well encouraging non-profits and developers to build live/work spaces in new developments and existing commercial buildings.100 The City of San Diego adopted the North Park Community Plan in 1986, and updated it in 2013 and 2015. Similar to Portland, this Plan was selected in this study due to SoFA’s similar land uses. Although North Park is one of the less fully revitalized arts districts (compared to La Jolla

and Barrio Logan) in San Diego, the constant updates and strong arts policies demonstrate the City’s desire to maintain the districts arts and culture identity. In 2015, an update was completed to adopt policies for the arts and culture element of the Plan. Policies related to the City’s revitalization efforts include the development of mixed-use artist center, which consists of shared work spaces and affordable artist live/work housing.101 Additionally, the Plan adopts a policy to incorporate temporary art exhibitions in underutilized storefronts, as well incorporation of public art or cultural amenities in all new developments.102 Community engagement policies include the requirement of additional public spaces for performances and other arts events, as well as engaging local artists early on in the design process of new developments.103 Lastly, the City of San Diego adopts a policy that recognizes the “impact of an arts-rich place-making environment in attracting businesses that provide high-paying jobs.” 104

Figure 17: The Gateway to North Park, Source: See Appendix A for source information.

San José as the opportunity to learn from policies that the City of San Diego has adopted for both Centre City and North Park. It should be noted that the City of San Diego recognizes that arts and culture can bring high-paying jobs, which in turn may increase housing prices

and gentrify local artists. However, the North Park Community Plan policies provide a great example of what can be done to maintain the artists and the artistic character of a community, in addition to thriving economically. San Diego approaches their solutions to support their arts and culture districts in a holistic matter by acknowledging the value of artists. Although the City of San Diego is a strong arts participant, no overlay zoning for any of the arts districts were identified.

G. Our Nations Capital Thrives Through Policy: Washington D.C. Washington D.C.’s 2006 Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital provides clear and concise policies throughout its adopted twelve (12) elements.105 Within these elements, the City of Washington D.C. outlines citywide and ward-level policies that make recommendations based on the needs of their communities.106 The arts and culture element of the Plan discusses an array of recommendations, and is considered one of the strongest policy documents of this entire investigation. The City’s desire to support arts and culture is demonstrated through policies that require expansion of cultural facilities and enhancement of existing ones.107 Additionally, revitalization efforts through arts and culture can be seen through implementation of arts exhibitions/ facilities in underutilized lots, storefronts, Main Streets, and near public transportation.108 Lastly, Washington D.C. promotes community engagement through policies that create a sense of place with art in public spaces and implementation of neighborhood fairs. It also notes the importance of assuring that the arts and fairs are catered to a diverse set of audiences.109 The arts and culture element of D.C.’s plan also adopts policies to increase artistic activity and vitality through zoning regulations. Specifically, the plan adopts the following two zoning policies:110

• Use zoning overlays to promote and sustain Arts Districts. Ensure that Arts overlay zones are consistent with other District zoning regulations and that incentives for arts-related uses are not precluded by other provisions of zoning. • Ensure that the District’s zoning and land use regulations support the development of live-work space for artists in a variety of settings around the city. These two policies are closely related to the initial hypothesis of this study, and have supported the vitality of the DUKE Uptown Arts District in Washington D.C. The primary purpose of the Uptown Arts-Mixed Useoverlay district is to encourage mixed- use developments, cultural facilities, and creative design standards that align with the identity of the area.111 The flexibility that this overlay offers has encouraged revitalization efforts and fostered economic development in our nation’s capital. As a result, U Street within the DUKE Uptown Arts District was named as one of America’s best streets by the American Planning Association in 2014.112 Given the vast amount of additional policies and zoning regulations related to this investigation, an in depth analysis of them will be discussed in Chapter 4.

The primary objective of the 2004 DUKE Development Plan is to provide a framework for the creation of a cultural destination.113 The plan does this by providing a total of six planning and implementation principles needed to enhance placemaking, urban design, African American cultural heritage, destination venues, retail development, and community engagement opportunities in six sub-districts of DUKE.114 Within these sections, the City provides recommendations to restore the Howard Theatre, create arts and entertainment uses along 9th Street, and emphasizing the rich African American culture in the Civil War Memorial sub-district.115 It is important to note that although the subdistricts goals vary, arts and culture serve as the catalyzer for the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s revitalization efforts in all of them. As noted in Chapter 2, capitalizing on existing cultural facilities and existing history are considered successful economic development and revitalization strategies, and the City of Washington D.C. takes full advantage of this. In addition to making detailed development recommendations in sub-districts within DUKE, the Plan adopts a handful of districtwide policies and zoning regulations to support arts and culture.116 These policies include capitalizing on multi-modal opportunities and implementing transit oriented developments, extension of existing transit lines, restoring Main Streets within the district, and implementation of a Strategic Neighborhood Investment program (SNIP). The purpose of the SNIP is to incentivize (through public actions or funds) private developers to invest in neighborhoods within the DUKE District.117 In addition to the SNIP initiative, the City of Washington D.C. supports their revitalization

Figure 18: Proposed Improvements in DUKE, Source: See Appendix A for source information.

Figure 19: Beautifying Through Urban Design, Source: See Appendix A for source information.

efforts through adoption of very specific zoning regulations to support arts and culture activity. Specifically, the Plan discusses the Uptown ArtsMixed Use overlay that allows for an increase in height, bulk, density, and various land uses related to arts and culture. The overlay is highly encouraged in 7th Street, U Street, 14th Street, and 9th street, which all serve as Main Streets in DUKE.118 Preferred uses to promote a sense of character, new development, and adaptive re-use are all discussed within the Plan.119 These detailed land use recommendations and overlay zoning regulations will be further evaluated in Chapter 4 and 5 of this investigation. Washington D.C. was selected for further evaluation due to the strong arts and culture policies and overlay zoning for the DUKE Arts District. Given the strong political nature of the area, it is no surprise that our nation’s capital has such detailed arts and culture policies. It is also nice to see that the city embraces the strong African American history and culture within the Uptown DUKE Arts District. Revitalization efforts and overlay zoning within the area demonstrate the city’s commitment to have the area thrive artistically through jazz clubs, galleries, and theatres.120

H. A Suburban Cultural Surprise: Phoenix, AZ Since 1989, the City of Phoenix has demonstrated its commitment to revitalize the Roosevelt District, an area that serves as the gateway to their downtown. The Roosevelt Neighborhood Special District Plan adopted in 1989 highlights policies and recommendations related to land use, preservation and rehabilitation, circulation, public art, streetscaping, and landscaping.121 Land use policies consist of maintaining the existing character and encouraging commercial developments, while the circulation policies focus on increasing multi-modal opportunities in the district.122 Although not as focused on arts-related policies, this plan served as a catalyst towards the development of additional plans for the Roosevelt District, and as an initial step towards the City’s revitalization efforts. The limited arts policies within this document include the following:123 • At appropriate locations, encourage the placement of functional or interpretive artworks reflecting the aesthetic of the Arts and Crafts Movement of the late 1800s and early 1900s. Examples of such artworks include street furniture, light standards, gateways and markers. • Encourage neighborhood art works using private donations and federal or state grants. The adoption of the 1992 Phoenix Arts District Policy Plan emphasizes the City’s desire to articulate the importance of arts and culture as a revitalization tool. The overall vision of the plan is to “create a destination where people can view and participate in artistic, cultural, and

Figure 20: Successful Arts and Culture Strategies in Roosevelt Row, Source: See Appendix A for source information.

civic events,” all while enhancing revitalization, economic development, and community engagement opportunities.124 The plan evaluates the existing conditions, concept plan for the arts district, design guidelines, and makes implementation recommendations.125 It should be noted that the goals and objectives within the plan were adopted as policies by the City of Phoenix.126 This will enhance their likelihood to incorporate arts and culture in future land use and investment decisions.

that reflects the cultural and artistic soul of the City of Phoenix. In addition, the policy plan calls for development incentives that encourage private sector companies to incorporate art walk amenities in their design proposals.128 Lastly, community engagement policies dictate that the arts district will be a community-based plan and implemented by the community. Creation of plazas and courtyards are recommended in order to enhance community engagement in public space.129

In reviewing this policy plan, a total of twenty-four (24) goals and objectives were identified as relevant to the common themes of this investigation. Unlike San José, the City of Phoenix specifically dictates arts-related policies for their arts district. These arts-related policies include revitalization efforts such as the creation of an art walk area that incorporates mixed-use developments, as well as creation of multiuse space for local artist showcasing.127 Economic development policies include increasing tourism by creating a “distinct image and character”

The 2004 Downtown Phoenix Strategic Plan outlines a total of seven themes that contribute to the revitalization of their downtown. Each theme is discussed in great detail and concludes with actions needed in order to meet the goals and objectives for each theme. Out of the seven themes, theme four discusses the arts and entertainment hub in Downtown Phoenix, which includes the Roosevelt Arts District.130 This theme recognizes that arts and culture are important elements towards the creation of a unique urban fabric, and attempts to use the existing

flagship facilities (i.e. The Phoenix Art Museum, Orpheum Theatre) within RoRo to promote additional arts and culture activity.131 Actions within this theme include the development of live/work spaces for artists through adaptive reuse of historical buildings, as well as increasing the presence of “visual performing arts and artists – including live music” in outdoor venues.132 The city also wishes to create small business programs that benefit artists and arts-related businesses..133

RoRo.138 The residents described a desire for additional green spaces and housing diversity.139 The guiding principles within this document include respecting the existing character of the artist community, creating a sense of place through the use of streetscape improvements (i.e. placemaking), and providing a variety of mixed use, income, and density. The community strongly values the importance of providing housing for all income levels.140

The combination of both the Roosevelt Row Design Guidelines (2011) and the Roosevelt Row: Artists’ District Plan (2013) further demonstrates the City’s interest in arts and culture investments and community-based planning. The purpose of the design guidelines are to encourage development along Roosevelt Row and continue to express the unique artistic character of the street. They are also intended to serve as an addendum to the existing municipal and downtown codes.134 Recommendations in regards to planning, development, design, historic preservation, maintenance, and sustainable practices are the focus of this plan.135 Some arts-related guidelines within this document include “promoting the existing presence and increasing awareness towards the arts community in Phoenix” and “increase [ing] opportunities for incorporation of artwork and lighting into the streetscape.”136 In addition, the Roosevelt Row: Artists’ District Plan is a community-based plan developed with the help of a grant from ArtPlace and the National Endowment for the Arts.137 This funding allowed the City of Phoenix to engage local community members in the further development of RoRo. Through this community engagement process, the Roosevelt Row Community Development Corporation (a local non-profit) was able to obtain information on what is valued by the local residents. Through this it was determine that community members value the existing parks, open space, cultural centers, museums, artist studios, and diversity offered in

Unquestionably, the City of Phoenix values the arts and considers it a vital revitalization tool for their downtown. In the past decade, the city has reported decreased crime rates in RoRo, and has increased the vibrancy and civic engagement opportunities in the district.141 It is interesting to see how each plan affects the forthcoming, and how specific each plan gets as the years go by. Based on the latest plan, 386 artists live in RoRo, 648 artists showcase and sell their art in the district every year, and 25,000+ people visit the district annually.142 This is a clear demonstration of how an arts and culture district revitalizes, enhances economic development, and promotes community engagement. Today, RoRo continues to evolve as an artists’ district and has even been named as one of America’s great places by the American Planning Association.143 A further discussion of RoRo’s policies and overlay arts zoning code will be provided in Chapter 4 of this investigation.

Chapter 3 - Endnotes City of San José, Envision San José 2040 General Plan, by City of San José (2011). https:// www.sanJoséca.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/474 [accessed on February 2, 2015], P. 1-5.

Ibid, P.26.

Ibid, P.22.

Ibid, P.26.

Ibid, P.25.

Ibid, P. 2-12 – 4-8.

Ibid.

5 San Jose Office of Cultural Affairs, Cultural Connection, by San José Office of Cultural Affairs (2011), http://www.sanjoseculture.org/DocumentCenter/View/29690 [accessed on December 1, 2015], P.5.

Choose Chicago, “A Guide to Chicago Arts Scene,” last modified 2016, http://www. choosechicago.com/articles/view/A-GUIDE-TO-CHICAGO-S-ART-SCENE/1066/. [accessed January 8, 2016]. 24

Ibid.

26 City of Chicago, Master Plan for the Wicker Park Bucktown SSA, by Interface Studio LLC (2009), http://wickerparkbucktown.org/projects/master-plan/ [accessed January 8, 2016], P.3969.

Ibid.

Ibid, P.156.

Ibid, P.20

City of Chicago, Master Plan for the Wicker Park Bucktown SSA, P. 286.

Ibid, P.13-22.

Sal Pizarro, “Arts Groups Get Funds to Improve SoFA Area,” San Jose Mercury News, last modified September 18, 2011, http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_18919360 . [accessed November 5, 2016]. 10

Michael Brilliot, interviewed by Susana Mercado, San Jose, CA, March 2, 2016.

San Jose Office of Cultural Affairs, Cultural Connection, P.14.

Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP), Go to 2040: Comprehensive Regional Plan, by City of Chicago CMAP (2010). http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/documents/10180/17842/ long_plan_FINAL_100610_web.pdf/1e1ff482-7013-4f5f-90d5-90d395087a53. [accessed December 14, 2015].

29 Interface Studio, “Projects We’ve Worked On: Wicker Park Bucktown Master Plan,” last modified 2016, http://interface-studio.com/projects/wicker-park/. [accessed January 10, 2016]. 30 City of Portland, A Vision of Portland’s Future: Comprehensive Plan, City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability (1980), https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/ article/141397, [accessed March 1, 2016]. 31

Ibid, P.2.

Ibid, P.12-4.

Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP), Go to 2040: Comprehensive Regional Plan, P.18. 14

City of Chicago, Cultural Plan 2012, City of Chicago Department of Cultural Affairs (2012), http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/dca/supp_info/cultural_plan.html/. [accessed December 20, 2015], P.4.

33 Thomas. Wolf, Arts Plan 2000+, by The Wolf Organization (1991), http://www.racc.org/ sites/default/files/Arts-Plan_Animating-our-Community-1992_Summary.pdf . [accessed March 2, 2016]; City of Portland, Arts and Culture Portland Plan, by City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability (2011), http://www.portlandonline.com/portlandplan/index.cfm?a=373231. [accessed March 2, 2016]. 34

Thomas. Wolf, Arts Plan 2000+, P.15.

Ibid, P.27.

City of Portland, Arts and Culture Portland Plan, P. 2.

Ibid.

Ibid, P.13.

Ibid, P.23.

39 Ibid, P.79; City of Portland. “Planning and Sustainability – 400s Overlay Zones,” last modified 2016. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/34562. [accessed March 5, 2016].

Alberta Main Street. “About Alberta Main Street,” last modified. http://albertamainst.org/ about-2/ [accessed March 1, 2016]. 40

City of Portland, Albina Community Plan, by Bureau of Planning (1993), https://www. portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/58586, [accessed March 2, 2016], P.77. 41

City and County of Denver, Denver Comprehensive Plan 2000, by City and County of Denver (2000), https://www.denvergov.org/content/dam/denvergov/Portals/646/documents/ planning/comprehensiveplan2000/CompPlan2000.pdf. [accessed December 5, 2015], P. 8. 61

Ibid, P.10.

Ibid, P.43.

Ibid, P.4.

Ibid, P.79.

Ibid, P.201-204.

City of Portland, Albina Community Plan, P.10-16.

45 Ibid, P.4; City of Portland Office of Management and Finance, “Arts Tax,” last modified 2016, http://www.portlandoregon.gov/revenue/60076, [accessed March 5, 2016]. 46

City of Portland, Arts and Culture Portland Plan, P. 11.

47 City and County of San Francisco. San Francisco General Plan: Arts Element, by San Francisco Planning Department (1996), http://www.sf-planning.org/ftp/general_plan/I9_Arts. htm [accessed February 12, 2016]. 48

Ibid.

65 City and County of Denver, Blueprint Denver: An Integrated Land Use and Transportation Plan, by City and County of Denver (2002), https://www.denvergov.org/content/dam/ denvergov/Portals/646/documents/planning/blueprintdenver/BlueprintDenver.pdf [accessed December 4, 2015], P.3. 66

Ibid, P.40.

City and County of Denver, Denver Downtown Area Plan, by Progressive Urban Management Associates (2007), https://www.denvergov.org/Portals/646/documents/planning/ Plans/plans_pre_2013/downtown/DowntownDenverAreaPlan.pdf [accessed December 3, 2015], P.1 67

Ibid, P.1.

Ibid, P.17.

City and County of Denver, Denver Downtown Area Plan, P.44

Ibid, 45-46.

Ibid, P.17

City and County of Denver, Imagine 2020: Denver’s Cultural Plan, by City of Denver Office of Economic Development (2014), http://artsandvenuesdenver.com/images/files/AV-1401Imagine2020-FullPlan-FINAL-PROOF-2.pdf [accessed on September 11, 2015]. 73

City and County of San Francisco. Mission Area Plan, by San Francisco Planning Department (1996). http://www.sf-planning.org/ftp/general_plan/Mission.htm [accessed February 12, 2016]. 55

City and County of San Francisco. Mission Area Plan, by San Francisco Planning Department (1996). http://www.sf-planning.org/ftp/general_plan/Mission.htm [accessed February 12, 2016].

Ibid, P.29.

Ibid, P. 30-32.

Ibid, P. 30.

Ibid, P. 32.

Ibid.

60 Caille Millner, “San Francisco is Losing Its Artists” Hyperallergic, last modified September 30,2015, http://hyperallergic.com/240704/san-francisco-is-losing-its-artists/, [accessed March 2, 2016].

78 City and County of Denver, River North Plan, by City and County of Denver (2003), https:// www.denvergov.org/Portals/646/documents/planning/Plans/plans_pre_2013/river_north/ River%20North%20Plan.pdf [accessed December 5, 2015].

City and County of Denver, Destination Santa Fe: Art District as Catalyst, by Hangar 41 (2012), http://www.hangar41.com/Projects/HANGAR%2041_SANTA%20FE%20VISION%20 PLAN%202012.pdf [accessed December 5, 2015], P.3. 79

Ibid, P.55.

Ibid, P.21.

Ibid, P.62.

Ibid, P.10.

City and County of Denver, Golden Triangle Neighborhood Plan, by City and County of Denver (2014), https://www.denvergov.org/Portals/646/documents/planning/Plans/golden_ triangle/GT_Plan_Final_11102014.pdf [accessed December 3, 2015], P.99 84

City and County of Denver. Golden Triangle Neighborhood Plan, P. 21.

Ibid.

Ibid, P.99.

San Diego Tourism Authority. “Nine Arts Districts, One Vibrant City,” last modified 2015. http://www.sandiego.org/campaigns/district-arts.aspx. [accessed February 4, 2016]. 88

City of San Diego, Public Art Master Plan, by Jerry Allen and Associates (2004), http:// www.sandiego.gov/arts-culture/pdf/pubartmasterplan.pdf, [accessed February 4, 2016], P.7-8.

102

103 City of San Diego. North Park Community Plan: Arts Element, by City of San Diego Planning Department (1986, updated 2015). http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/community/ profiles/greaternorthpark/pdf/2015/11artsandculture.pdf. [accessed February 5, 2016], P.2. 104

Ibid, P.2-3

105

Ibid.

106

Ibid.

107 Government of the District of Columbia, The Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital, by Washington D.C. Office of Planning (2006), http://planning.dc.gov/node/636812. [accessed February 14, 2016], P.7. 108

Ibid, P. 1-6.

109

Ibid, P.14-2.

110

Ibid, P.14-7 – 14-9.

City of San Diego, City of Villages: San Diego General Plan, by San Diego City Planning and Community Investment Department (2006), http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/genplan/pdf/ generalplan/fullversion.pdf [accessed February 10, 2016]. 90

Ibid, P.LU-3.

Ibid, P.LU-6.

Ibid, UD-20-30.

Ibid, UD-31.

95 San Diego Foundation. pARTicipate San Diego, by The San Diego Foundation (2006). https://www.pdffiller.com/44682143-ArtsandCultureReportpdf-PARTicipate-San-Diego---TheSan-Diego-Foundation-Various-Fillable-Forms. [accessed on February 4, 2016], P.8. 96

Ibid, P.14.

Ibid, P.3.

98 City of San Diego, Centre City Arts Plan, by Centre City Development Corporation (1998), http://wheatharvest.org/support/arts_plan.pdf [accessed February 10, 2016], P.2. 99

Ibid, P.1.

101

Ibid, P.16.

Ibid, P.17.

111 Government of the District of Columbia, The Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital, P.14-8. 112

Ibid, P.14-5.

DC Office of Zoning, “Summary of Overlay Districts,” last modified 2010, http://dcoz. dc.gov/info/overlay.shtm, [accessed February 10, 2016]. 113

114 American Planning Association, “Great Places in America: Streets,” last modified 2011, https://www.planning.org/greatplaces/streets/2011/ustreet.htm, [accessed February 15, 2016]. 115 Government of the District of Columbia, DUKE Development Framework for a Cultural Destination, by DC Office of Planning (2004), http://planning.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ op/publication/attachments/final_uptown_report.pdf_0.pdf. [accessed February 20, 2016], P.1. 116

Ibid, P.3.

117

Ibid, P.14-28.

118 Government of the District of Columbia, DUKE Development Framework for a Cultural Destination, by DC Office of Planning (2004), http://planning.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ op/publication/attachments/final_uptown_report.pdf_0.pdf. [accessed February 20, 2016], P.10. 119

Ibid, P.11.

120

Ibid, P.37.

121

Ibid.

122 Government of the District of Columbia, DUKE Development Framework for a Cultural Destination, P.14.

City of Phoenix, The Roosevelt Neighborhood Special District Plan, by City of Phoenix Planning Department (1989),https://www.phoenix.gov/pddsite/Documents/pdd_pz_ pdf_00060.pdf. [accessed November 24, 2015], P.13-19.

141

Ibid, P.29.

142

Ibid, P.39.

143

Ibid, P.16.

144

Ibid, P.16.

123

124

Ibid, P.15

125

Ibid, P.17

126 City of Phoenix, The Phoenix Arts District Plan, by City of Phoenix Planning Department (1992), https://www.phoenix.gov/pddsite/Documents/pdd_pz_pdf_00047.pdf. [accessed November 25, 2015], P.8 127

Ibid, P.4

128

Ibid, P.3

129

Ibid, P.3

130

City of Phoenix, The Phoenix Arts District Plan, P.63

131

Ibid, P.41

City of Phoenix, Downtown Phoenix: A Strategic Vision and Blueprint for the Future, by City of Phoenix Planning Department (2004), http://dtphx.org/downloads/downtown-phoenixa-strategic-blueprint-for-the-future.pdf. [accessed November 25,2015]. 132

133

Ibid, P.25

134

Ibid, P.26

135

Ibid.

City of Phoenix, Roosevelt Row Design Guidelines, by Waibel and Associates Landscape Architecture (2011), https://www.phoenix.gov/streetssite/Documents/079787.pdf [accessed November 25, 2015], P.1. 136

137

Ibid.

138

Ibid.

City of Phoenix, Roosevelt Row Artists’ District: Creative Placemaking in Downtown Phoenix, by Roosevelt Row Community Development Corporation (2013), http://issuu.com/ rooseveltrow/docs/rooseveltrowartistsdistrict_creativ [accessed November 23, 2015], P.9. 139

140

Ibid, P.28.

American Planning Association, “Great Places in America: Neighborhoods,” last modified 2015, https://www.planning.org/greatplaces/neighborhoods/2015/rooseveltrow.htm. [accessed November 10, 2015]. 145

[Page Intentionally Blank]

IV.

How Planning Allows for Artistic Expression and Identity: Zoning Analysis

Figure 21: Mural “My Dog Sighs” in Wicker Park, Source: See Appendix A for source information

A. Existing Zoning in San José’s SoFA District This section reviews the existing zoning regulations for arts districts in San José, Chicago, Washington D.C., and Phoenix. A comparison of preferred and permitted uses, as well as conditional uses will be noted for each city. Information was compiled from Zoning Ordinance’s, as well as interviews with planning staff at each city. The purpose is to compare zoning regulations and make recommendations on amendments to San José’s existing zoning code for SoFA.

Table 4: Zoning Ordinance in San José, Source: City of San José Code of Ordinances

Use

Permitted? (Zoning Type)

The SoFA District in San José is predominantly zoned as Downtown Commercial (DC), with limited Public-Quasi Public (PQP), and two Planned Development (PD) zones. A Public/Quasi Public zone consists of schools, libraries, convention centers with hotels and restaurants, museums, auditoriums, and other publicly-oriented establishments.1 The Downtown Commercial zone consists of entertainment uses, office space, hotel, service, and retail. This zone has the highest FAR (15.0) and allows construction of up to thirty (30) stories.2 Lastly, a Planned Development zone identifies approval of a site/architectural permit for new construction.3 The table below identifies the arts-related uses permitted with these zoning types, as well as applicable conditional uses and approvers.4 A description of the conditions for approval is provided in Appendix C.

Conditional Use?

Approval By?

Certified Farmers Market - Small

PQP

Special Use Permit

Director of Planning

Food, Beverage, Groceries

PQP

Special Use Permit

Director of Planning

Outdoor Vending Outdoor Vending - Fresh Fruits and Vegetables

PQP

Administrative Use Permit

Director of Planning

PQP

Indoor or Outdoor Theatre

PQP

Conditional Use Permit

Director of Planning

Retail Art Studio

Certified Farmers Market

Special Use Permit

Director of Planning

Off-Sale, Alcoholic beverages

Conditional Use Permit

Planning Commission

Movie Theatre

Table 4: Zoning Ordinance in San José (contd.), Source: City of San José Code of Ordinances

Poolroom

Special Use Permit

Planning Commission

Private club or lodge

Art Display Structure

Special Use Permit

Director of Planning

Drinking Establishment

Conditional Use Permit

Planning Commission

Drinking Establishments Past Midnight

Conditional Use Permit

City Council

Public Eating Establishments

Brewery

Conditional Use Permit

Planning Commission

Open air sales establishment

Special Use Permit

Director of Planning

Retail Sales, goods and merchandise

Museums, libraries

Parks, playgrounds, or community centers

Live/Work

Personal Enrichment / Instructional art

The zoning within the SoFA District in San José does permit some arts-related land uses and activities, however over half of them require a special use permit or a conditional use permit. These permitted uses include artist live/work on the ground floor, cultural exhibits, neighborhood parks, and small-large music venues.5 It should also be noted that the overlay zoning code adopted in Washington D.C. and Phoenix encourage arts-related uses and the majority of them do not require special permits.6 A further discussion on zoning in these cities will follow. Michael Brilliot, City of San José’s Planning Division Manager noted that the SoFA District is under pressure to develop, and there are no concrete policies to protect the land. He mentioned that a parcel on the corner of West San Carlos and First Street might be constructed into

expensive housing by a Chinese developer.7 If this were to happen, SoFA would lose a large portion of land to non-arts-related uses. Additionally, Mr. Brilliot discussed the importance of developing a Master Plan with policies and ordinances specifically to SoFA, but noted that this project would be a huge undertaking for a staff with limited resources. He did mention that SPUR has made zoning recommendations for Downtown San José, but they are not arts related, do not focus on SoFA, and have not been adopted.8 Lastly, Mr. Brilliot believes that the City of San José should set up the environment (through policy and zoning) to allow the SoFA District to continue to develop organically all while being protected.9 Additional policy recommendations made by Mr. Brilliot will be addressed in Chapter 5 of this report.

B. The Three Final Leaders i. The Rugged and Creative Wicker Park: Chicago, IL As previously noted, Wicker Park in Chicago was selected for further review due to its land use similarities with SoFA and strong artsrelated permitted uses. The difference between the two cities is that Wicker Park has a Master Plan adopted, whereas San JosĂŠ does not have a Master Plan and does not have special zoning regulations for their arts district. The zoning map in the Master Plan for the Wicker Park Bucktown supports a pedestrian oriented corridor (Milwaukee Avenue) through a mix of commercial spaces that permit arts-related uses at ground floor level.10 The table below provides a summary of the primary zoning for Wicker Park:11

Table 5: Zoning in Wicker Park, Source: City of Chicago Zoning Ordinance

Zoning

Description

B1-2, B1-3

Neighborhood Shopping District

B2-2, B2-3, B2-5

Neighborhood Mixed Use District

This investigation identified a total of thirteen (20) permitted and seven (7) conditional arts-related uses. It should be noted that permitted uses within the district are very specific to arts and culture. These uses include artist live/work at ground floor levels, cultural exhibits and libraries, artist work or sales spaces, artisan space, and small-medium venues.12 Additionally, these uses are permitted in nontraditional spaces such as residential and commercial space. Examples of this include live/work in commercial spaces and cultural exhibits in multi-family residential. Lastly, the uses that require special use permits include outdoor patios, large venues (1,000+ people), flea markets, and community centers.13 Given the size and affect that these uses have on the built environment, it makes sense that special use permits are required. The table below outlines all the uses identified, the zone where they are permitted, whether or not they require a special use permit, and decision-making body.14 Conditions for special use permits are provided in Appendix C.

B3-1, B3-2, B3-3, B3-5 Community Shopping District C1-1, C1-2, C1-3

Neighborhood Commercial District

C2-1, C2-2, C2-3

Motor Vehicle Related Commercial District

POS-2

Parks and Open Space, Neighborhood Park

M1-1

Limited Manufacturing/Business Park District

RT-4

Multifamily Residential

Table 6: Art-Related Uses in Wicker Park, Source: City of Chicago Zoning Ordinance

Code

Use

Conditional Use?

Approval By?

Artist Live/Work Space located above ground floor

B1, B2, B3, C1, C2

Artist Live/Work located on the ground floor

B1, B3, C1, C2

Special Use Permit

Zoning Administrator

Cultural Exhibits and Libraries

B1, B2, B3, C1, C2, R-4

Lodge or Private Club

B2, B3, C1, C2

Special Use Permit

Zoning Administrator

Community Center Community Garden

B1, B2, B3, C1, C2 B1, B2, B3, C1, C2

Special Use Permit

Zoning Administrator

Artist work or sales spaces

B1, B2, B3, C1, C2

Restaurant, Limited

B1, B2, B3, C1, C2, M1

Restaurant, General

B3, C1, C2, M1

Tavern

B3, C1, C2, MI

Special Use Permit

Zoning Administrator

Outdoor Patio (if located on a rooftop)

B3, C1, C2

Special Use Permit

Zoning Administrator

Outdoor Patio (if located at grade level)

B1, B2, B3, C1, C2

Small Venue (1-149 Capacity)

B1, B2, B3, C1, C2

Medium Venue

B3, C1, C2

Large Venue

B3, C1, C2

Chicago Planning Commission and City Council on Zoning

Food and Beverage retail sales

B1, B2, B3, C1, C2

Flea Market

C1, C2

Special Use Permit

Zoning Administrator

Neighborhood Parks

POS-2

Artisan

MI-1

Figure 22: Art Features in Wicker Park, Source: See Appendix A for source information.

Today, Wicker Park offers boutique shopping, artist housing, book stores, music venues such as Double Door, the Chopin Theatre, public art, and art galleries.15 An interview with Jessica Wobbekind, Program Manager for the Wicker Park Special Service Area, provided further information on these amenities and success factors in Wicker Park. During this interview, it was determined that Wicker Park has been successful due to the strong artist community that is heavily involved in the planning process.16 Although the city policies demonstrate a support for arts and culture, the artists have been the strongest advocates for maintaining the artistic amenities and character of the area. Additionally, the special service area implemented by the City of Chicago provides a special budget that caters to implementation of streetscape improvements and arts programs in Wicker Park. Without this specific budget, Wicker Park would not have improved over the years and thrived economically.17 When asked what urban design

features have made Wicker Park successful, Wobbekind highlighted the Flat Iron building that consists of gallery space and artist live/work studios. She mentioned that the landlord is a strong arts supporter and offers affordable space to his tenants. This landmark building is one of the reasons why the strong artistic identity remains in the area. Without it, arts walks would not be possible.18 Lastly, Wobbekind mentioned that the existing zoning does support arts uses due to its retail and commercial focus, but improvements to the permitting process could be made. She recommended that the different departments within the city talk to each other and provide a streamlined permitting process, as well as offer lower fees for arts-relates uses.19 The City of Chicago offers successful best practices in regards to policy and zoning for arts and culture. A summary of applicable recommendations for San JosĂŠ will be provided in Chapter 5.

ii. The Lively Uptown DUKE Arts District: Washington D.C. In 1990, the Office of Planning in Washington D.C. adopted the Uptown Arts-Mixed Use (referred to as Uptown) overlay zoning code for the U Street corridor and surrounding areas. This overlay promotes entertainment, retail, housing, and arts-related uses in a pedestrian friendly neighborhood by providing flexibility in uses and design standards (i.e. bulk and height). Additionally, Washington D.C. assures affordable housing through their inclusionary zoning requirements.20 The following is the current zoning base code for the area:21 Table 7: Base Zoning in D.C., Source: Government of District of Columbia Zoning Ordinance

Zoning

Description

Use

Permitted? (Zoning Type)

Base Code

Art Center

ARTS Overlay

C-2-A, C-2-B, CR, C-3-A

Art Gallery Art School

ARTS Overlay ARTS Overlay

C-2-A, C-2-B, CR, C-3-A C-2-A, C-2-B, CR, C-3-A

Artist Housing

ARTS Overlay

C-2-A, C-2-B, CR, C-3-A

Artistsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Supply Store

ARTS Overlay

C-2-A, C-2-B, CR, C-3A

Arts Services (set design and restoration of artworks) ARTS Overlay Concert Hall / Performing Arts Space ARTS Overlay

C-2-A, C-2-B, CR, C-3-A C-2-A, C-2-B, CR, C-3-A

Residential, Commercial, Certain Light Industrial

Book Store

ARTS Overlay

C-2-A, C-2-B, CR, C-3-A

Craftsman or Artisan

ARTS Overlay

C-2-A, C-2-B, CR, C-3-A

C-2-A

Low Density Commercial, Mixed Use, and Housing

Dinner Theatre

ARTS Overlay

C-2-A, C-2-B, CR, C-3A

C-2-B

Medium Density Commercial, Mixed Use, and Housing

C-3-A

Major Retail and Office

Drinking Places (including bar, nightclub, or cocktail lounge)

ARTS Overlay

C-2-A, C-2-B, CR, C-3-A

Legitimate Theatre

ARTS Overlay

C-2-A, C-2-B, CR, C-3-A

Movie Theatre

ARTS Overlay

C-2-A, C-2-B, CR, C-3-A

Museum

ARTS Overlay

C-2-A, C-2-B, CR, C-3-A

Photographic Studio

ARTS Overlay

C-2-A, C-2-B, CR, C-3-A

Record Store, Musical Instrument Store

ARTS Overlay

C-2-A, C-2-B, CR, C-3-A

Restaurant

ARTS Overlay

C-2-A, C-2-B, CR, C-3-A

Television and Radio Broadcast Studio

ARTS Overlay

C-2-A, C-2-B, CR, C-3-A

The arts and culture related uses within the base zoning code include television and radio broadcast studio, billiards, photographic studio, auditorium, international organization, and theatre (including movie theatre).22 The adoption of the overlay substantially changes the preferred uses for the area, with the following arts-related uses identified:23

Table 8: Arts and Culture Overlay Zoning, Source: Government of District of Columbia Zoning Ordinance

It is important to note that these uses do not require a conditional use permit and are considered â&#x20AC;&#x153;matter of right uses.â&#x20AC;? This makes the development process much more flexible, as opposed to having to go through a lengthy approval process.24 Additionally, the preferred uses within the overlay align with those identified as successful revitalization tools. As discussed in Chapter 2, the clustering of these uses promote

accessibility, economic development, and community engagement all within walking distance of each other.25 The DUKE Master Plan also encourages mixed land uses throughout the U Street corridor. This was done to promote pedestrian activity and eyes on the street to enhance safety concerns.26 The map below illustrates the ground and upper floor uses for the Uptown Arts District.27

Figure 23: Revitalizing Through Mixed-Use in DUKE, Source: See Appendix A for source information.

Lastly, the inclusionary housing regulation allows for the creation/maintenance of affordable housing within the district. This is accomplished by allowing height increase and lot occupancy to accomplish density bonuses. Maximum heights for the ARTS/CR zone allows for up to 100 ft. in height, whereas the ARTS/C-2-A allows for 50 feet.28 Today, the Uptown Arts District offers a variety of amenities that include the revitalized Howard Theatre, the Bohemian Caverns Jazz Club, the 9:30 concert venue, the Black Cat music venue, the Lincoln Theatre, the African American Civil War Memorial Freedom Foundation (Museum), and the Long View Gallery.29 Urban design improvements include benches with art, a lively streetscape with outdoor seating, outdoor lighting, and varying building heights. Matthew Jesick, Development Review Specialist in the D.C. Office of Planning confirmed that the revitalization efforts were primarily done through large government subsidies.30 He noted that the Uptown Arts Overlay was adopted to mitigate the bearing streetscape and safety concerns of the area during the late 1960s. During this time,

riots were taking place, the area was out of shape, and was definitely not thriving economically. The adoption of the overlay involved the local advisory neighborhood commission and the D.C. of Office Planning.31 He noted that adopting the overlay zoning code was fairly straight forward, but it did require initiative and leadership from the advisory neighborhood commission.32 It was interesting to hear how involved the community was in recommending the zoning amendments in their neighborhood. This demonstrates a strong community engagement process in the revitalization of Washington D.C., and is considered a strong strategy given the positive effects it has had on the Uptown Arts District. Although Mr. Jesick highlighted some major arts-related venues within the Uptown Arts District, he noted some lessons learned and possible recommendations to further support an arts and culture district. First, Mr. Jesick noted that the arts overlay has restaurants and bars within the preferred uses language. As a result, the U Street corridor within the district primarily consists of eating and drinking

Figure 24: Arts-Related Revitalization in DUKE, Source: See Appendix A for source information

establishments, with limited artistic presence.33 Although the restaurants have contributed towards economic development and livelihood of the area, he recommends that Cities carefully consider this use if creating an arts district is the primary goal. In addition to zoning, he noted how other areas of government can support arts revitalization efforts through lower tax breaks for arts-related uses. This could be a good incentive to get more artistic presence in any district. 34

iii. Suburban Cities Can Thrive Too! Roosevelt Row: Phoenix, AZ Roosevelt Row (RoRo) in Phoenix has the most similarities to the SoFA District in San JosĂŠ. Both cities are of suburban nature, have an arts district within their downtown boundary, and both predominantly offer commercial uses in this area. One of the apparent differences between SoFA and RoRo is that one has a Plan and overlay zoning adopted for their arts district, while the other does not. In the review of the zoning ordinance for the City, it was determined that the base code for RoRo consists of the following uses:35 Table 9: Base Zoning for RoRo, Source: City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance

Zoning

Description

R-5

Multifamily Residential

C-1

Neighborhood Retail

C-2

Intermediate Commercial

C-3

General Commercial

The arts and culture related uses within the base zoning code include outdoor food sales, bars with live music, breweries, artist material and supply stores, mobile food vendors, motion picture theatre, music studios, and outdoor alcohol uses.36 Seven of these base zoning uses are permitted by right, while only two require a special use permit (bars with music and outdoor alcohol use).37 Mobile food trucks and outdoor food sales do not require a special use permit, but have an abundant amount of conditions noted in the zoning ordinance (See Appendix B). Although the base zoning does permit arts-related uses, the adoption of the overlay substantially changes the preferred uses for the area. The following arts-related uses identified in this investigation:38 In the review of the base and overlay zoning regulations for this district (outlined in Table 10), it was determined that RoRo has a large amount of parcels zoned for residential multifamily (R-5).39 Arts-related uses permitted by right in this zone include art galleries, arts and crafts retail sales, book stores, and outdoor crafting of art.40 Additionally, the arts and culture overlay permits arts-related uses in commercial zones that include outdoor cultural events, outdoor crafting of art, and retail clothing sales. The overlay also allows for placement of signs on walls, A-frames on the sidewalks, and single signs.41 This flexibility helps enhance the artistic character and identity of the area.42 An interview with Katherine Coles, Village Planner at the City of Phoenix, provided clarification on the permitted uses within the arts and culture overlay zoning ordinance, as well as discussed the policies adopted by the City. First off, Coles highlighted how the City does have arts and culture policies, but Roosevelt Row did not evolve out of city efforts to create an arts and culture district.43 The district first developed organically about twenty (20) years ago, with artists moving in due to cheap rents. This led to the revitalization of the area and creation of art

Table 10: Arts, Culture and Small Business Zoning in RoRo, Source: City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance

Use

Permitted? (Zoning Type)

Base Code

Conditional Use?

Approval By?

Art galleries, including sales

Arts, Culture, and Small Business Overlay

Residential Multifamily (R-5)

Arts and crafts retail sales

Arts, Culture, and Small Business Overlay

Residential Multifamily (R-5)

Beauty and Barber Shops

Arts, Culture, and Small Business Overlay

Residential Multifamily (R-5)

Book stores

Arts, Culture, and Small Business Overlay

Residential Multifamily (R-5)

Restaurants serving alcohol

Arts, Culture, and Small Business Overlay

Residential Multifamily (R-5)

Special Use Permit

Zoning Administrator

Retail Clothing Sales

Arts, Culture, and Small Business Overlay

Residential Multifamily (R-5) Neighborhood Retail (C-1)

Retail Food Sales, not including alcohol

Arts, Culture, and Small Business Overlay

Residential Multifamily (R-5)

Teaching of visual and performing arts

Arts, Culture, and Small Business Overlay

Residential Multifamily (R-5)

Outdoor Cultural Events

Arts, Culture, and Small Business Overlay

Residential Multifamily (R-5) Neighborhood Retail (C-1) Intermediate Commercial (C-2) General Commercial (C-3)

Outdoor Crafting of Art

Arts, Culture, and Small Business Overlay

C-1, C-2, C-3

Signs

Arts, Culture, and Small Business Overlay

Entire Arts and Culture Overlay Boundary

walks and other festivals.44 Once the district started to pick up speed, the artists were hosting these events in public spaces by closing down nonpermitted areas. Fines started to arise, which led the local artists to lobby for a change within the zoning code.45 Coles noted that this grassroots movement was what encouraged the City to adopt the overlay zoning code for the area. The City did show support by adopting the overlay

zoning code and allowing non-conforming uses in multifamily residential zones without a special use permit. 46Although the City of Phoenix was not proactive in supporting RoRo through zoning, their overlay zoning demonstrates an attempt to support Roosevelt Row as an arts and culture district. The map below provides a visual of the arts, culture, and small business overlay adopted by the City in 2010.47

Figure 25: Arts, Culture and Small Business Overlay (Acod) District, Source: See Appendix A for source information

Figure 26: Arts and Culture Features in RoRo Phoenix, Source: See Appendix A for source information

Today, the artist in Roosevelt Row continue to be leaders and have a strong influence on what development comes into the area. According to Coles, the artist community lobbied against a senior housing community that was going to be developed on City owned property a couple of years ago. Their argument was that affordable housing was needed for the artist and that senior housing would not enhance economic development in the area.48 Fast forward to today, the City is looking for a request for proposal that incorporates 5% of affordable artist units if the proposed development is a housing project. Again, the grassroots movement by the artist is the reason why the previous proposal did not get constructed. The City of Phoenix was willing to work with all the stakeholders in Roosevelt Row to develop a proposal that caters to their needs.49 It should also be noted that the City of Phoenix has a strong adaptive reuse program. This program offers incentives and city consulting services for artists and businesses that move into these developments.50

The combination of city policies, overlay zoning, and strong grassroots movements by the local artist are what makes Roosevelt Row a successful arts and culture district. Today, the Roosevelt Row offers arts and culture amenities that include galleries (515 Arts, 1Spot Gallery), retail opportunities, community organizations, and an artisan village. Festivals include the pumpkin harvest festival, mobile food trucks festivals, and the chile pepper festival.51 It is believed that the district will continue to thrive due to the heavy artist community involvement and Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s willingness to show their support. These best practices can also support the future revitalization of the SoFA District in San JosĂŠ, especially if the existing artistsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; community begins to lobby at a higher level in the City.

Chapter 4 - Endnotes 1

City of San JosĂŠ, Envision San JosĂŠ 2040 General Plan, P.11.

Ibid.

Ibid, P.6.

Ibid.

Ibid, P.23.

Jessica Wobbekind, phone conversation with Susana Mercado.

Ibid.

City of San Jose, San Jose, California- Code of Ordinance, by Municipal Code Corporation (2000), https://www.municode.com/library/ca/san_jose/codes/code_of_ ordinances?nodeId=14367 [accessed February 28, 2016], Ch. 20.70. 4

5 City of Chicago, Chicago Zoning Ordinance and Land Use Ordinance, by American Legal Publishing (2015), http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/chicago_il/, [accessed March 2, 2016], Ch.17-3. 7

Michael Brilliot, interviewed by Susana Mercado.

Ibid

Ibid.

City of Chicago, Master Plan for the Wicker Park Bucktown SSA, P.45-46.

Ibid.

City of Chicago, Chicago Zoning Ordinance and Land Use Ordinance, Ch.17-3.

21 Government of the District of Columbia, Zoning in the District of Columbia, by D.C. Office of Zoning (2011), file:///D:/URBP%20Documents/URBP%20Documents/298/Washington%20 DC/Zoning%20Guidebook.pdf [accessed March 7, 2016], P. 14-17.

DC Office of Zoning, D.C. Municipal Regulations and D.C. Register, by DC Office of Documents and Administrative Issuances (2016), http://dcoz.dc.gov/resources/regulations. shtm, [accessed March 7, 2016], P. 11-1720. 22

Ibid, Ch. 11-1908.

DC Office of Zoning, D.C. Municipal Regulations and D.C. Register, Ch.11-1901.

Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP), Arts and Culture Planning: A Toolkit for Communities, P. 45. 25

Government of the District of Columbia, DUKE Development Framework for a Cultural Destination, P.38. 26

Ibid.

Jessica Wobbekind, phone conversation with Susana Mercado, San Jose, CA, February 25, 2016. 15

Ibid.

DC Office of Zoning, D.C. Municipal Regulations and D.C. Register, Ch.11-1909.

Matthew Jesick, phone conversation with Susana Mercado, San Jose, CA, February 25, 2016. 29

Ibid.

Matthew Jesick, phone conversation with Susana Mercado Ibid.

Ibid, Ch. 669.

City of Phoenix, “Arts, Culture and Small Business Overlay (Acod) District.”

Katherine Coles, phone conversation with Susana Mercado, San Jose, CA, March 12, 2016.

Ibid.

City of Phoenix, Zoning Index Map, by City of Phoenix Planning Department (2014), https://www.phoenix.gov/pddsite/Documents/pdd_pz_pdf_00324-g8.pdf. [accessed March 2, 2016].

City of Phoenix, Phoenix Zoning Code, Ch. 669.

Katherine Coles, phone conversation with Susana Mercado.

Ibid.

City of Phoenix, Phoenix Zoning Code, by Code Publishing Company (2016), http://www. codepublishing.com/AZ/Phoenix/, [accessed March 2, 2016], Ch. 622-3.

Ibid.

Ibid, Ch. 669.

City of Phoenix, Phoenix Zoning Code, Ch. 669.

City of Phoenix, Zoning Index Map.

City of Phoenix, Phoenix Zoning Code, Ch. 613.

Roosevelt Row, “Business Directory,” last modified 2016, http://www.rooseveltrow.org/ businessdirectory/, [accessed March 12, 2016]. 51

[Page Intentionally Blank]

Applying Best Practices in San José, CA

Figure 27: Mural “Valley of the Heart’s Delight,” Source: See Appendix A for source information

A. Summary of Policy Recommendations This section summarizes the arts and culture policies and zoning regulations applicable to the SoFA District in San José. Each primary recommendation will note where it has been adopted and why it has been successful. Information compiled from interviews on San José stakeholders and other cities will also be used to support each primary recommendation.

Table 11: Arts and Culture Policy Recommendations for SoFA, Source: Created by Author

All of the cities reviewed in this investigation offer best practice policy recommendations in regards to arts and culture. Although only three (3) were selected for zoning review in Chapter 4, policies adopted by all the cities should be considered for adoption in SoFA. The table below summarizes the most common arts and culture policies, where they have been adopted, and whether or not they were recommended by San Jose interviewees. Policies adopted by the majority of the cities and noted in interviews are considered primary recommendations. These will be further discussed in section B of this chapter. Recommended in San Jose Interviews

Policy Recommendation

Cities Adopted

Adopt a Arts and Culture Master Plan for SoFA

All

Revise zoning and building codes to promote arts-related uses (i.e. adopt overlay zoning code)

Chicago, Washington DC, Phoenix, San Francisco, Denver

Adopt an overlay arts and culture zoning code

Washington D.C., Phoenix

Provide Affordable Housing for the Artist

Chicago, Portland, San Francisco, San Diego, Washington D.C., Phoenix

Use underutilized lots for arts-related purposes to increase pedestrian activity during the day

Chicago, Portland, Denver, San Diego, Washington D.C.

Create an arts incubator space in SoFA through private/public partnerships

Portland, Phoenix, Chicago

Encourage businesses to incorporate local art in their space Require integration of site specific public art in both public and private developments within SoFA

Chicago, Denver

Denver, Chicago, San Diego, San Francisco

Implement a sign rebate program and use local artists in the development

Chicago

Increase open space opportunities

Portland, San Francisco

Protect existing murals despite new developments

San Francisco

Adopt an adaptive reuse program that encourages arts-related uses

San Diego, Phoenix, Chicago, Washington D.C.

B. Primary Recommendations i. Adopt an Arts and Culture Master Plan for SoFA In order to further support SoFA as an arts and culture district, it is imperative that the City of San José adopt a Master Plan with this focus. All of the cities reviewed in this investigation have adopted very specific Master Plans with arts and culture as their foundation. The closest the City of San José has gotten to any specific plan for SoFA has been the RDA’s non -adopted South First Area Strategic Development Plan, which only focused on urban design recommendations. According to interviewees in Chicago, Washington D.C., and Phoenix, adopting a Master Plan has allowed their district to improve their arts presence, community engagement opportunities, and economic development.1 Without the adopted Master Plan, standardized General Plan policies would be implemented in areas that wish to maintain a special identity for years to come. Interviews on San José stakeholders also demonstrate an interest in adopting an arts and culture plan for SoFA. As previously noted, Planning Division Manager Michael Brilliot stated the importance of protecting SoFA as an arts district. Now that the district has grown organically, he believes that the

City should protect the existing businesses to mitigate displacement of arts amenities within SoFA.2 Additionally, the high level of interest in development concerns local museums such as MACLA (Movimiento de Arte y Cultura Latino Americana) and the Museum of Quilts and Textiles. Both interviewees believe that the majority of the developments will be expensive housing with no artistic presence or affordable housing for the artist.3 Furthermore, an interview with Rick Jensen of the San José Downtown Association confirmed the existing communities concern regarding gentrification.4 All parties concur that a Master Plan can

Figure 28: Voices of SoFA, Source: Created by Author using WordCloud

provide a clear vision and policies such as requirements for artist housing, protection of existing murals and businesses, incentives for more artsrelated businesses, and an increase in open space opportunities.5 Adopting a Master Plan will help SoFA further revitalize as an arts and culture district without fear of having its creative identity fade away. Specifically, recommendations related to artist housing and artsrelated land uses/activities will enhance the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s longevity as an arts and culture district. The biggest barrier in adoption of a Master Plan for SoFA will be the lack of resources in the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s planning department.6 However, it is considered the strongest recommendation due to its potential of becoming a policy document for SoFA.

ii. Adopt an Overlay Zoning Code for SoFA This investigation focused heavily on the positive effects of overlay zoning for arts and culture. Based on this document review and interviews with Chicago, Washington DC, and Phoenix planning staff, it is determined that specific zoning regulations can increase revitalization, community engagement, and economic development opportunities in an arts and culture district. Best practices for arts and culture zoning can be seen in Phoenix and Washington DC, which allow non-conforming art-related uses such as galleries, arts and crafts stores, and artist housing in both residential and commercial spaces without a conditional use permit.7 Currently, SoFA does allow for a few arts related land uses such as art display structures, outdoor vending, museums, and theatres, but all require a conditional or special use permit.8 Adopting an arts and culture overlay zoning code would not only encourage more arts-related uses (i.e. recording studios, artist live/work, music venues) within SoFA, but would also alleviate the planning department from extensive permit reviews.

As a lesson learned from Washington DC, allowing for bars and restaurants within the arts zoning code should be limited or else the district could become a heavy night entertainment area with limited daytime activity.9 Additionally, barriers identified to achieve adoption of an arts and culture overlay in SoFA include limited staff resourcing and advocacy from the local community members.10 In both Washington DC and Phoenix, the overlay zoning code was adopted due to persistence from the local artist community.11 Without initiative and leadership from the community, the arts districts in both cities would not be where they are today.

iii. Provide Affordable Housing for the Artist in SoFA The importance of the artist is highlighted throughout this report, and noted as a priority by both City of San JosĂŠ interviewees and the majority of the cities included in this investigation. Affordable artist housing within arts districts in Chicago, Portland, San Diego, Washington DC, and Phoenix have been successful for various reasons. In Chicago, the owner of the landmark flat iron building supports the arts by providing cheaper rents to the artists. As a result, this has increased artist presence and encouraged arts activities within Wicker Park.12 In Portland, the development of Milepost 5 near the Alberta Arts District provides affordable artist housing, but also incorporates mixed-uses that enhance economic development.13 San Diego recognizes the importance of artist live/work through adoption of a policy to develop a mixed-use artist center with shared work spaces and affordable artist live/work housing.14 Furthermore, Washington DC approaches affordable housing through inclusionary housing and density bonuses, which have been adopted throughout the Uptown DUKE Arts District. Planning staff in the DC Office of Zoning noted no concerns regarding affordable housing within their arts district.15 Lastly, Phoenix enables artist live/work spaces

through lenient overlay zoning and a proposal to incorporate 5% of affordable artist units into a new development within RoRo.16 Although strategies vary throughout the cities reviewed, the end result of them include housing for the artist, increased revenues due to artist presence, community engagement opportunities provided by the local resident artist (i.e. art walks, festivals), and increased revitalization efforts.

“The City recognizes that the arts are a very important element to retaining and recruiting the most talented people. However, politicians need to embrace the arts and give.” - Rick Jensen, San Jose Downtown Association, Communications Director Interviews with SoFA Arts District stakeholders and city planning staff further support the need for artist housing in SoFA. The local museums and the SoFA committee have noted their concerns over gentrification due to the increase in luxury developments.17 Furthermore, Rick Jensen and Nate LeBlanc both noted the need for San José to appreciate the non-traditional arts that exists in SoFA, and not just performing arts (i.e. ballet, opera).18 These types of artists include painters, photographers, and non-classical musical performers.19 It is important to note that the City of San José’s zoning code in SoFA does support live/work space, however none exist within the boundary area and space could be made available.20 In order to improve this, interviewees recommend public/ private partnerships and grants from local arts organizations. The biggest challenge in providing artist live/work space include developers interest in making profit off market rate units, the City of San José’s limited policies regarding artist live/work in SoFA, and no identification of locations where live/work could be implemented. A Master Plan for SoFA could include requirements for artist live/work in new developments, as well as identify opportunity areas.

iv. Use Underutilized Lots for Arts-Related Purposes to Increase Pedestrian Activity During the Day As noted by almost all interviewees in San José, the SoFA District still has a vast amount of vacant and underutilized space within its primary corridor on South First Street. Amanda Rawson, Curator at the Museum of Quilts and Textiles believes that museum attendance is low during the day because additional activities within the area are limited.21 Most of the restaurants and other venues are closed during the day, making the area very inactive. Additionally, Thang Do, President of SoFA business Aedis Architects, believes that additional retail or other entertainment could be implemented on vacant space to bring arts-related uses such as farmers/open air markets, food trucks, arts and crafts stores, festivals, arts incubators, and artist live/work space.22 He believes that this could be done by incentivizing business through public subsidies, which would make SoFA a desirable location to move into.23 This could also increase revenues for adjacent existing businesses that currently have limited foot traffic during the day.24 Based on these interviews, opportunity areas were identified for the vacant building and large parking area on West San Carlos and South First Street, the old South First Billiards site, and the parking lot on the corner of San Salvador and South First Street.25 Both MACLA and the Museum of Quilts and Textiles noted that improvements to the park (Parque de los Pobladores) adjacent to their business has allowed for outdoor artist showcasing, however further public space investments are needed throughout the district.26

“My hope as a businessman in the District is that we can increase foot traffic during non-event times.We deeply appreciate the folks organizing and promoting the events, but in order to succeed we need more poeple visiting the District at all times of day.” - Nate LeBlanc, SoFA Market General Manager

Denver, Portland, San Diego, Chicago, and Washington D.C. all have policies within their Master Plans that encourage arts-related uses in vacant and underutilized lots (See Appendix B). As previously noted, the overlay zoning code in Washington D.C. and Phoenix encourage nonconforming uses in residential and commercial zones, that otherwise could remain vacant if forced to follow the base zoning code. Chicago’s Wicker Park encourages conversion of vacant ground floor retail space to live/work space for artists, while Washington D.C. adopts policies that support art exhibition in underutilized storefronts.27 The SoFA District could increase its revitalization and economic development goals if they took full advantage of all the existing vacant land. Although future development is currently focused on luxury housing, the City should encourage the arts uses discussed in this investigation to maintain the creative identity of SoFA as an arts and culture district, all while increasing foot traffic.

v. Create an Arts Incubator Space in SoFA through Public/ Private Partnerships An arts incubator is defined as “an organization that supports future entrepreneurs, non-governmental organizations and artists by helping them to enter the creative industries sector. Arts incubators are a platform that empowers artists and organizations to implement their business and artistic ideas.”28 An arts incubator space in SoFA could increase the lacking artist presence within the district, as well as take advantage of the vacant/underutilized buildings in the area. Cities that have adopted this strategy include Portland, Phoenix, and Chicago (See Appendix B). Portland and Phoenix have been able to achieve this through private/public partnerships, whereas Chicago has revised its zoning code to encourage incubator space in traditionally non-conforming uses.29 Chicago pursued this through zoning due to the public/partnerships that already exist in the culturally vibrant city.

This recommendation is being made because it is considered successful by city planning staff, and was also brought forward by Mr. Rick Jensen, Communications Director and SoFA Committee Liaison for the San José Downtown Association. In an interview with Jensen, he noted the SoFA committees concern over artist housing and incubator space in the area.30 The SoFA committee consists predominantly of local business owners, artists, and residents that meet quarterly to discuss the needs of the area. Jensen and the committee believe that the existing vacant spaces, such as the South First Billiards building, could be transformed into an arts incubator space through private/public partnerships.31 The only barrier with this is the City of San José’s funding and building owners’ willingness to collaborate on such effort.32

vi. Encourage Businesses to Incorporate Local Art in their Space Currently, the City of San José has no program that encourages incorporation of local art in businesses. This was confirmed in an interview with Nate Leblanc, General Manager for the SoFA Market, a public market that offers a variety of lunch, dinner, and drinking options, similar to San Pedro Square Market in Downtown San José.33 His interview noted that the City did support the creation of their parklet, but no discussions on incorporating local art within the space has ever been encouraged.34 This strategy is deemed successful in cities like Chicago, where a specific policy encourages the creation of “roving galleries by integrating art in local stores.”35 This simple, yet effective strategy allows artists to showcase their work and increases artist presence within the area. In order to accomplish this strategy in Wicker Park, staff within the Special Service Area polled local businesses to determine their interest in participating, and then connected the businesses with the local artists.36 This strategy could promote local arts and enhance the creative identity in SoFA at a very low cost to the city and businesses.

vii. Require Integration of Site Specific Public Art in both Private and Public Developments within SoFA

C. Study Challenges

Although the SoFA District does have murals in certain areas,

One of the challenges of this investigation is the difficulty in

stakeholders believe that they do not align with the history and culture of the city. According to Amanda Rawson, Curator at the Museum of Quilts and Textiles, the only public art monument with any San José related history is the El Pueblo San José de Guadalupe monument, located at the Parque de los Pobladores Park across the street from the museum.37 No other public art displays were identified throughout SoFA, limiting the district’s ability to be identified as an arts and culture district. This strategy has been deemed most effective in Wicker Park in Chicago and the Mission District in San Francisco, where the vast amount of murals reflect the culture and history of the existing community (See Appendix B). These cities have been able to identify site specific art by working actively with property owners to identify locations for displays and assisted them in working with artists, as well as involved the local community in the public art selection.38 A great opportunity to gain feedback on site specific public art for SoFA can be provided by the existing SoFA Committee. This could increase the cities community engagement opportunities, allow the local artist to showcase their work, and contribute towards revitalization efforts in SoFA.

measuring the success of an arts and culture district. For some city staff and politicians, an arts and culture district can be considered successful if it consists of theatres that offer opera shows and ballet, has an active nightlife, and has an increase in development. If these were the only measurements of success, the SoFA District would not need further revitalization. As this investigation demonstrates, a successful arts and culture district offers a variety of arts-related land uses and activities throughout the day, and caters not only to the elite community. Cities reviewed in this report met these arts-related uses through strong policies and zoning for their arts district. As noted by both Rick Jensen and Nate Leblanc, city officials need to protect, embrace, and fund the creative class that resides within the SoFA community. Recognition of other factors of success by city officials will be needed to support SoFA as an arts district.39

“Make the arts relatable and attractive!” - Rick Jensen, San Jose Downtown Association, Communications Director

Another challenge of this investigation was consolidating the arts and culture policies in the documents for each city. Every city evaluated had at least three (3) plans, all of which offered policies throughout the document in various sections and organized very differently. In the review of the documents, it became very apparent that there is no standardized form for the development of Master Plans, making it very difficult to identify the location of all the arts and culture related policies. The review of the zoning recommendations was also a challenge due to the amount of subsections and in-depth conditions language provided for each code. Although all documentation was reviewed diligently, some information could have been missed.

D. Future Research The SoFA District in San JosĂŠ has the ability to become a vibrant arts and culture destination if the City protects its identity and supports additional revitalization efforts. If the city does decide to move forward with a Master Plan, the planning department will have to conduct community workshops and a community assessment of the area. This will help identify opportunity areas, gain additional feedback on policy recommendations, and identify overlay zoning conforming uses by parcel. It is hoped that the recommendations within this report can serve as a stepping stone to further analyze the existing conditions and needs within SoFA. As noted by many SoFA business owners and city staff, development is quickly increasing, so the time to act is now.

E. Conclusions The purpose of this investigation was not to point out flaws within the SoFA Arts District, but to identify best practice policies to support the artistic presence and longevity of the area. By no means does this investigation discredit the existing organizations and efforts being made to revitalize the area, but it is hoped that the City can use this document as a starting point for further research. There is a plethora of additional stakeholders not interviewed and interested in SoFA, and the voice of each and every one of them needs to be heard. I am hopeful to contribute to this effort in any way possible, and look forward to witnessing the further revitalization of the area.

Chapter 5 - Endnotes 1 Jessica Wobbekind, phone conversation with Susana Mercado; Matthew Jesick, phone conversation with Susana Mercado; Katherine Coles, phone conversation with Susana Mercado. 2

Michael Brilliot, interviewed by Susana Mercado.

3 Anjee Helstrup-Alvarez, interviewed by Susana Mercado, San Jose, CA, February 11, 2016; Amanda Rawson, interviewed by Susana Mercado, San Jose, CA, February 15, 2016. 4

Rick Jensen, interviewed by Susana Mercado, San Jose, CA, February 3, 2016.

Anjee Helstrup-Alvarez, interviewed by Susana Mercado; Amanda Rawson, interviewed by Susana Mercado; Rick Jensen, interviewed by Susana Mercado. 5

Michael Brilliot, interviewed by Susana Mercado.

DC Office of Zoning, D.C. Municipal Regulations and D.C. Register, P. 11-1720; City of Phoenix, Phoenix Zoning Code, Ch. 669. 7

City of San Jose, San Jose, California - Code of Ordinance, Ch. 20.70.

Matthew Jesick, phone conversation with Susana Mercado.

Michael Brilliot, interviewed by Susana Mercado.

11 Matthew Jesick, phone conversation with Susana Mercado; Katherine Coles, phone conversation with Susana Mercado. 12

Jessica Wobbekind, phone conversation with Susana Mercado.

City of Portland, Arts and Culture Portland Plan, P. 11.

14 City of San Diego. North Park Community Plan: Arts Element, by City of San Diego Planning Department (1986, updated 2015). http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/community/profiles/ greaternorthpark/pdf/2015/11artsandculture.pdf. [accessed February 5, 2016], P.2. 15

Matthew Jesick, phone conversation with Susana Mercado.

Katherine Coles, phone conversation with Susana Mercado.

17 Amanda Rawson, interviewed by Susana Mercado; Anjee Helstrup-Alvarez, interviewed by Susana Mercado. 18 Nate LeBlanc, interviewed by Susana Mercado, San Jose, CA, January 22, 2016; Rick Jensen, interviewed by Susana Mercado. 19

Ibid.

City of San Jose, San Jose, California- Code of Ordinance, Ch. 20.70.

Amanda Rawson, interviewed by Susana Mercado

Thang Do, interviewed by Susana Mercado

Ibid.

Rick Jensen, interviewed by Susana Mercado; Thang Do, interviewed by Susana Mercado.

Amanda Rawson, interviewed by Susana Mercado; Anjee Helstrup-Alvarez, interviewed by Susana Mercado. 26

City of Chicago. Master Plan for the Wicker Park Bucktown SSA, P.149; Government of the District of Columbia. DUKE Development Framework for a Cultural Destination, P.14. 27

Creative Infrastructure, “What is an ‘Arts Incubator?’ last modified 2013, https:// creativeinfrastructure.org/2013/09/06/what-is-an-arts-incubator/. [accessed March 16, 2014]. 28

City of Portland. Albina Community Plan, P.35; Katherine Coles, phone conversation with Susana Mercado; City of Chicago, Chicago Zoning Ordinance and Land Use Ordinance, Ch.17-3. 29

Rick Jensen, interviewed by Susana Mercado.

Ibid.

Rick Jensen, interviewed by Susana Mercado; Michael Brilliot, interviewed by Susana Mercado. 32

Nate LeBlanc, interviewed by Susana Mercado.

Ibid.

City of Chicago. Master Plan for the Wicker Park Bucktown SSA, P.156.

Ibid.

Amanda Rawson, interviewed by Susana Mercado.

City of Chicago. Master Plan for the Wicker Park Bucktown SSA, P.159.; City and County of San Francisco. Mission Area Plan, P.77. 38

4-8.

City of San José, Envision San José 2040 General Plan, by City of San José (2011), P. 2-12 –

Bibliography: Alberta Main Street. “About Alberta Main Street,” last modified. http:// albertamainst.org/about-2/ [accessed March 1, 2016]. American Planning Association. “Great Places in America: Neighborhoods,” last modified 2015. https://www.planning.org/ greatplaces/neighborhoods/2015/rooseveltrow.htm. [accessed November 10, 2015]. American Planning Association. “Great Places in America: Streets,” last modified 2011. https://www.planning.org/greatplaces/ streets/2011/ustreet.htm. [accessed February 15, 2016]. Brilliot, Michael. Interviewed by Susana Mercado, San Jose, CA, March 2, 2016. Borrup, Tom. Up From the Roots: Economic and Cultural Equity in Naturally Occurring Cultural Districts. Brooklyn, by Pratt Center for Community Development (2001). http://artsanddemocracy. org/uploads/downloads/NOCDsummarypaperFINAL.pdf. [accessed November 15,2015]. Brooks, Arthur C., and Roland J. Kushner. “Cultural Districts and Urban Development.” International Journal of Arts Management 3, no. 2 (2001): 4-15. Chapple, Karen, Shannon Jackson, and Anne J. Martin. “Concentrating Creativity: The Planning of Formal and Informal Arts Districts.” City, Culture and Society 1, no. 4 (2010): 225-34. Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP), Arts and Culture Planning: A Toolkit for Communities, by City of Chicago CMAP (2012). http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/ documents/10180/460065/FY14-0006+ARTS+AND+CULTURE+ TOOLKIT+lowres.pdf/806f3498-f35a-4b40-894b-a57a2efd441c. [accessed February 15, 2015].

Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP). Go to 2040: Comprehensive Regional Plan, by City of Chicago CMAP (2010). http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/documents/10180/17842/ long_plan_FINAL_100610_web.pdf/1e1ff482-7013-4f5f-90d590d395087a53. [accessed December 14, 2015]. Choose Chicago. “A Guide to Chicago Arts Scene,” last modified 2016. http://www.choosechicago.com/articles/view/A-GUIDE-TOCHICAGO-S-ART-SCENE/1066/. [accessed January 8, 2016]. City of Chicago. Cultural Plan 2012. City of Chicago Department of Cultural Affairs (2012). http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/ depts/dca/supp_info/cultural_plan.html/. [accessed December 20, 2015]. City of Chicago. Master Plan for the Wicker Park Bucktown SSA, by Interface Studio LLC (2009). http://wickerparkbucktown.org/ projects/master-plan/ [accessed January 8, 2016]. City of Chicago. Chicago Zoning Ordinance and Land Use Ordinance, by American Legal Publishing (2015). http://www.amlegal.com/ codes/client/chicago_il/. [accessed March 2, 2016]. City and County of Denver. Blueprint Denver: An Integrated Land Use and Transportation Plan, by City and County of Denver (2002). https://www.denvergov.org/content/dam/denvergov/ Portals/646/documents/planning/blueprintdenver/ BlueprintDenver.pdf [accessed December 4, 2015]. City and County of Denver. Golden Triangle Neighborhood Plan, by City and County of Denver (2014). https://www.denvergov.org/ Portals/646/documents/planning/Plans/golden_triangle/GT_ Plan_Final_11102014.pdf [accessed December 3, 2015].

City and County of Denver. Imagine 2020: Denver’s Cultural Plan, by City of Denver Office of Economic Development (2014). http:// artsandvenuesdenver.com/images/files/AV-1401-Imagine2020FullPlan-FINAL-PROOF-2.pdf [accessed on September 11, 2015]. City and County of Denver Community Planning and Development. Comprehensive Plan 2000, last modified 2015. https://www. denvergov.org/content/denvergov/en/community-planningand-development/planning-and-design/comprehensiveplan-2000.html. [accessed December 4, 2015]. City and County of Denver. Denver Downtown Area Plan, by Progressive Urban Management Associates (2007). https://www.denvergov. org/Portals/646/documents/planning/Plans/plans_pre_2013/ downtown/DowntownDenverAreaPlan.pdf [accessed December 3, 2015]. City and County of Denver. Destination Santa Fe: Art District as Catalyst, by Hangar 41 (2012). http://www.hangar41.com/Projects/ HANGAR%2041_SANTA%20FE%20VISION%20PLAN%202012. pdf [accessed December 5, 2015]. City and County of Denver. River North Plan, by City and County of Denver https://www.denvergov.org/Portals/646/documents/ planning/Plans/plans_pre_2013/river_north/River%20 North%20Plan.pdf [accessed December 5, 2015]. City and County of San Francisco. San Francisco General Plan: Arts Element, by San Francisco Planning Department (1996). http:// www.sf-planning.org/ftp/general_plan/I9_Arts.htm [accessed February 12, 2016]. City and County of San Francisco. Mission Area Plan, by San Francisco Planning Department (1996). http://www.sf-planning.org/ftp/ general_plan/Mission.htm [accessed February 12, 2016].

City of Phoenix. “Arts, Culture and Small Business Overlay (Acod) District.” Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, last modified January 21, 2015. http://www.codepublishing.com/az/phoenix/frameless/ index.pl?path=./html/PhoenixZ06/PhoenixZ0669.html. [ac cessed March 10, 2015]. City of Phoenix. Phoenix Arts District: A Policy Plan for the Phoenix Arts District, by City of Phoenix Planning Department (1991). https:// www.phoenix.gov/pddsite/Documents/pdd_pz_pdf_00047.pdf. [accessed September 20, 2015]. City of Phoenix. Downtown Phoenix: A Strategic Vision and Blueprint for the Future, by City of Phoenix Planning Department (2004). http://dtphx.org/downloads/downtown-phoenix-a-strategicblueprint-for-the-future.pdf. [accessed November 25,2015]. City of Phoenix. Phoenix Zoning Code, by Code Publishing Company (2016). http://www.codepublishing.com/AZ/Phoenix/. [accessed March 2, 2016]. City of Phoenix. Roosevelt Row Artists’ District: Creative Placemaking in Downtown Phoenix, by Roosevelt Row Community Development Corporation (2013). http://issuu.com/rooseveltrow/docs/ rooseveltrowartistsdistrict_creativ [accessed November 23, 2015]. City of Phoenix. Roosevelt Row Design Guidelines, by Waibel and Associates Landscape Architecture (2011). https://www. phoenix.gov/streetssite/Documents/079787.pdf [accessed November 25, 2015]. City of Phoenix. The Phoenix Arts District Plan, by City of Phoenix Planning Department (1992). https://www.phoenix.gov/ pddsite/Documents/pdd_pz_pdf_00047.pdf. [accessed November 25, 2015].

City of Phoenix. The Roosevelt Neighborhood Special District Plan, by City of Phoenix Planning Department (1989). https://www. phoenix.gov/pddsite/Documents/pdd_pz_pdf_00060.pdf. [accessed November 24, 2015].

City of San Diego. City of Villages: San Diego General Plan, by City Planning and Community Investment Department (2006). http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/genplan/pdf/generalplan/ fullversion.pdf [accessed February 10, 2016].

City of Phoenix. Zoning Index Map, by City of Phoenix Planning Department (2014). https://www.phoenix.gov/pddsite/ Documents/pdd_pz_pdf_00324-g8.pdf. [accessed March 2, 2016].

City of San Diego. North Park Community Plan: Arts Element, by City of San Diego Planning Department (1986, updated 2015). http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/community/profiles/ greaternorthpark/pdf/2015/11artsandculture.pdf . [accessed February 5, 2016].

City of Portland. A Vision of Portland’s Future: Comprehensive Plan, City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability (1980). https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/141397. [accessed March 1, 2016].

City of San Diego. Public Art Master Plan, by Jerry Allen and Associates (2004). http://www.sandiego.gov/arts-culture/pdf/ pubartmasterplan.pdf. [accessed February 4, 2016].

City of Portland. Albina Community Plan, by Bureau of Planning (1993). https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/58586. [accessed March 2, 2016].

City of San José. Envision San José 2040 General Plan, by City of San José (2011). https://www.sanJoséca.gov/DocumentCenter/ Home/View/474 [accessed on February 2, 2015].

City of Portland. Arts and Culture Portland Plan, by City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability (2011). http://www. portlandonline.com/portlandplan/index.cfm?a=373231. [accessed March 2, 2016].

City of San José. “Office of Cultural Affairs: Arts Commission,” last modified August 7, 2015. http://www.sanJoséculture.org/index. aspx?nid=4214. [accessed September 26, 2015].

City of Portland. “Planning and Sustainability – 400s Overlay Zones,” last modified 2016. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/34562. [accessed March 5, 2016]. City of Portland Office of Management and Finance. “Arts Tax,” last modified 2016. http://www.portlandoregon.gov/ revenue/60076. [accessed March 5, 2016]. City of San Diego. Centre City Arts Plan, by Centre City Development Corporation (1998). http://wheatharvest.org/support/arts_plan. pdf [accessed February 10, 2016].

City of San Jose. San Jose, California-Code of Ordinance, by Municipal Code Corporation (2000). https://www.municode.com/library/ ca/san_jose/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=14367 [accessed February 28, 2016]. City of Somerville, “Best Practices Planning and Implementation Toolbox.” Sub Regional Planning. http://subregional.h-gac. com/toolbox/Implementation_Resources/Overlay_District_ Ordinances_Final.html. [accessed May 11, 2015]. Choose Chicago. “A Guide to Chicago’s Art Scene,” last modified 2016. http://www.choosechicago.com/articles/view/A-GUIDE-TOCHICAGO-S-ART-SCENE/1066/. [accessed January 31, 2016].

Coles, Katherine. Phone conversation with Susana Mercado, San Jose, CA, March 12, 2016. Creative Infrastructure. “What is an ‘Arts Incubator?’ last modified 2013. https://creativeinfrastructure.org/2013/09/06/what-isan-arts-incubator/. [accessed March 16, 2014]. DC Office of Zoning. D.C. Municipal Regulations and D.C. Register, by DC Office of Documents and Administrative Issuances (2016). http://dcoz.dc.gov/resources/regulations.shtm. [accessed March 7, 2016].

Government of the District of Columbia. DUKE Development Framework for a Cultural Destination, by D.C. Office of Planning (2004). http://planning.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ op/publication/attachments/final_uptown_report.pdf_0.pdf. [accessed February 20, 2016]. Government of the District of Columbia. Zoning in the District of Columbia, by D.C. Office of Zoning (2011). file:///D:/URBP%20 Documents/URBP%20Documents/298/Washington%20DC/ Zoning%20Guidebook.pdf [accessed March 7, 2016].

DC Office of Zoning. “Summary of Overlay Districts,” last modified 2010. http://dcoz.dc.gov/info/overlay.shtm. [accessed February 10, 2016].

Grodach, Carl. “Art Spaces in Community and Economic Development: Connections to Neighborhoods, Artists, and the Cultural Economy.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 31, no.1 (2011): 74-85.

Derrett, Ros. “Making Sense of how Festivals Demonstrate a Community’s Sense of Place.” Event Management 8 (2003): 4958.

Grodach, Carl. “Looking Beyond Image and Tourism: The Role of Flagship Cultural Projects in Local Arts Development.” Planning, Practice, and Research 23, no.4 (2008): 495-516.

Do, Thang. Interviewed by Susana Mercado, San Jose, CA, January 28,2016.

Grodach, Carl, and Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris. “Cultural Development Strategies and Urban Revitalization.” International Journal of Cultural Policy 13. no.4 (2007): 349-370.

Frost-Kumpf, Hilary Anne. Cultural Districts: The Arts as a Strategy for Revitalizing Our Cities. New York, by Americans for the Arts (1998). http://www.americansforthearts.org/sites/default/files/ Cultural%20Districts_0.pdf. [accessed September 22, 2015]. Gadwa, Anne. How Artist Space Matters: Impacts and Insights from Three Case Studies drawn from Artspace Projects’ Earliest Developments, Minneapolis, by Metris Arts Consulting (2010). https://www.giarts.org/sites/default/files/How-Artist-SpaceMatters.pdf [accessed November 12, 2015]. Government of the District of Columbia. The Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital, by Washington D.C. Office of Planning (2006). http://planning.dc.gov/node/636812 . [accessed February 14, 2016].

Guetzkow, Joshua. How the Arts Impact Communities: An Introduction to the Literature on Arts Impact Studies. Princeton University, Princeton, NJ. (2002). https://www.princeton.edu/~artspol/ workpap/WP20%20-%20Guetzkow.pdf. [accessed March 20, 2015]. Helstrup-Alvarez, Anjee. Interviewed by Susana Mercado, San Jose, CA, February 11, 2016. Hepler, Lauren. “DIY Falafel, Architectural Cocktails: Downtown San José’s SoFA Market Takes Shape,” Silicon Valley Business Journal, last modified August 25, 2014. http://www.bizjournals.com/ sanJosé/news/2014/08/25/diy-falafel-architectural-cocktailsdowntown-san.html?page=all. [accessed February 20, 2015].

Houstoun, Larry. “Business Improvement Districts and Urban Entertainment and Cultural Centers,” last modified 2016. https://lhoustoun.wordpress.com/business-improvementdistricts-2/bids-and-urban-entertainment-zones/. [accessed November 12, 2015]. Interface Studio. “Projects We’ve Worked On: Wicker Park Bucktown Master Plan,” last modified 2016. http://interface-studio.com/ projects/wicker-park/. [accessed January 10, 2016]. Jensen, Rick. Interviewed by Susana Mercado, San Jose, CA, February 3, 2016. Jesick, Matthew. Phone conversation with Susana Mercado, San Jose, CA, February 25, 2016. Joyer, Jeffrey. “What Is a Live-Work Unit?” The Houston Chronicle. 2015. http://smallbusiness.chron.com/livework-unit-35188. html. [accessed September 26, 2015]. LeBlanc, Nate. Interviewed by Susana Mercado, San Jose, CA, January 22, 2016. Lee, Dahyun. “How the Arts Generate Social Capital to Foster Intergroup Social Cohesion.” Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society 43 (2013): 4-17.

Markusen, Ann, and Greg Schrock. “The Artistic Dividend: Urban Artistic Specialization and Economic Development Implications.” Urban Studies 43, no.10 (2006): 1661-1686. McCarthy, John. “Regeneration of Cultural Quarters: Public Art for Place Image or Place Identity?” Journal of Urban Design 11, no.2 (2006): 243-262. McCarthy, Richard. Evaluating the Social, Financial and Human Capital Impacts of Farmers Markets, Crescent City, by Market Umbrella (2008). http://www.marketumbrella.org/uploads/Evaluating_ farmers_markets.pdf [accessed November 10, 2015]. Metroactive. “Reupholstering SoFA,” Metro Silicon Valley, last modified September 12, 2000. http://www.metroactive.com/papers/ metro/09.14.00/cover/sofa1-0037.html. [accessed November 12, 2015]. Millner, Caille. “San Francisco is Losing Its Artists,” Hyperallergic, last modified September 30,2015. http://hyperallergic.com/240704/ san-francisco-is-losing-its-artists/. [accessed March 2, 2016]. Miskowiak, Douglas, and Linda Stoll. “Planning Implementation Tools: Overlay Zoning.” Center for Land Use Education. https://www. uwsp.edu/cnr-ap/clue/Documents/PlanImplementation/ Overlay_Zoning.pdf. [accessed September 26, 2015].

Mallonee, Leigh D. Capturing Community Value: The Role of Local Arts Organizations in Revitalization, Civic Engagement, and Community-Building. University of Oregon (2010). https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/ handle/1794/10443/L.Mallonee_capstone2010.pdf?sequence [accessed November 10, 2015].

Mitrache, Georgica. “Architecture, Art, Public Space.” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, no. 51 (2012): 562-66.

Markusen, Ann, and Anne Gadwa. “Arts and Culture in Urban or Regional Planning: A Review and Research Agenda.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 29, no. 3 (2010): 379-391.

Murray, David J. How the Arts and Culture Sector Catalyzes Economic Vitality. American Planning Association (last modified 2015). https://www.planning.org/research/arts/briefingpapers/vitality. htm [accessed February 20, 2015].

Montgomery, John. “Cultural Quarters as Mechanisms for Urban Regeneration. Part 1: Conceptualizing Cultural Quarters.” Planning, Practice & Research 18, no.4 (2003): 293-306.

Newman, Bruce. “After languishing for decades, downtown San José may finally be ready for its closeup.” San José Mercury News. February 14, 2015. http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-areanews/ci_27528549/rotten-at-core-downtown-san-José-mayfinally. [accessed March 20, 2015] Nicodemus, Anne. “Fuzzy Vibrancy: Creative Placemaking as Ascendant US Cultural Policy.” Cultural Trends 22, no.3-4 (2013): 213-222. Noonan, Douglas S. “How U.S. Cultural Districts Reshape Neighborhoods.” Cultural Trends, no.22 (2013): 203-212. O’Sullivan, Mary. “Home is Where the Art Is: The Impact that Housing Laws and Gentrification Policies have had on the Availability and Affordability of Artist Live/Work Spaces.” Seton Hall Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law, no.23 (2013): 462-481.

San Diego Tourism Authority. “Nine Arts Districts, One Vibrant City,” last modified 2015. http://www.sandiego.org/campaigns/districtarts.aspx. [accessed February 4, 2016]. San José Office of Cultural Affairs. Cultural Connection, by San José Office of Cultural Affairs (2011). http://www.sanJoséculture.org/ DocumentCenter/View/29690 [accessed on December 1, 2015]. San José Redevelopment Agency. South First Area Strategic Development Plan, by San José Redevelopment Agency (2002). http://www.sjredevelopment.org/PublicationsPlans/ SOFAnewplan.pdf. [accessed September 25, 2015]. Santagata, Walter. “Cultural Districts, Property Rights, and Sustainable Economic Growth.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 26, no.1 (2002): 9-23.

Pizarro, Sal. “Arts Groups Get Funds to Improve SoFA Area,” San Jose Mercury News, last modified September 18, 2011. http://www. mercurynews.com/ci_18919360. [accessed November 5, 2016].

Sharp, Joanne, Venda Pollock, and Ronnan Paddision. “Just Art for a Just City: Public Art and Social Inclusion in Urban Regeneration.” Urban Studies 42, no.5/6 (2005): 1001-1023.

Rawson, Amanda. Interviewed by Susana Mercado. San Jose, CA, Feb ruary 15, 2016.

Solof, Mark. “Art for Community’s Sake: Creative Placemaking.” InTransition Magazine, (2014). http://www. intransitionmag.org/fall_2014/creative_placemaking.aspx [accessed November 9, 2015].

Roosevelt Row. “Business Directory,” last modified 2016. http://www. rooseveltrow.org/businessdirectory/. [accessed March 12, 2016]. Rosenberg, Robert C. “More than a Pretty Facade: Art as Community Revitalization Driver.” Journal of Housing & Community Development 62, no. 1 (January 2005): 6-11. San Diego Foundation. pARTicipate San Diego, by The San Diego Foundation (2006). https://www.pdffiller.com/44682143ArtsandCultureReportpdf-PARTicipate-San-Diego---TheSan-Diego-Foundation-Various-Fillable-Forms. [accessed on February 4, 2016].

South First Fridays. “October 2, 2015—South First Fridays Art Walk.” South First Fridays, last modified September 27, 2015. http:// www.southfirstfridays.com/ [accessed September 18, 2015]. The Humber Centre for Excellence in the Built Environment. “Arc: Working with People to Make Great Places.” http://www. arc-online.co.uk/public-realm/what-is-public-realm. [accessed September 28, 2015].

Walker, Chris. Art & Culture: Community Connections. Washington, D.C., by Urban Institute (2002). http://www.urban.org/research/ publication/arts-culture-community-connections/view/full_ report [accessed November 20, 2015]. Walker, Chris. Participation in Arts and Culture. Washington, D.C., by Urban Institute (2003). http://www.urban.org/sites/default/ files/alfresco/publication-pdfs/310795-Participation-in-Artsand-Culture.PDF [accessed November 20, 2015]. Wansborough, Matthew, and Andrea Mageean. “The Role of Urban Design in Cultural Regeneration.“ Journal of Urban Design 5, no. 2 (2000): 181-97. Wobbekind, Jessica. Phone conversation with Susana Mercado, San Jose, CA, February 25, 2016. Wolf, Thomas. Arts Plan 2000+, by The Wolf Organization (1991). http://www.racc.org/sites/default/files/Arts-Plan_Animatingour-Community-1992_Summary.pdf. [accessed March 14, 201

Appendix A: Figure Credits Cover Photo: “San Jose Subzero Festival 2014,” accessed May 8, 2016, https://www.flickr.com/photos/bike/14361136641/. Figure 3: History San Jose. “Welcome to History San Jose,” last modified http://historysanjose.org/wp/. [accessed January 10, 2016]. Figure 5: The San Francisco Women’s Building. “History & Mission,” last modified 2015. http://womensbuilding.org/about/missionhistory/. [accessed March 3, 2016]. Figure 7: San José Redevelopment Agency. South First Area Strategic Development Plan, by San José Redevelopment Agency (2002). http://www.sjredevelopment.org/PublicationsPlans/ SOFAnewplan.pdf. [accessed September 25, 2015], P. 4. Figure 9: Reddit. “Chicago Musts,” last modified 2014. https://www. reddit.com/r/chicago/comments/1g5urn/took_this_photo_in_ wicker_park/ [accessed January 9, 2016]. Figure 10: Travel Portland. “Portland Street Fairs: Take the Streets for Portland’s Many Neighborhood Street Fairs,” last modified 2015. https://www.travelportland.com/article/portland-streetfairs/ [accessed December 11, 2015]. Figure 11: Culture Oregon. “Artistic Alberta Street – Oregon Shopping Districts,” last modified 2013. http://culturaloregon.com/ artistic-alberta-street-oregon-shopping-districts/ [accessed January 10, 2016]. Figure 12: Bingham, Larry. “Milepost 5 in Northeast Portland hosts ‘Artful Affair’ with Pop-Up Shops, Holiday Events,” last modified 2011. http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2011/11/ milepost_5_in_northeast_portla.html [accessed January 20, 2016].

Figure 13: City and County of San Francisco. Mission Public Life Plan, by San Francisco Planning Department (2013). http://sf-planning. org/mission-street-public-life-plan [accessed February 12, 2016], P.13. Figure 14: Art and Architecture. “Mission District – 24th Street Mini Park, San Francisco,” last modified 2011. http://www. artandarchitecture-sf.com/mission-district-july-1-2011-24thstreet-mini-park-san-francisco.html [accessed February 3, 2016]. Figure 15: Krystalvation. “Art in RiNo (River North) in the Five Points Neighborhood, Denver,” last modified 2015. https:// krystalvation.wordpress.com/2015/10/30/art-in-rino-rivernorth-in-the-five-points-neighborhood-denver/ [accessed January 10, 2016]. Figure 16: La Vida Bonita. “A Day in North Park San Diego – The Bastion of Creativity,” last modified 2016. https://lavidabonitablog. com/2016/01/06/north-park-san-diego/ [accessed February 11, 206]. Figure 17: Brennan, Morgan. “America’s Best Hipster Neighborhoods,” Forbes Business, last modified 2012. http://www.forbes.com/ sites/morganbrennan/2012/09/20/americas-hippest-hipsterneighborhoods/#62acb183ccaa [accessed February 9, 2016]. Figure 18: Government of the District of Columbia. DUKE Development Framework for a Cultural Destination, by D.C. Office of Planning (2004). http://planning.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ op/publication/attachments/final_uptown_report.pdf_0.pdf. [accessed February 20, 2016], P.17.

Figure 19: Government of the District of Columbia. DUKE Development Framework for a Cultural Destination, by D.C. Office of Planning (2004). http://planning.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ op/publication/attachments/final_uptown_report.pdf_0.pdf. [accessed February 20, 2016], P.19. Figure 20: Roosevelt Row. “Support Local Art and Culture in Downtown Phoenix,” last modified 2016. http://www.rooseveltrow.org/ [accessed February 9, 2016].

Figure 26: Roosevelt Row. “Support Local Art and Culture in Downtown Phoenix,” last modified 2016. http://www.rooseveltrow.org/ [accessed February 9, 2016]. Back Cover Photo: “South FIRST FRIDAYS,” accessed May 8, 2016, https://www.flickr.com/photos/ramberto/3799768165/.

Figure 21: Bauch, Ellen. “Chicago Street Art,” Loyola Phoenix, last modified 2015. http://www.loyolaphoenix.com/2015/09/ chicago-street-art/ [accessed February 8, 2016]. Figure 22: China-zzaro. “Mini Mural Session: Playtime at Lexi’s Toy Box,” last modified 2012. https://chinazzaro.wordpress.com/tag/annarbor-mural/ [accessed February 18, 2016]. Figure 23: Government of the District of Columbia. DUKE Development Framework for a Cultural Destination, by D.C. Office of Planning (2004). http://planning.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ op/publication/attachments/final_uptown_report.pdf_0.pdf. [accessed February 20, 2016], P.38. Figure 24: Alderman, Julie. “Famous Faces Brighten U Street Landmark.” The GW Hatchet, last modified 2012. http://www. gwhatchet.com/2012/09/17/famous-faces-brighten-u-streetlandmark/. [accessed February 5,2016]. Figure 25: “Arts, Culture and Small Business Overlay (Acod) District.” Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, last modified January 21, 2015. http://www.codepublishing.com/az/phoenix/frameless/index. pl?path=./html/PhoenixZ06/PhoenixZ0669.html. [accessed March 10,2015].

Appendix B: Policy Analysis Appendix B: Policy Analysis San Jose Revitalization Economic Development Community Engagement Document Name

Envision San Jose 2040 GP

Envision San Jose 2040 GP Envision San Jose 2040 GP

Description AC-1.2 Attract new and cultivate existing signature events that add to the quality of life for San José residents, enhance the image of San José, and stimulate economic activity here. AC-2.1 Site public art in key locations. Prioritize innovative public art in three regional destination areas: Downtown, North San José, and the Mineta San José International Airport. Place public art at transportation hubs: pedestrian, bike and transit improvements in pedestrian priority areas; encourage the inclusion of public art at VTA and BART stations, including Diridon Station; and integrate a broad range of art projects into the trail network to connect neighborhoods bring people closer to AC-2.2 Integrate planning for public and art in other City planning nature. public art into bond-funded park,and library, efforts, Integrate including areaspecific planning processes, Urban community facility and public safety projects. Cultivate Village master planning processes. community-based art projectstothat support neighborhood AC-2.3 Explore opportunities address cultural amenities as part revitalization goals. of the private development process, including the incorporation of on or off site public art, and facilities and activities that support art and culture through a private development funding contribution AC-1.6 Support and promote Downtown as the creative urban center with sub areas or districts with a specific focus, such as SoFA (South of First Area) and the Historic District. Explore funding mechanisms that reinforce this concept. AC-1.7 Continue to revitalize and activate SoFA as Downtown’s chief creative arts and entertainment district.

Policy

x x

Priority

Goal

Envision San Jose 2040 GP

Envision San Jose 2040 GP Envision San Jose 2040 GP

AC-1.8 Explore opportunities for the creation of a permanent Downtown San José festival site. IE-5.3 Support private efforts to achieve a stronger mix of evening and late-night uses in Downtown that promote a vibrant, 24-hour City center to generate jobs, increase revenues and attract visitors and workers to San José AC-1.9 Work with property owners and developers to design new and retrofit existing structures to include spaces that can accommodate art and culture activities consistent with Building Code requirements. VN-4.1 Encourage active and personal participation by San José community members in arts and culture by nurturing the success of community arts and cultural groups. VN-4.2 Encourage the availability of diverse cultural spaces and places throughout the community that can be used for arts and cultural education, rehearsals, production, performance, and other programming. VN-4.3 Consider opportunities to include spaces that support arts and cultural activities in the planning and development of the Downtown, new Urban Village areas and other Growth Areas. VN-4.4 Promote arts and cultural activities as part of the operations of public facilities including parks, libraries and community and recreation centers. VN-4.5 Encourage and provide spaces to support neighborhood based cultural activities such as workshops, festivals, celebrations, and other events. VN-4.6 Explore development of spaces for cultural participation in San José neighborhoods. Space to explore could be City, other publicly-owned spaces, or private spaces, with the City facilitating the use of these private spaces by arts and cultural groups. VN-4.7 Create a public/private artists’ space initiative to identify and assess available space for living, working and presentation.

x x

Envision San Jose 2040 GP

LU-3.3 Support the development ofhow* Downtown as an arts, cultural, and entertainment center for San JosĂŠ and the region. Promote special events, parades, celebrations, performances, concerts, and festivals.

SoFA Redevelopment Plan 2002

Design Guidelines The SoFA advisory committee feels that it is important to develop design guidelines for SoFA which are sensitive to encouraging the evolving development of the area, and its economic needs, while being respectful of the historic nature of various structures in the area. We encourage the streamlining of the design, development, and permitting process and the creation of a new SoFA historic inventory, both of which should be implemented by a new committee with property owners and business owners, the historic community, the Downtown Association and the Chamber of Commerce, the Redevelopment Agency, and interested governmental representatives. Existing projects should continue at their current pace under the current process, the development of these guidelines should not postpone any opportunity prior to their adoption.

SoFA Redevelopment Plan 2002

Streetscape and the park Implement streetscape improvements on Market, 1st and San Salvador Streets, in particular, and complete expansion of the Parque de Los Pobladores. In addition, plan and complete the east-west urban trail connecting the South University neighborhood, SoFA, and the Market Almaden neighborhood with the Guadalupe River. Building development Ensure that underutilized and empty parcels are developed in the near and long term in SoFA. Such sites are the Dimensions site, Valley Title Block, San Carlos Development, Reed/Market and Market/Balbach Sites. Near term and longer term: In near term, plans for improving Parque de los Pobladores as well as initial streetscape designs could begin. The proposed Downtown Streetscape Master Plan lists First Street as Priority One and Market Street and San Salvador as Priority Two. First Street improvements could be complete by December 2003.

SoFA Redevelopment Plan 2002

Entertainment Closing Time a. Recommend that City evaluate change in policy regarding closing times for entertainment venues in SoFA. Evaluation should consider a 4 a.m. closure instead of the current 2 a.m. Alcoholic beverages could cease to be served at 2 a.m. and establishments could serve food and nonalcoholic drinks and be allowed to remain open for two more hours.

SoFA Redevelopment Plan 2002

Zoning a. Modify the downtown zoning ordinances to reflect the recommendations of the SoFA Strategic Development Plan, particularly related to live/work uses and parking ratios for residential rehabilitation and small dwelling units. b. Bulk retail, auto related and discount sales uses should not be encouraged in SoFA. However, to ensure that the existing uses can remain, they should be “Legal Non Conforming Uses” in a modified zoning ordinance. A legal nonconforming use is defined as “Any lawful use of land or structure, which ceases to conform to the provisions of the City of San Jose Zoning Ordinance upon a rezoning or annexation, or because of changes in the regulations in the Zoning Ordinance, shall be deemed to be a legal nonconforming use”.

SoFA Redevelopment Plan 2002

SoFA Redevelopment Plan 2002 Cultural Connection 2011 Cultural Connection 2011

Cultural Connection 2011 Cultural Connection 2011 Cultural Connection 2011 Cultural Connection 2011 Cultural Connection 2011

Cultural Connection 2011

Permitting a. Establish efficient, coordinated, and convenient permitting process for development in and around SoFA. b. Allow vendors and artists to use public space in SoFAâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;streets and x parksâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;on a permit basis. Land Use (3.2.3) a. Encourage mixed-use development with retail, food and entertainment on the street level, and with residential, office and hospitality uses on the upper levels. b. Provide housing of various types in SoFA, including artists housing, lofts and live/work dwellings, and explore the upper levels of proposed developments for residential uses. Support residents' active, personal participation in arts and culture Nurture the success of small-scale, live performing arts venues Downtown and in neighborhood business districts. Develop a comprehensive neighborhood-based initiative to identify, connect, and enhance local cultural resources on the grassroots level. Support the availability of diverse cultural spaces and places throughout the community. 16 Update inventory of facilities, venues, and spaces that can be used for cultural activities (work with 1stACT) Explore development of spaces for cultural participation in neighborhoods. Strengthen Downtown San Jose as the creative and cultural center of the Silicon Valley. Support and promote downtown San Jose as the creative urban center of Silicon Valley, with sub-areas or distrcits having a specific focus, such as the SoFA and the Historic Distrcit.

x x x x

Cultural Connection 2011 Cultural Connection 2011 Cultural Connection 2011 Cultural Connection 2011

Cultural Connection 2011 Cultural Connection 2011

Integrate high impact public art and urban design throughout the community Support public art projects in community gathering places Encourage private participation in public art, starting with downtown and North San Jose. Foster "Destination Quality" events in San Jose. Adapt the infrastructure of support for arts and culture in San Jose to address environmental challenges, reflect changes in the culture, and provide an effective platform for implementaion of this plan. Enact a private development contribution requirement to provide on - or off arts and cultural funding

x x

Chicago Revitalization Economic Development Community Engagement Document Name Chicago Cultural Plan 2012 Chicago Cultural Plan 2012

Chicago Cultural Plan 2012

Chicago Cultural Plan 2012 Chicago Cultural Plan 2012 Chicago Cultural Plan 2012

Chicago Cultural Plan 2012 Chicago Cultural Plan 2012

Chicago Cultural Plan 2012 Chicago Cultural Plan 2012 Chicago Cultural Plan 2012 Chicago Cultural Plan 2012

Chicago Cultural Plan 2012

Description Priority: Attract and retain artists and creative professionals Priority: Elevate and expand neighborhood cultural assets Priority: Optimize City policies and regulations Purpose: To realize a regulatory process that aids and inspires cultural vitality, innovation, and participation citywide. Priority: Foster cultural innovation Purpose: To sustain the mechanisms in which cultural arts and creativity translate into innovation and added value. Priority: Integrate culture into daily life Purpose: To create a mutually beneficial synergy between culture and civic efforts citywide. Expansion of Chicago Park District Arts Partners in Residence Program. Address space needs for artists and creative professionals. Update and revise zoning, building code and license regulations to encourage artist live/work/retail/coworking/ incubator spaces. Use of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) funds towards affordable artist housing and live/work spaces. Long-term leases to encourage artists and organizations to remain in cultural districts as they grow and gentrify. Guidelines and incentive programs to convert underutilized spaces for cultural uses. Do-it-yourself (DIY) galleries launched and operated by artists. Galvanize a cultural job corps that addresses citywide issues. Collaboration among artists and residents to select, fundraise, and implement street beautification projects in coordination with citywide guidelines and urban design standards

Policy

Priority

Recommendation

Initiative

x x

x x x

x x

x x x x

Chicago Cultural Plan 2012

Chicago Cultural Plan 2012 Chicago Cultural Plan 2012 Chicago Cultural Plan 2012

Chicago Cultural Plan 2012 Chicago Cultural Plan 2012

Chicago Cultural Plan 2012 Chicago Cultural Plan 2012 Chicago Cultural Plan 2012 Chicago Cultural Plan 2012 Chicago Cultural Plan 2012

Chicago Cultural Plan 2012 Chicago Cultural Plan 2012 Chicago Cultural Plan 2012

Chicago Cultural Plan 2012 Chicago Cultural Plan 2012

Chicago Cultural Plan 2012 Chicago Cultural Plan 2012 Chicago Cultural Plan 2012

Link neighborhoods to each other and to downtown. Chicago River cultural festival; events taking place at key locations along the River, in and around the River, connecting communities to culture. Enhanced transportation to and between neighborhood cultural venues. Celebrate every neighborhood's cltural expression and heritage. Designate city parks for distinctive cultural qualities by offering marketing, programming, and residencies coordinated to provide a specific niche to specific park. Expand art in public places Integration of neighborhood cultural assets - stories, artists, traditions into the design of neighborhood transportation hubs and gateways. Streamlined zoning, licenses and approvals for street vendors, performance artists and street art installations. Collaboration among chambers of commerce to integrate art throughout commercial districts and retail spaces. Art/food trucks allow temporary vehicles to sell food and art throughout the city. Temporary art installations in brown fields, along fences, overpasses, viaducts and found spaces in the city. â&#x20AC;&#x153;Neighborhood Cultural Councils,â&#x20AC;? committees of neighborhood residents organizing programs, creating spaces, events, and developing funding for culture (recommended in the 1986 Cultural Plan and still needed today). Toolkit for cultural planning, participation, and place making. Fund neighborhood cultural planning. Special Service Area guidelines and incentives to support local cultural programming and infrastructure. Increase cultural spaces in every neighborhood Revise zoning, building code and licenses to allow for cultural uses to populate vacant and underused commercial and industrial spaces and foster new districts of cultural uses. Pop-up cultural spaces in underutilized storefronts. Donation of vacant land or buildings to arts groups, artists, or community cultural groups.

x x x

x x

x x x x x

x x x

x x

x x x

Chicago Cultural Plan 2012

Chicago Cultural Plan 2012 Chicago Cultural Plan 2012 Chicago Cultural Plan 2012

Incentives to develop garden patches in underutilized, underpopulated areas. Collaboration among neighborhood spaces and parks and local cultural organization responsible for activating the space with cultural initiatives. Recognize, support, and enhance vibrant cultural districts Criteria and policies for neighborhood areas to be designated as cultural districts.

x x x

Chicago Cultural Plan 2012

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Creative Enterprise Zonesâ&#x20AC;? offering incentives for concentration of cultural organizations and spaces (recommended in 1986 Cultural Plan and still needed today). Housing allocation that preserves diversity of income levels in cultural districts. Coordinated urban design and zoning guidelines for cultural districts, specific and unique to each district. Strengthen Capacity of the Cultural Sector Strengthen all cultural organizations, big and small. Incentives to offer cultural institutions and artists with discounted insurance plans. Optimize City Policies and Regulations Distinct classification for artists, and cultural functions within permitting, zoning, and licensing. Ensure plans created by City departments explore how culture can be incorporated into their work.

Chicago Cultural Plan 2012

Percent-for-Arts Ordinance updated to reflect global best practices.

Chicago Cultural Plan 2012

Funding for culture as a percentage of infrastructure projects.

Chicago Cultural Plan 2012

Real estate development incentives towards cultural contributions. Dedicated revenue for arts and culture by exploring the augmentation of an existing tax or fee. Public Art Trust providing an alternative funding mechanism that builds an endowment to support art in public places Simplify government processes for making culture happen.

Chicago Cultural Plan 2012 Chicago Cultural Plan 2012 Chicago Cultural Plan 2012 Chicago Cultural Plan 2012 Chicago Cultural Plan 2012 Chicago Cultural Plan 2012 Chicago Cultural Plan 2012 Chicago Cultural Plan 2012

Chicago Cultural Plan 2012 Chicago Cultural Plan 2012 Chicago Cultural Plan 2012 Chicago Cultural Plan 2012 Chicago Cultural Plan 2012 Chicago Cultural Plan 2012 Chicago Cultural Plan 2012

x x x x x x x x x

x x x

Online tracker device for requests, inquiries, applications and permits. Create arts-specific, how-to guides and hold training sessions for City approvals, permits, and regulations Put applications and forms for City programs or approvals online. Focus citywide spaces and events on cultural innovation.

Chicago Cultural Plan 2012

Technology-driven public art showcasing Chicago’s focus on innovation leadership through art in public places using digital arts, computer animation, lighting and sound programming, social media, etc.

Wicker Park Master Plan

Spruce Up the Place to improve the cleanliness and appearance of WPB’s streetscapes without sterilizing them. Key area-wide recommendations include: • Undertake an annual pressure washing of corridor sidewalks (Recommendation 1.1) • Adopt eco-friendly street cleaning and landscaping practices (Recommendation 1.2) • Market the SSA’s snow removal service (Recommendation 1.3) • Introduce additional trash cans; have local artists design these trash cans (Recommendation 1.4)

Promote Local Arts to maintain WPB’s creative identity and help artists remain in the community and active in the community. Key area-wide recommendations include: • Collect and track arts housing and workspace data (Recommendation 4.1) • Support arts programs in the local schools and celebrate new spaces for arts instruction and incubator studios (Recommendation 4.5) • Create an interactive on-line map of arts resources (Recommendation 4.6) • Create a sign rebate program using artists as designers (Recommendation 4.10) • Merge streetscape design with local arts talent (Recommendation 4.14)

Wicker Park Master Plan Wicker Park Master Plan

Guide Development to manage change by embracing a proactive role in shaping WPB’s unfolding future. Key area-wide recommendations include: • Adopt an official SSA stance on density (Recommendation 5.1) • Promote Low Impact Development and green building techniques in all new construction and rehabilitation projects (Recommendation 5.2) • Actively recruit retail to fill niches (Recommendation 5.4) Foster a new arts district by converting vacant ground floor retail space into live/work space for artists Enhance the Flat Iron as WPB’s arts hub

Wicker Park Master Plan Wicker Park Master Plan

Adopt an official SSA (Special Service Area) stance on density that encourages artists’ live/ work space in vacant commercial spaces west of Damen and denser transit-oriented development near the CTA “L” Damen stop and the Bloomingdale Trail access point at Leavitt Convert parking space to café seating

Wicker Park Master Plan

x x x

x x

Wicker Park Master Plan

Develop a graphic identity and character for the CTA “L” station Celebrate the seasons in WPB with temporary streetscape improvements and events. The SSA should commission artistic and inventive seasonal decorations that tie the district together visually as a whole during certain parts of the year, while also supporting the annual arts, crafts, music, and street festivals, which celebrate the uniqueness of WPB’s local corridors or districts one at a time. Collect and track arts-housing and workspace data. Provide housing counseling for Do-It-Yourself renovations. Convert vacant ground floor retail space into Live-Work space for artists.

Wicker Park Master Plan

Develop affordable arts space in the upper floors of mixed-use buildings.

Wicker Park Master Plan

Support arts programs in the local schools and celebrate new spaces for arts instruction and incubator studios.

Wicker Park Master Plan Wicker Park Master Plan Wicker Park Master Plan

x x x x

Create a sign rebate program using local artists as designers. Develop a program to subsidize the design and installation of store signage. Wicker Park Master Plan

Wicker Park Master Plan

Wicker Park Master Plan Wicker Park Master Plan Wicker Park Master Plan

x Create roving galleries by integrating art in local stores. Poll corridor banks and businesses to determine their interest in displaying artworks made by local artists and designers on the walls of their bank, shop, salon, restaurant, office, etc. Enhance the Flat Iron as WPBâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s arts hub. Financially support the efforts of the Flat Iron Artists to promote the local arts, Introduce new public art. Introduce new works of public art Merge streetscape design with local arts talent. Commission new streetscape furniture from local artists. Develop a graphic identity and character for each station. 224 Work with the CTA, the local community, and artists to

x x x

Wicker Park Master Plan

Chicago Cultural Plan 2012 Chicago Cultural Plan 2012 Chicago Cultural Plan 2012 Chicago Cultural Plan 2012 Chicago Cultural Plan 2012

Chicago Cultural Plan 2012 Chicago Cultural Plan 2012

Chicago Cultural Plan 2012

x P. 12 Priority: Facilitate neighborhood planning of cultural activity Purpose: To strengthen the role of residents in ongoing cultural planning. Maximize peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s opportunity to participate in arts and culture Improved use of existing cultural centers in neighborhoods to enhance cultural participation. Neighborhood involvement in the selection and installation of local public art and art in public places. Support grassroots cultural planning in the neighborhoods Dedicated festival site(s) to be used for large-scale festivals and events (including permanent vendor booths, indoor and outdoor facilities). Encourage cultural and non-cultural sectors to work together. Priority: Strengthen Chicago as a global cultural destination Purpose: To strengthen Chicagoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s regional and international brand through its cultural assets.

x x x x x

x x

Portland Revitalization Economic Development Community Engagement Document Name

A Vision of Portland's Future: Comprehensive Plan

Description Provide a part of the construction cost of public projects for the purchase and installation of art. Create incentives for the provision of public art as part of private development projects.

A Vision of Portland's Future: Comprehensive Plan

Emphasize important places, transitions and gateways within Portland by celebrating them with works of art. Use art to add interest to the experience of the City’s citizens and to accent locations such as transit stations, sidewalks, streets, parks and building lobbies that are visited by many people.

A Vision of Portland's Future: Comprehensive Plan

Foster the growth of the public art collection within Portland that is part of our legacy to the City’s future.

A Vision of Portland's Future: Comprehensive Plan

Encourage investment in the development, redevelopment, rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of urban land and buildings for employment and housing opportunities.

A Vision of Portland's Future: Comprehensive Plan

Define and develop Portland’s cultural, historic, recreational, educational and environmental assets as important marketing and image-building tools of the city’s business districts and neighborhoods. Promote and enhance the special character and identity of Portland’s designated commercial areas.

A Vision of Portland's Future: Comprehensive Plan Arts and Culture Portland Plan 2011

Support public and private improvements and maintenance actions which help enhance a commercial area’s identity and provide a safe and attractive physical environment. Strengthen Cultural Infrastructure

A Vision of Portland's Future: Comprehensive Plan

Arts and Culture Portland Plan 2011

Help art spaces flourish: Support public and private efforts that make our region’s performance and exhibition venues, rehearsal and office spaces, studios, and live/work sites more exciting, more affordable and more accessible. Consider creating arts and cultural overlay zones: Use zoning overlays to promote and sustain arts districts. Ensure that arts overlay zones are consistent with other district zoning regulations and that incentives for arts related uses are not precluded by other provisions of zoning. Commercial and nonprofit cultural organizations could benefit from clustered office spaces, rehearsal and performance spaces, retail boutiques and galleries, and studio living spaces for individual artists.

Policy

Objective

Recommendation

x x

Arts and Culture Portland Plan 2011

Encourage neighborhoods to develop their own cultural plans: Support neighborhoods in the development of cultural plans by creating public/private partnerships and collaborations between individual communities and artists. Doing so will help to create identities for neighborhoods and a pride-of-place.

Arts and Culture Portland Plan 2011

Support temporary reuse of vacant buildings: Temporary installations and art exhibits within vacant or underutilized storefronts can maintain visual interest for the public. Invest in Creative Talent Support Artists: Eliminate barriers and support the basic needs of artists and other creative professionals in the region.

Arts Plan: Animating Our Community 1992

Support individual artists: artists are the creative foundation of our community. Arts Plan proposes more financial support and opportunities for artists to present their work.

Arts and Culture Portland Plan 2011 Arts and Culture Portland Plan 2011

x x x

Arts Plan: Animating Our Community 1992

Increase public and private investment to protext our existing investment, meet new opportunities, expand education and access to all. Explore opportunities to develop and sell arts-related products that promote the arts of the are and provide support to local artists.

Arts Plan: Animating Our Community 1992

Create "arts incubators" for small and emerging arts organizations, especially multi-cultural and underserved groups, through business/arts partnerships.

Arts Plan: Animating Our Community 1992

Appoint an ad hoc group of the Arts Plan 2000 steering committee to monitor the creation of the regional arts council and the leadership group. Create Artists Trust, a private, independent non-profit corporation, to provide grants and advocacy for individual artists.

Arts Plan: Animating Our Community 1992

Investigate a one-time, public/private funding initiative to financially stabilize arts organizations that would not compete with individual organizations' fundraising campaigns.

Arts Plan: Animating Our Community 1992

Expand the definition of public art to include works of limited duration, and performing arts, literature, historical documentation, film, and video projects.

Arts Plan: Animating Our Community 1992

Reduce rent and use fees to arts organizatoins at PCPA and provide analogous support to arts organizations which own and operate their own facilities.

Alberta Streetscape Plan 2000

Focused more on multimodal improvements. (custom pavers that incorporate public art and art in street furniture). Recommendations for public art are made as well.

Albina Communiy Plan 1993

Enhance the Albina Area with attractive and well maintained parks and open spaces. Ensure that open space and recreation facilities in the Albina Community meet the needs of present and future residents. Develop green link between Albina's parks and recreational facilities, its residential areas, a City-wide system of green spaces and nearby natural areas.

Arts Plan: Animating Our Community 1992

x x

Albina Communiy Plan 1993

Foster development of distinct, well-anchored commercial, institutional and industrial nodes and centers that serve the needs of the community, atrract shoppers from throughout the region and take advantage of the close proximity of the district to the Central City, Oregon Convention Center and Columbia Corridor. Ensure that institutions have opportunities for growth that meet their needs. Support the expanding and new industrial firms that provide family wage jobs to Alibina Community residents. Protect residential neighborhoods from negative impacts associated with commercial, institutioanl and/or industrial growth.

Albina Communiy Plan 1993

Business Growth and Development: Develop a permanent facility where Albina crafts-people, artisans, and new businesses can display and market locally produced goods and services. (P.43).

Albina Communiy Plan 1993

Build a positive identity for the Albina Community throughout the metropolitan area. Reinforce Albina's identity as a part of Portland and celebrate its special diverse architectural and cultural character. Provide opportunities for people outside of the district to experience the positive characteristics of the Albina Community. Strengthen the Albina Community's sense of place through the promotion of its art, history, and culture (P.79)

Albina Communiy Plan 1993 Albina Communiy Plan 1993

Improve the physical appearance of Albina, enhance the desirable and distinctive characteristics of the Albina community and its individual residential, commercial and employment districts. Strenghten visual and physical connections to the rest of the city. Mark transition into nieghborhoods and districts. Create a safe and pleasant environment for pedestrians. Strengthen the pattern of green that exists throughout the Albina Community (P.80) Protect the rich historic, cultural and architectural heritage of the Albina Community for its residents, workers, and visitors (P.81).

A Vision of Portland's Future: Comprehensive Plan

Infrastructure Development Promote public and private investments in public infrastructure to foster economic development in Council-designated target areas. Facilitate the development of attractions that will generate new investment, spending and tourism.

Arts and Culture Portland Plan 2011

Buy Local: Increase the purchase of locally produced art and create more cultural consumers. Support collaborations that help the entire creative services sector thrive.

A Vision of Portland's Future: Comprehensive Plan

Arts and Culture Portland Plan 2009 Arts and Culture Portland Plan 2009

Incorporate different art forms into the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s streets, laneways and public spaces: Encouraging Portlandersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; use of public space, including outdoor dining, entertainment, street theatre, and new media showcases and art displays. Promoting and activating public spaces can energize entire districts by getting more people out of their cars and onto public sidewalks or plazas. Integrate more artwork into City building projects that are compatible with their settings. Increase Access to the Public: Provide more free and reduced-cost arts and culture experiences for the citizens of the region.

x x

Arts and Culture Portland Plan 2011 Arts Plan: Animating Our Community 1992

Network: Create opportunities for artists to network with other creatives, supporters, and consumers â&#x20AC;&#x201C; locally, nationally and internationally. Create a world-class international arts festival emerging from leadership of existing festivals and arts organizations.

x x

San Francisco Revitalization Economic Development Community Engagement Document Name 1996 SF Master Plan 1996 SF Master Plan 1996 SF Master Plan

Description OBJECTIVE I-1 RECOGNIZE THE ARTS AS NECESSARY TO THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ALL SEGMENTS OF SAN FRANCISCO. POLICY I-1.2 Officially recognize on a regular basis the contributions arts make to the quality of life in San Francisco. POLICY I-3.2 Maintain arts policy coordination activities as a function of the Arts Commission within City government. POLICY I-3.3 Strive for the highest standards of design of public buildings and grounds and structures placed in the public right of way.Public buildings should set the standard for design quality in the City, not only because of their civic importance, but also because insistence on good design in private buildings is undermined if public design is mediocre.

Policy

x x x

Items placed in the public right of way, such as flower stands, bus shelters, newspaper racks, benches, light poles, also play an important role in creating a design image of the City. They should be designed with their visual quality, as well as their efficiency and ease of maintenance, in mind. Many public projects are subject to design review by multiple city agencies. The Arts Commission reviews the design of buildings and structures on city property. The Department of City Planning reviews the same projects for conformity to the City's Master Plan, including the Urban Design Element and other design policies. The sponsoring department - in the case of a public building, or the Department of Public Works - in the case of public right of way, must also approve the design of a project. Each agency uses its own design standards in a separate and independent review, resulting in confusion and conflict 1996 SF Master Plan 1996 SF Master Plan

x GOAL II. RECOGNIZE AND SUSTAIN THE DIVERSITY OF THE CULTURAL EXPRESSIONS OF ART IN SAN FRANCISCO POLICY III-1.3 Protect and assist in the creation of artists' live/work spaces. San Francisco's live/work legislation has paved the way for development of combined living and working spaces for artists. The actual development of those spaces, however, is complex, time-consuming, and expensive. The ArtHouse project of the San Francisco Arts Commission and California Lawyers for the Arts was conceived as a clearinghouse for live/work listings, information, technical assistance and advocacy. ArtHouse also assists in developing new spaces. The program receives no City funding outside of in-kind services form the Arts Commission (office space, telephone) and is supported by the California Arts Council and private foundations. Similar efforts in other cities tend to fall under community development definition and receive Community Development Block Grant funding. In most other cities with live/work programs, those spaces are considered to be "affordable housing" and are therefore eligible for federal and/or state funding.

To protect and create artists' live/work spaces, City resources should be allocated to support the formal efforts to develop affordable live/work space. The City should remain committed to the development of live/work units by urging the inclusion of live/work spaces in planned developments 1996 SF Master Plan

Objective

POLICY III-1.5 Include the participation of artists in City capital improvements and public works projects which do not fall under current Percent for Art programs. Background

1996 SF Master Plan

Artists are innovators. They approach situations in an unconventional manner and arrive at solutions which are often creative and economical. The artists should be considered essential parts of a collaborative process when the City undertakes many capital improvement and public works projects which, when approached conventionally, yield conventional solutions. Signage, street furniture, manhole covers, and lighting fixtures are among the kinds of public works projects in which artists could contribute their unique vision.

1996 SF Master Plan

OBJECTIVE III-2 STRENGTHEN THE CONTRIBUTION OF ARTS ORGANIZATIONS TO THE CREATIVE LIFE AND VITALITY OF SAN FRANCISCO.

POLICY III-2.2 Assist in the improvement of arts organizations' facilities and access in order to enhance the quality and quantity of arts offerings. Background

1996 SF Master Plan

Many city-owned arts facilities in San Francisco require extensive capital improvements if they are to continue to perform the functions for which they were constructed or purchased. The neighborhood cultural centers and the outdoor arts spaces under the jurisdiction of Recreation and Parks are primary examples. The level of funding needed requires exploration of new sources of revenue.

1996 SF Master Plan

OBJECTIVE V-1 INSURE THAT CITY FUNDING SUPPORTS THE DELIVERY OF SERVICES TO THE BROADEST POSSIBLE SPECTRUM OF THE COMMUNITY. OBJECTIVE V-3 DEVELOP AND EXPAND ONGOING PARTNERSHIPS WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN SUPPORT OF THE ARTS.

1996 SF Master Plan

OBJECTIVE VI-1 SUPPORT THE CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT AND PRESERVATION OF ARTISTS' AND ARTS ORGANIZATIONS' SPACES.

1996 SF Master Plan

x x

POLICY VI-1.1 Review, revise and coordinate city permit policies and codes to better meet the needs of the arts. Background

1996 SF Master Plan

Artists spaces, like all structures, are subject to City Building and Safety codes. With the notable exception of live/work spaces, the arts are generally not called out as specific uses in city Building and Safety codes. A formal review of building and safety codes as they affect the arts should be undertaken with the intent of determining whether the current use definitions and subsequent codes are sufficient to address the specific needs of the arts. Arts facilities and activities must often "fit" into a classification which is not wholly appropriate, and are then required to apply for permits of exception in order to comply with regulations. The permit process can be onerous and time consuming for artists and arts organizations, especially recognizing the complexity of the code compliance process.

POLICY VI-1.2 Support and expand programs directed at enabling arts organizations and artists to comply with City building and safety codes and to rehabilitate arts spaces. Background

1996 SF Master Plan

The City of San Francisco currently makes funds available to arts organizations and artists for code compliance purposes through a grants program administered through Grants for the Arts and through the Non-Profit Performing Arts Loan Program, administered by the Mayor's Office of Housing. Under specific conditions, funds are available to arts organizations for rehabilitation and renovation of arts facilities through Grants for the Arts and the Mayor's Office of Community Development. Loans for these same purposes are administered by the Mayor's Office of Housing. The City should continue to support and expand these programs to meet increasing needs. POLICY VI-1.3 Increase the use of City owned neighborhood facilities for the arts. POLICY VI-1.4 Preserve existing performing spaces in San Francisco.

1996 SF Master Plan

POLICY VI-1.5 Develop and maintain a mid-sized downtown performing arts facility available to community-based, culturally diverse arts groups easily accessible to visitors.

1996 SF Master Plan 1996 SF Master Plan

x x x

POLICY VI-1.8 Include arts spaces in new public construction when appropriate. Background As public buildings are constructed or renovated, their potential for use as arts spaces should be a primary consideration. Arts use should be viewed broadly, and include consideration of performances, live/work, exhibition, rehearsal, meeting, administrative, and classroom spaces, in spaces not normally thought of as arts spaces.

1996 SF Master Plan

The inclusion of artists spaces in new construction does not necessarily mean increased expense, but often is simply a different viewing of construction options, especially if conceived of in the initial planning for the building. To create space which is suitable for arts use could be as simple as modifying the plans for an existing plaza so that it can be used as a performance space, or including gallery lighting in a lobby area so that it becomes an exhibition space.

POLICY VI-1.9 Create opportunities for private developers to include arts spaces in private developments city-wide. Background

1996 SF Master Plan

The City should take the lead in creating new incentives to promote the inclusion of arts facilities in private development, such as the following: adjustments to floor area ratios if nonprofit arts spaces are included in the development; taxes deferred or accrued; special financial mechanisms developed; or code or zoning variances given in exchange for including "cultural amenities" in land development projects.

POLICY VI-1.10 Assist artists and arts organizations in attaining ownership or long-term control of arts spaces. Background

1996 SF Master Plan

Artists are displaced for two primary reasons: the economics of the neighborhood or community have changed and they are unable to continue to afford to live or work there, or the actual spaces in which they live and/or work are destroyed, altered, or incorporated because of new development. Artists and arts organizations must be protected from displacement to avoid a recurrence of the exodus of artists from North Beach, for example. Displacement could be controlled if artists and arts organizations own or possess long-term leases on their facilities

1996 SF Master Plan

POLICY VI-1.11 Identify, recognize, and support existing arts clusters and, wherever possible, encourage the development of clusters of arts facilities and arts related businesses throughout the city. Further, cluster development has an economic development value. Arts-related businesses and commercial, retail, and hospitality establishments, finding a ready market for their goods and services, often locate and prosper in arts cluster developments. OBJECTIVE VI-2 INCREASE OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC ART THROUGHOUT THE CITY.

1996 SF Master Plan

POLICY VI-2.2 Protect, maintain and preserve existing art work in the City Collection and art required by ordinance. There are also "public" art works in the city which do not fall under the City's purview, but which because of their location and/or history, are integral elements of the City's character and visual scenery. Many of those artworks are owned privately. These include art required by the San Francisco Percent for Art ordinances. The City should actively work with property owners to assist them in working with artists and the community to preserve these artworks and in complying with California statutes regarding destruction or moving of artwork.

Mission Area Plan

OBJECTIVE 1.1 STRENGTHEN THE MISSIONâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S EXISTING MIXED USE CHARACTER, WHILE MAINTAINING THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS A PLACE TO LIVE AND WORK

Mission Area Plan

POLICY 1.1.1 Revise land use controls in some portions of the Northeast Mission Industrial Zone to stabilize and promote PDR activities, as well as the arts, by prohibiting construction of new housing and limiting the amount of office and retail uses that can be introduced. Also place limitations on heavier industrial activities which may not be appropriate for the Mission

Mission Area Plan

POLICY 1.1.2 Revise land use controls in portions of the Northeast Mission Industrial Zone outside the core industrial area to create new mixed use areas, allowing mixed income housing as a principal use, as well as limited amounts of retail, office, and research and development uses, while protecting against the wholesale displacement of PDR uses.

Mission Area Plan

POLICY 1.1.3 Maintain the successful Mission Street, 24th Street, and Valencia Street Neighborhood Commercial districts; recognize the proximity to good transit service by eliminating residential density limits and minimum parking requirements.

Mission Area Plan

POLICY 1.1.4 In higher density residential areas of the Mission, recognize proximity to good transit service by eliminating density limits and minimum parking requirements; permit small neighborhood-serving retail.

Mission Area Plan

POLICY 1.1.6 Permit and encourage small and moderate size retail establishments in neighborhood commercial areas of the Mission, while allowing larger retail in the formerly industrial areas when part of a mixed-use development.

1996 SF Master Plan

x x

100

Mission Area Plan

POLICY 1.1.9 Maximize active ground floor uses that open to the BART plazas in any redevelopment of the parcels surrounding the plazas.

Mission Area Plan

OBJECTIVE 1.2 IN AREAS OF THE MISSION WHERE HOUSING AND MIXED-USE IS ENCOURAGED, MAXIMIZE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL IN KEEPING WITH NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER

Mission Area Plan

OBJECTIVE 1.3 INSTITUTE FLEXIBLE “LEGAL NONCONFORMING USE” PROVISIONS TO ENSURE A CONTINUED MIX OF USES IN THE MISSION

Mission Area Plan

POLICY 1.3.1 Continue existing, legal nonconforming rules, which permit pre-existing establishments to remain legally even if they no longer conform to new zoning provisions, as long as the use was legally established in the first place. POLICY 1.3.2 Provide flexibility for legal housing units to continue in districts where housing is no longer permitted.

Mission Area Plan

POLICY 1.3.3 Recognize desirable existing uses in the former industrial areas which would no longer be permitted by the new zoning, and afford them appripriate opportunities to establish a continuing legal presence.

Mission Area Plan

OBJECTIVE 1.7 RETAIN THE MISSION’S ROLE AS AN IMPORTANT LOCATION FOR PRODUCTION, DISTRIBUTION AND REPAIR (PDR) ACTIVITIES.

Mission Area Plan

POLICY 1.7.1 In areas designated for PDR, protect the stock of existing buildings used by, or appropriate for, PDR businesses by restricting conversions of industrial buildings to other building types and discouraging the demolition of sound PDR buildings.

Mission Area Plan

x x

Mission Area Plan

POLICY 1.7.2 Ensure that any future rezoning of areas within PDR districts is proposed within the context of periodic evaluation of the city’s needs for PDR space. OBJECTIVE 1.8 MAINTAIN AND STRENGTHEN THE MISSION’S NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AREAS

Mission Area Plan

POLICY 1.8.1 Direct new mixed-use residential development to the Mission’s neighborhood commercial districts to take advantage of the transit and services available in those areas.

Mission Area Plan

POLICY 1.8.2 Ensure that the Mission’s neighborhood commercial districts continue to serve the needs of residents, including immigrant and low-income households.

Mission Area Plan

x x

Mission Area Plan

OBJECTIVE 2.1 ENSURE THAT A SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE OF NEW HOUSING CREATED IN THE MISSION IS AFFORDABLE TO PEOPLE WITH A WIDE RANGE OF INCOMES POLICY 2.1.2 Provide land and funding for the construction of new housing affordable to very low- and low-income households.

Mission Area Plan

POLICY 2.1.3 Provide units that are affordable to households at moderate and “middle incomes” – working households earning above traditional below-market-rate thresholds but still well below what is needed to buy a market-priced home, with restrictions to ensure affordability continues.

Mission Area Plan

POLICY 2.1.4 Allow single-resident occupancy hotels (SROs) and “efficiency” units to continue to be an affordable type of dwelling option, and recognize their role as an appropriate source of housing for small households.

Mission Area Plan

101

x x

Mission Area Plan

POLICY 2.3.6 Establish an impact fee to be allocated towards an Eastern Neighborhoods Public Benefit Fund to mitigate the impacts of new development on transit, pedestrian, bicycle, and street improvements, park and recreational facilities, and community facilities such as libraries, child care and other neighborhood services in the area.

Mission Area Plan

OBJECTIVE 3.1 PROMOTE AN URBAN FORM THAT REINFORCES THE MISSION’S DISTINCTIVE PLACE IN THE CITY’S LARGER FORM AND STRENGTHENS ITS PHYSICAL FABRIC AND CHARACTER

POLICY 3.1.9 Preserve notable landmarks and areas of historic, architectural or aesthetic value, and promote the preservation of other buildings and features that provide continuity with past development.

Mission Area Plan

Important historic buildings cannot be replaced if destroyed. Their rich palette of materials and architectural styles imparts a unique identity to a neighborhood and provides valuable additions to the public realm. The Mission, as do the other inner-ring neighborhoods with an industrial past, demonstrates how adaptive reuse of historic buildings can provide a unique, identifiable, and highly enjoyed public place. Historic or otherwise notable buildings and districts should be celebrated, preserved in place, and not degraded in quality. See the Historic Preservation section of this area plan for specific preservation policies.

Mission Area Plan

OBJECTIVE 3.2 PROMOTE AN URBAN FORM AND ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER THAT SUPPORTS WALKING AND SUSTAINS A DIVERSE, ACTIVE AND SAFE PUBLIC REALM POLICY 3.2.4 Strengthen the relationship between a building and its fronting sidewalk.

Mission Area Plan

POLICY 3.2.8 Recognize the distinctive Mission murals and expand the opportunities for new murals as well as other public art by providing space such as visible and publicly accessible walls in new construction adjacent to or near the murals to allow for these art traditions to thrive and continue, and by ensuring new construction does not obstruct, demolish, damage or otherwise diminish the Mission murals and other public art.

Mission Area Plan

Mission Area Plan Mission Area Plan Mission Area Plan

Mission Area Plan Mission Area Plan Mission Area Plan Mission Area Plan

Mission Area Plan Mission Area Plan

OBJECTIVE 5.3 CREATE A NETWORK OF GREEN STREETS THAT CONNECTS OPEN SPACES AND IMPROVES THE WALKABILITY, AESTHETICS AND ECOLOGICAL SUSTAINABILITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. OBJECTIVE 5.4 THE OPEN SPACE SYSTEM SHOULD BOTH BEAUTIFY THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND STRENGTHEN THE ENVIRONMENT POLICY 5.4.3 Encourage public art in existing and proposed open spaces. POLICY 7.1.2 Recognize the value of existing facilities, including recreational and cultural facilities, and support their expansion and continued use. OBJECTIVE 7.3 REINFORCE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE MISSION AS THE CENTER OF LATINO LIFE IN SAN FRANCISCO POLICY 7.3.1 Support efforts to preserve and enhance social and cultural institutions. POLICY 7.3.2 Encourage the creation of new social and cultural facilities in the Mission area. POLICY 7.3.3 Protect and support Latino and other culturally significant local business, structures, property and institutions in the Mission. OBJECTIVE 8.1 IDENTIFY AND EVALUATE HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES WITHIN THE MISSION PLAN AREA

x x x

x x x x

x x

102

Mission Area Plan

Mission Area Plan Mission Area Plan

Mission Area Plan 1996 SF Master Plan

POLICY 8.1.2 Pursue formal designation of the Mission’s historic and cultural resources, as appropriate. POLICY 8.2.1 Protect individually significant historic and cultural resources and historic districts in the Mission plan area from demolition or adverse alteration. POLICY 8.2.3 Promote and offer incentives for the rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of historic buildings in the Mission plan area.

Mission Area Plan

1996 SF Master Plan

x x

OBJECTIVE 8.6 FOSTER PUBLIC AWARENESS AND APPRECIATION OF HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES WITHIN THE MISSION PLAN AREA OBJECTIVE I-2 INCREASE THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE ARTS TO THE ECONOMY OF SAN FRANCISCO. POLICY I-2.1 Encourage and promote opportunities for the arts and artists to contribute to the economic development of San Francisco.

1996 SF Master Plan

x x

x POLICY I-2.2 Continue to support and increase the promotion of the arts and arts activities throughout the City for the benefit of visitors, tourists, and residents.

OBJECTIVE 6.1 SUPPORT THE ECONOMIC WELLBEING OF A VARIETY OF BUSINESSES IN THE EASTERN NEIGHBORHOODS POLICY I-1.1 Promote inclusion of artistic considerations in local decision-making. In the design of the physical environment, artistic values should be recognized as an element to be considered as well as function, cost, and environmental impact. The talent and perspective of artists should be integrated into the planning, designing and building of San Francisco to promote the highest artistic standards for the City

OBJECTIVE II-1 INSURE REPRESENTATIVE PARTICIPATION OF THE CITY POPULATION IN ARTS DECISION-MAKING AND PROGRAMMING. 1996 SF Master Plan

1996 SF Master Plan

POLICY II-1.1 Actively recruit and include representative populations in City agencies and bodies which deal with arts (e.g., funding, promotion, programming, arts policy, selection of art or artists, facilities development and use).

1996 SF Master Plan

POLICY V-1.1 Provide the greatest possible public input into considerations regarding arts funding.

1996 SF Master Plan

POLICY V-3.1 Develop partnerships with the private sector and the business community to encourage monetary and non-monetary support of the arts, as well as sponsorships of arts organizations and events.

Mission Area Plan Mission Area Plan

103

POLICY 5.3.1 Redesign underutilized portions of streets as public open spaces, including widened sidewalks or medians, curb bulbouts, “living streets” or green connector streets. Policy 8.6.1 Encourage public participation in the identification of historic and cultural resources within the Mission plan area.

x x

Denver Revitalization Economic Development Community Engagement Document Name Comprehensive Plan 2000

Description Support and promote a flourishing artistic community.

Policy

Goal

Objective x

Strategy Vision

Comprehensive Plan 2000

A Create a vision for Denver as a flourishing artistic and cultural community by helping build a coalition among interested stakeholders, including City agencies; arts, cultural and scientific organizations; educational institutions; foundation and corporate funders; and businesses. Maintain a major funding base for the arts by strongly supporting reauthorization of the SCFD in 2006.

Comprehensive Plan 2000

Ensure that existing City-owned arts and cultural venues, such as Red Rocks Amphitheatre and the Auditorium Theater, are funded, operated and maintained adequately to meet projected needs.

Comprehensive Plan 2000

Help public cultural facilities to expand responsibly and ensure that they are integrated with their surrounding communities.

Comprehensive Plan 2000

Work with arts and culture organizations to develop and assess arts and cultural facilities, inventory existing facilities, and plan for current and long-term needs.

Comprehensive Plan 2000

Support further growth, strengthening and development of private and nonprofit arts organizations and institutions capable of owning and maintaining artistic and cultural facilities. Whenever appropriate, support the use of public facilities within neighborhoods, including parks and recreation centers, by neighborhood artists and arts and cultural groups needing space for exhibitions, performances and classes.

Comprehensive Plan 2000

Review City regulation of arts and cultural facilities and services, and remove unnecessary barriers to artsrelated enterprise.

Comprehensive Plan 2000

Include artistic and cultural organizations, institutions and businesses in business recruitment and retention efforts.

Comprehensive Plan 2000

104

Comprehensive Plan 2000

Support the development of strategic alliances to: ❙ market Denver’s arts and cultural offerings regionally and nationally through a centralized approach; ❙ promote collaborative audience development; and ❙ provide technical assistance for stronger administration.

Comprehensive Plan 2000

Broaden the scope, richness and attachment to the arts in Denver by encouraging ethnic diversity in cultural expression.

Comprehensive Plan 2000

Continue to encourage the expression of Denver’s ethnic diversity, history and cultural heritage through a full range of cultural and artistic activities.

Comprehensive Plan 2000

Integrate diverse cultural and artistic perspectives into the City’s public decision-making about arts and cultural matters.

Comprehensive Plan 2000

Value the arts within the civic realm.

Comprehensive Plan 2000

Continue Denver’s “One Percent for the Arts” program and encourage adoption of this model by other public and private entities.

Comprehensive Plan 2000

Promote artistic distinction by setting high standards for design excellence in the construction and renovation of all City buildings, structures and monuments.

Comprehensive Plan 2000

Showcase and incorporate the work of artists into City activities such as wall displays, public information efforts and special events.

Create a program to support small- and medium-sized businesses, bolstering Denver as the best place for businesses to thrive *Cultivate new business clusters (e.g. alternative energy) *Support start-ups Sponsor a national small business conference Denver Downtown Area Plan 2007 IMAGINE 2020: Denver’s Cultural Plan IMAGINE 2020: Denver’s Cultural Plan IMAGINE 2020: Denver’s Cultural Plan

105

Arts, culture and creativity are fully integrated into daily life, work and play in Denver. Arts, culture and creativity are amplified in Denver – and amplify the city to the world. Maximize use of city-owned facilities and other assets to expand arts programs and activation

x x x

IMAGINE 2020: Denver’s Cultural Plan

Infuse arts, culture and creativity into bike paths, pedestrian walking areas, roads and other transit modes

IMAGINE 2020: Denver’s Cultural Plan

Ignite physical public spaces with arts, culture and creativity-driven information and media, including areas such as Denver International Airport, Denver Public Library and Colorado Convention Center Activate the collection of more than 330 public artworks with events and activities

IMAGINE 2020: Denver’s Cultural Plan

Launch a 21st century public art program that is flexible, mobile, culturally competent and locally cultivated

IMAGINE 2020: Denver’s Cultural Plan

IMAGINE 2020: Denver’s Cultural Plan IMAGINE 2020: Denver’s Cultural Plan

IMAGINE 2020: Denver’s Cultural Plan

Expand artistic space, activities and programs in businesses and commercial properties (includes privately owned open spaces, apartments, hotels, retail, office buildings, and hospitals)

IMAGINE 2020: Denver’s Cultural Plan

Educate businesses and property owners on ways to integrate arts, culture and creativity into their priorities and plans through a suite of online resources (e.g., toolkit, howto guides and success stories of local businesses in action). To include arts installations, programs and activation

IMAGINE 2020: Denver’s Cultural Plan

Explore tax incentives and similar tools for businesses and developers to integrate creative space, arts programs and activation into their priorities and plans

IMAGINE 2020: Denver’s Cultural Plan IMAGINE 2020: Denver’s Cultural Plan IMAGINE 2020: Denver’s Cultural Plan

Re-write the Public Art Policy to incorporate and address: • Temporary art options, parameters, and mediums • Mural policy related to zoning code • Designated areas for rotating art (e.g. Art on the Corners) or community-curated art • “Lifespan” of public art • Include other elements that align with IMAGINE 2020 Change zoning and ordinances to accommodate temporary art and other art forms, including digital Influence array of arts offerings to include sensory arts and other forms that increase engagement with diverse communities Incorporate arts, culture and creativity into city plans, permits and codes Require inclusions of arts, culture and creativity into General Development Plans Add an arts, culture and creativity component to relevant Neighborhood Plans Integrate and align IMAGINE 2020 efforts across city departments

IMAGINE 2020: Denver’s Cultural Plan

x x

x x x x

106

IMAGINE 2020: Denver’s Cultural Plan

Expand artistic space, activities and programs in nontraditional venues

IMAGINE 2020: Denver’s Cultural Plan

Offer development incentives and micro-grants to mobilize action • Consider programs such as tactical urbanism grants, tax incentives, and other alternatives to incentives and credits

IMAGINE 2020: Denver’s Cultural Plan IMAGINE 2020: Denver’s Cultural Plan

Foster pop-up, urban, and culturally diverse events • Educate the general public about alternative art forms • Encourage homeowners to think of their properties as arts canvases and arts spaces through online resources and outreach • Expand use of common consumption areas to increase attendance and revenue at events • Create simple, straightforward permitting processes thus opening opportunities for “pop-up” events • Build a network of these artistic and creative individuals for professional and business development Increase access to arts, culture and creativity in underresourced neighborhoods

IMAGINE 2020: Denver’s Cultural Plan

Infuse neighborhoods with arts, culture and creativity • Maximize use of all city facilities and assets to bring arts programs and activation activities to each neighborhood, including parks, recreation centers, libraries and other facilities • Recognize and celebrate artistic and creative professionals who live in these neighborhoods • Foster use of available and appropriate real estate for studio and living spaces for artists. (Align with affordable and accessible spaces goal in Vision 5) • Develop and maximize use of Arts Enterprise Zones (See Vision 6) • Deploy the Public Art collection to these neighborhoods (See Vision 1) Establish emerging artist opportunities through public art program

IMAGINE 2020: Denver’s Cultural Plan

Offer temporary/rotational locations to showcase emerging artists (example: Denver International Airport’s “Cloudscape” on Peña Boulevard)

IMAGINE 2020: Denver’s Cultural Plan

Increase availability of and preserve affordability of accessible spaces for artistic and creative professionals to live, work and perform

IMAGINE 2020: Denver’s Cultural Plan

107

x x

IMAGINE 2020: Denver’s Cultural Plan

Assess feasibility of live/work space in North Denver with help from Artspace

IMAGINE 2020: Denver’s Cultural Plan

Explore land use policies and incentives that support affordability, preservation, and access, especially in art & creative districts Inventory all arts, cultural, and creative enterprises for policy and messaging purposes

IMAGINE 2020: Denver’s Cultural Plan

- Fuel development of art & creative districts as a backbone of Denver’s creative industries and placemaking activities

IMAGINE 2020: Denver’s Cultural Plan

Consider enterprise zones as a model for incentivizing arts-related development in cultural deserts, art & creative districts Explore Rent Control regulations and other tools to preserve affordability and prevent displacement Provide financial support and incentives via public, private and philanthropic sources

IMAGINE 2020: Denver’s Cultural Plan

Explore fee structures similar to 1% for public art that provide sustainable funding for programs, policies and initiatives • Explore 1% for Art model for private development on city-owned property (example: Airport City and development along the commuter rail line to Denver International Airport)

IMAGINE 2020: Denver’s Cultural Plan

Explore arts enterprise zones as a means to incentivize artistic and creative professionals to locate in underresourced neighborhoods

Golden Triangle Neighborhood Plan

Identify opportunities for private partners, including business owners, property developers, cultural institutions, and future special districts, to fund and maintain public spaces including plazas, parklets, and public art.

Golden Triangle Neighborhood Plan

Update existing regulations, including Public Works Rules and Regulations, the City’s Public Art Program, and Design Guidelines for the Golden Triangle and Civic Center, that are specific to public space and public art to make them consistent with the vision and goals.

IMAGINE 2020: Denver’s Cultural Plan IMAGINE 2020: Denver’s Cultural Plan

Golden Triangle Neighborhood Plan Golden Triangle Neighborhood Plan

x x x

Update and streamline existing public event, block party, and temporary street closure regulations and permitting to encourage arts and culture programming and activities on streets and in the public right-of-way. Revise Public Works regulations, as needed, to permit parklets in the right-of-way across from businesses.

108

Golden Triangle Neighborhood Plan

Policies that encourage or require the incorporation of public art into development, streetscape and park improvements should likewise be examined to assure they promote public art to the greatest extent possible in all Golden Triangle development. Public art should be integrated into both public and private development, not as an afterthought but as a central and important part of any new project.

Golden Triangle Neighborhood Plan

Encourage local arts and cultural institutions to spearhead the organization of a new Arts and Culture Trail Partnership. This organization should work with stakeholders, residents, business owners, artists, developers, and the City to design and create a new pathway to connect the neighborhood’s civic facilities, historic sites, museums, theaters, galleries, and related uses.

Golden Triangle Neighborhood Plan

Implement the Arts and Culture Trail to encourage and enhance walking and biking between neighborhood destinations, nearby districts, and greater Downtown Denver. Explore potential funding sources that connect art and placemaking such as the National Endowment for the Art’s Our Town Grant. Reinforce and maintain Denver’s attractive quality of life as an economic asset. Denver’s natural environment, climate and outdoor activities; well-maintained and architecturally diverse neighborhoods; professional sports, recreation, cultural and arts activities; post-secondary education; and real and perceived public safety all contribute to Denver’s attractiveness to businesses as well as residents. Expanding housing uses in Downtown and other urban centers supports other uses and extends hours of activity.

Comprehensive Plan 2000

Expand the role of the performing and visual arts in the city’s economy, especially in Downtown.

Comprehensive Plan 2000

Promote opportunities that bring people together to build connections to each other, family members, their peers, their neighbors and the greater community. Such endeavors could range from coffeehouses to community centers to cultural celebrations.

Comprehensive Plan 2000

Strengthen and expand the arts and culture by integrating them into the social and economic fabric of the city.

109

Comprehensive Plan 2000

Support a full range of cultural and artistic opportunities within Denver’s neighborhoods and among its diverse communities, including festivals, performing and visual arts events, and cultural activities.

Comprehensive Plan 2000

Encourage the development and maintenance of facilities within Denver to support diverse cultural and artistic activities.

Comprehensive Plan 2000

Enhance the capacity of arts and culture to act as an economic generator, and integrate arts and culture into the City’s economic development activities.

Comprehensive Plan 2000

Incorporate Denver’s arts and cultural activities, institutions and attractions into economic development and marketing plans that promote Denver as a center for tourism, conventions and business.

IMAGINE 2020: Denver’s Cultural Plan

Cultivate arts and culture as key economic drivers Retain and expand the clusters of world-class arts, cultural, and performance facilities in Downtown Provide temporary and permanent creative space to meet the broad spectrum of needs for administrative, rehearsal, performance and studio functions Establish connections to emerging arts districts such as Santa Fe, Five Points, Golden Triangle and River North (RiNo) Establish an urban tourism program that highlights historic buildings and districts as part of Denver’s story x Establish a signature festival of significant caliber to lift Denver’s image and attract cultural tourism Increase public engagement with the city’s Public Art Collection

IMAGINE 2020: Denver’s Cultural Plan

Democratize using crowd-sourced art selection. Allow people to look at possibilities online; could serve as a magnet for cultural events

IMAGINE 2020: Denver’s Cultural Plan

Partner with Channel 8, Community Planning and Development, Denver Department of Public Works, Parks & Recreation, Office of Economic Development, and other agencies to expand artistic offerings and improve quality of life

IMAGINE 2020: Denver’s Cultural Plan IMAGINE 2020: Denver’s Cultural Plan

x x

110

San Diego Revitalization Economic Development Community Engagement Document Name

Description LU-C.2. Prepare community plans to address aspects of development that are specific to the community, including: distribution and arrangement of land uses (both public and private); the local street and transit network; location, prioritization, and the provision of public facilities; community and site-specific urban design guidelines; urban design guidelines addressing the public realm; community and site-specific recommendations to preserve and enhance natural and cultural resources; and coastal resource policies (when within the Coastal Zone). a. Draft each community plan with achievable goals, and avoid creating a plan that is a “wish list” or a vague view of the future. b. Provide plan policies and land use maps that are detailed enough to provide the foundation for fair and predictable land use planning. c. Provide detailed, site-specific recommendations for village sites. d. Recommend appropriate implementation mechanisms to efficiently implement General Plan and community plan recommendations.

General Plan 2006

Policy

General Plan 2006

ME-A.7. Improve walkability through the pedestrianoriented design of public and private projects in areas where higher levels of pedestrian activity are present or desired. a. Enhance streets and other public rightsofway with amenities such as street trees, benches, plazas, public art or other measures including, but not limited to those described in the Pedestrian Improvement Toolbox, Table ME-1 (see also Urban Design Element, Policy UD-A.10).

General Plan 2006

UD-C.1. In villages and transit corridors identified in community plans, provide a mix of uses that create vibrant, active places in villages. a. Encourage both vertical (stacked) and horizontal (separate buildings) mixed-use development. b. Achieve a mix of housing types, by pursuing innovative designs to meet the needs of a broad range of households. c. Encourage placement of active uses, such as retailers, restaurants, services, cultural facilities and amenities, and various services, on the ground floor of buildings in areas where the greatest levels of pedestrian activity are sought. d. Create new zoning categories for mixed-use development. 1. Provide standards that address the particular design issues related to mixed-use projects, such as parking, noise attenuation and security measures. 2. Provide standards that address bulk, mass, articulation, height, and transition issues such as the interface with surrounding or adjacent development and uses. e. Encourage location of mixed-use projects in transition areas and areas where small-scale commercial uses can fit into a residential neighborhood context.

General Plan 2006

UD-C.3. Develop and apply building design guidelines and regulations that create diversity rather than homogeneity, and improve the quality of infill development. a. Encourage distinctive architectural features to differentiate residential, commercial and mixed-use buildings and promote a sense of identity to village centers.

General Plan 2006

111

UD-C.4. Create pedestrian-friendly village centers (see also Mobility Element, Sections A and C). b. Design or redesign buildings to include pedestrian-friendly entrances, outdoor dining areas, plazas, transparent windows, public art, and a variety of other elements to encourage pedestrian activity and interest at the ground floor level. UD-C.5. Design village centers as focal points for public gatherings. (See also Section E of this element.) a. Establish build-to lines to create village center public space and pedestrian streets. b. Provide public spaces such as plazas, greens, gardens, pocket parks, amphitheaters, community meeting rooms, public facilities and services, social services, and retail centers within commercial mixed-use projects and villages. c. Encourage provision of approximately ten percent of a project’s net site area as public space, with adjustments for smaller (less than ten acres) or constrained sites. d. Allow reasonable use of public spaces by all members of the public, regardless of patronage. e. Encourage provision of public space in the earliest possible phase of development, as determined by the public’s ability to use and access the space. x

Recommendation

Goal

Objective Action

General Plan 2006

UD-C.8. Retrofit existing large-scale development patterns, such as “superblocks” or “campus-style” developments, to provide more and improved linkages among uses in the superblock, neighboring developments, and the public street system. a. Coordinate the redesign of roads, sidewalks, and open spaces of adjacent developments. b. Locate new infill buildings in a manner that will promote increased pedestrian activity along streets and in public common areas. c. Implement exterior improvements such as public art, pedestrian-scale windows and entrances, signs, and street furniture. UD-D.1. Provide expanded opportunities for local access and address the circulation needs of pedestrians within and among office and business park developments. a. Design safe pedestrian routes between developments, preferably separated from vehicle traffic. b. Design pedestrian routes to provide interest to the walker and promote their use. Interest can be created by paving materials, landscaping, public art, and uses such as retail, restaurant, and plazas for public events such as concerts. c. Identify pedestrian crossings of streets or parking lots through the use of special paving. d. Provide project recreational and/or urban plazas that link visually and/or physically to the pedestrian network or network of public spaces.

General Plan 2006

UD-E.1. Include public plazas, squares or other gathering spaces in each neighborhood and village center (see also the Public Art and Cultural Amenities section of this element). d. Design public spaces to accommodate a variety of artistic, social, cultural, and recreational opportunities including civic gatherings such as festivals, markets, performances, and exhibits. f. Use landscape, hardscape, and public art to improve the quality of public spaces. UD-E.2. Treat and locate civic architecture and landmark institutions prominently. a. Where feasible, provide distinctive public open space, public art, greens and/or plazas around civic buildings such as courthouses, libraries, post offices and community centers to enhance the character of these civic and public buildings. Such civic and public buildings are widely used and should form the focal point for neighborhoods and communities. UD-F.1. Incorporate public art and cultural amenities that correspond, in complementary or contrasting ways, to their surroundings. Consider the unique nature of the community and character of the area in the development of artworks. a. Use arts and culture to strengthen the sense of identity of the Neighborhood and Urban Village Centers of each community. b. Use artwork and cultural activities to improve the design and public acceptance of public infrastructure projects. c. Use public art to enhance community gateways. d. Reinforce community pride and identity by encouraging artworks and cultural activities that celebrate the unique cultural, ethnic, historical, or other attributes of each unique neighborhood. e. Use public art and cultural amenities as a means to assist in implementation of community-specific goals and policies. f. Use public art and cultural amenities as community landmarks, encouraging public gathering and wayfinding. g. Encourage community planning group involvement in the decision making process regarding public art and cultural amenities.

General Plan 2006

x UD-F.2. Use public art and cultural amenities to celebrate San Diego’s diversity, history, and unique character. a. Take advantage of opportunities to emphasize, through arts and culture, the connections between San Diego, Mexico and the Pacific Rim. b. Use public art and cultural amenities to help commemorate local history and culturally significant places. c. Support artworks and cultural activities that explore and reflect the diverse facets of San Diego life. d. Reinforce San Diego’s commitment to diversity by using public art and cultural activities to interpret and celebrate the histories and cultures of its population.

General Plan 2006

UD-F.4. Improve the quality of new development through public art and spaces for cultural use. a. Provide a humanizing element to public and private developments through the installation of public artworks and spaces for cultural use. b. Include art in development projects as a means to distinguish and enliven spaces viewed or experienced by the public. c. Create a more livable community by encouraging public art as a part of development as outlined in Council Policy 900-11 and required in the Municipal Code (Chapter 2, Article 6, Division 7). x

112

General Plan 2006

UD-F.5. Provide opportunities for the collaboration of artists and community members. a. Encourage the incorporation of public art plans and programs in the initial stages of the development process, rather than as an afterthought. b. Conduct outreach efforts and engage community members in the public art process. c. Ensure that artists conduct research and gather community input before generating concepts for public artworks. PF-M.4. Cooperatively plan for and design new or expanded public utilities and associated facilities (e.g., telecommunications infrastructure, planned energy generation facilities, gas compressor stations, gas transmission lines, electrical substations and other large scale gas and electrical facilities) to maximize environmental and community benefits. e. Incorporate public art with public utility facilities, especially in urban areas.

General Plan 2006

Public Art Master Plan

x The Commission for Arts and Culture, through its Public Art Program, should reinforce the place-making goals of the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s development efforts by commissioning artworks that are visually distinctive and that become associated with the identity of the city and individual neighborhoods.

Centre City Arts Plan 1998

The Commission for Arts and Culture, through its Public Art Program, should strive to identify opportunities for public art in neighborhoods throughout San Diego. The Commission for Arts and Culture, through its Public Art Program, should establish neighborhood identity programs. Create a public art program that responds to residentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; need for a sense of place and the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s need for a unique civic identity. Include public art in private and public developments, including performance, exhibit and cultural facilities.

Centre City Arts Plan 1998

Enhance the aesthetic environment of public spaces throughout Centre City by including a wide variety of art forms: temporary and permanent visual art, performance and cultural events.

Centre City Arts Plan 1998

Integrate the work and creative thinking of artists into the planning, design, and development of Centre City by promoting and facilitating collaborations between artists and other design professionals.

Centre City Arts Plan 1998

On a yearly basis, CCDC staff will evaluate future public capital improvement projects for inclusion of artists on design teams and/or the allocation of funds to implement specific art projects. CCDC staff to consult with the City of San Diego Commission for Arts and Culture staff to help implement.

Centre City Arts Plan 1998

Include the participation of artists working in collaboration with architects, graphic designers, landscape architects, engineers and other design professionals in public and private development projects.

Public Art Master Plan

Centre City Arts Plan 1998

x x x x

Centre City Arts Plan 1998

Create public art such as sculpture, murals, unique landscaping, or other landmark features at entrances into Centre City and within specific districts. Develop a program for including permanent and temporary displays of art along specific streets or in parks to add to the pedestrian experience.

Centre City Arts Plan 1998

Implement public art projects as part of transportation improvements, pedestrian right-of-way improvements, and as part of major infrastructure developments throughout downtown.

Centre City Arts Plan 1998

Encourage property owners, private developers and arts organizations to locate and adapt existing vacant and under-utilized buildings for cultural uses. These buildings can be turned into safe, affordable space for performing and visual arts organizations who need more or are without permanent exhibition, performance or rehearsal space. All potential spaces should be considered: abandoned buildings, warehouses, etc.

Centre City Arts Plan 1998 Centre City Arts Plan 1998

Adapt existing buildings for multipurposes such as a regional art center, art schools, community meeting space, live/work space, administration, exhibit, rehearsal and performance spaces. When the new main library is constructed, the existing central library building may provide an opportunity for the reuse of the structure for performance and rehearsal space, art school or multi-purpose cultural center Include cultural arts spaces in new public construction when appropriate.

x x

Centre City Arts Plan 1998

Work with leasing agents and property owners to inventory buildings that are under-utilized and if rehabilitated could provide performance, rehearsal, and exhibit space and/or a community cultural facility.

Centre City Arts Plan 1998

113

x x

Centre City Arts Plan 1998

Support the creation of community/cultural art centers in existing structures or within new developments that promote community use and neighborhood identification. Explore development bonus option to encourage developers to create arts spaces within new projects.

Centre City Arts Plan 1998

Provide rehabilitation loans, gap financing, and other resources to encourage the reuse of buildings within the redevelopment area that support the arts and strengthen the artist community.

Centre City Arts Plan 1998

Acknowledge artists as a substantial part of the community. Protect and assist in the creation of affordable loft/live/work space for artists, including artists with families. Identify vacant and under-utilized buildings to be converted for artistic use and for the benefit of the community.

Centre City Arts Plan 1998

Encourage projects that create studio spaces for artists, literary media, visual and performing spaces, arts related schools, etc., and affordable, but separate residential spaces.

Centre City Arts Plan 1998

Centre City Arts Plan 1998 Centre City Arts Plan 1998 Centre City Arts Plan 1998

North Park Community Plan

x x

Encourage non-profit organizations and developers to develop low/moderate live/work spaces in existing commercial buildings or in new structures. Facilitate the creation of live/work units in existing commercial and industrial structures. Promote the affordability of live/work units by using low/mod fund to provide living and work spaces. Develop North Park’s cultural and creative workforce bysupporting the full range of artists and arts and culture resources in North Park by developing strategies to retain artists and cultural workers in all visual and performing arts disciplines. Build partnerships between the business community and the cultural sector. a. Link artists and arts organizations with prospective developers to create unique projects that tie together the commercial and arts and culture communities. Encourage sponsorship of individual and group presentations, exhibitions, performances, presentations, and special events such as festivals and cultural celebrations. b. Gain support of local art organizations and programs to attract funding from alternative grant sources. c. Encourage businesses to support and sponsor art in areas adjacent to their storefront and in the community.

North Park Community Plan

x x x

North Park Community Plan

Provide space for North Park’s cultural and creative sector. a.Develop mixed-use artist centers, affordable live/work housing, and a series of facilities that include quality exhibition space, teaching studios, shared work spaces, and meeting/lecture spaces. b.Utilize vacant and/or underutilized storefronts and other non-residential buildings for temporary art exhibitions. c.Encourage the provision of spaces for performances and art events in the neighborhood parks, transit stations, residential developments, public areas within private developments.

North Park Community Plan

Expand awareness of North Park as a Center of Arts and Culture by strengthening marketing programs aimed at building participation in arts and culture for residents and visitors to attract new audiences and dollars in order to for arts, culture and tourism to flourish.

North Park Community Plan

Introduce and encourage art, both public and private, in a manner respectful of North Park’s historic architecture and landscapes, and consistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards of Historic Preservation. Include public art or cultural amenities in each new development project and engage artists early in the project design process to achieve integration between art and architecture.

North Park Community Plan

Recognize the contribution and importance of North Park’s historic architecture to the community’s unique character and artistic environment.

General Plan 2006

LU-A.9. Integrate public gathering spaces and civic uses into village design.

North Park Community Plan

x x

114

UD-F.3. Enhance the urban environment by animating the City’s public spaces. a. Utilize public art and cultural activities such as festivals to create vibrant and distinctive public squares, plazas, parks and other public gathering spaces. b. Ensure that public artworks respond to the nature of their surroundings both physically and conceptually. c. Encourage the use of the arts in highly visible places as a directional assistance that can be used to delineate access routes and entrance points. d. In high foot traffic areas, use pedestrian-oriented art interventions to enhance the pedestrian experience. e. Highlight points of interest throughout the City through the use of artwork and cultural amenities. f. Encourage art works and activities that animate public spaces and energize the cityscape. g. Encourage temporary public artworks to create a frequently changing and engaging environment. h. Encourage artist-designed infrastructure improvements within communities such as utility boxes, street-end bollards, lampposts, and street furniture. i. Encourage incorporation of vandal-resistant and easily repairable materials in art to reduce maintenance requirements. j. Encourage the programming of changing exhibits and public uses. k. Encourage a range of activities, easy access, a clean and attractive environment, and a space for people to socialize in order to attract legitimate users and thereby discourage improper behavior. l. Provide front porches, parks, plazas, and other outside public spaces for residents to socialize.

General Plan 2006

x UD-E.1. Include public plazas, squares or other gathering spaces in each neighborhood and village center (see also the Public Art and Cultural Amenities section of this element). a. Locate public spaces in prominent, recognizable, and accessible locations. b. Design outdoor open areas as “outdoor rooms,” developing a hierarchy of usable spaces that create a sense of enclosure using landscape, paving, walls, lighting, and structures. c. Develop each public space with a unique character, specific to its site and use. d. Design public spaces to accommodate a variety of artistic, social, cultural, and recreational opportunities including civic gatherings such as festivals, markets, performances, and exhibits. e. Consider artistic, cultural, and social activities unique to the neighborhood and designed for varying age groups, that can be incorporated into the space. f. Use landscape, hardscape, and public art to improve the quality of public spaces. g. Encourage the active management and programming of public spaces. h. Design outdoor spaces to allow for both shade and the penetration of sunlight. i. Frame parks and plazas with buildings which visually contain and provide natural surveillance into the open space. j. Address maintenance and programming.

General Plan 2006

Centre City Arts Plan 1998

The Commission shall make community participation a part of each public art project, as well as of the program as a whole. This goal will be met by utilizing community-based advisory committees, community representation on artist selection panels and artist interaction with the community. Involve community groups and neighborhood residents in decisions about the site and the artwork.

Centre City Arts Plan 1998

Include artists in selected capital improvement projects that would implement Gateways or designate a Gateway Project as a specific art project to be funded as a capital improvement project. Consult with the City of San Diego Commission for Arts and Culture staff to help facilitate.

Public Art Master Plan

North Park Community Plan North Park Community Plan

115

Encourage a multi-faceted approach to public art by providing a range of public art opportunities that include artists’ participation in the design of civic spaces and private development; functional items such as street furnishings and way-finding elements; a collection of artworks by nationally and internationally renowned artists; temporary installations; artist residency programs; and projects specifically for local artists. Recognize the positive economic impact of an arts-rich place-making environment in attracting businesses that provide high-paying jobs (ensure nexus with economic prosperity element).

x x

Washington D.C. Revitalization Economic Development Community Engagement Document Name 2006 Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital

2006 Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital

Description AC-1.1 Expanding Neighborhood Arts and Cultural Facilities Policy AC-1.1.1: Enhancement of Existing Facilities: Preserve and enhance existing District-owned neighborhood arts and cultural spaces. Assist in the improvement of arts organizations’ facilities in order to enhance the quality and quantity of arts offerings.

Policy x

2006 Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital

Policy AC-1.1.2: Development of New Cultural Facilities Develop new neighborhood cultural facilities across the District, providing affordable space for grass roots and community arts organizations. Provide technical and financial assistance to organizations to help plan and build such facilities. Policy AC-1.1.3: Distribution of Facilities Promote improved geographic distribution of arts and cultural facilities, including development of arts facilities and venues east of the Anacostia River and in other parts of the city where they are in short supply today. Policy AC-1.1.4: Cultural and Artistic Diversity Ensure that neighborhood cultural facilities accommodate a wide variety of arts disciplines, cultures, individuals and organizations. Facilities should also accommodate the special needs of seniors and persons with disabilities.

2006 Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital

Policy AC-1.1.5: Siting of Facilities Support the siting of arts facilities in locations where impacts upon nearby uses can be most easily managed. Give preference to locations near public transit, or sites where shared parking facilities are available. Conversely, ensure that appropriate parking and transit access improvements are made when arts and cultural venues are developed.

2006 Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital

Policy AC-1.1.7: Inclusion of Arts in DC Main Streets Support the inclusion of arts and cultural facilities and arts-supportive businesses as part of the city’s neighborhood commercial revitalization programs.

2006 Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital

Policy AC-1.1.8: Using District-Owned Facilities Encourage the shared-use of District-owned facilities such as public schools, libraries, and recreation centers by artists and arts organizations.

2006 Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital 2006 Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital

Action AC-1.1.A: Including Arts Spaces in Public Construction Consider regulatory changes that would encourage the provision of space for the arts in new and refurbished public buildings. Examples of such provisions would be the design of plazas so that they can be used as performance spaces or gallery lighting of lobbies so they can be used as exhibition space. AC-1.2 Creating Arts Districts

2006 Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital

Policy AC-1.2.2: Designate Arts Districts Identify, recognize, and support existing clusters of arts establishments and encourage the designation of such areas as Arts Districts

2006 Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital

Action AC-1.2.A: Arts Overlay Zones Use zoning overlays to promote and sustain Arts Districts. Ensure that Arts overlay zones are consistent with other District zoning regulations and that incentives for arts-related uses are not precluded by other provisions of zoning.

2006 Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital

Action AC-1.2.C: Cultural Enterprise Zones Explore the feasibility of creating “Cultural Enterprise Zones” in which commercial and nonprofit cultural organizations have clustered office spaces, rehearsal and performance spaces, retail boutiques and galleries, and studio and living spaces for individual artists (see text box). Use tax incentives and subsidies to attract cultural organizations and private investors to such areas.

2006 Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital

Action AC-1.2.D: Enforcement of Zoning Requirements Establish an inspection and enforcement program for Arts District zoning requirements, ensuring that such requirements (such as the display of art in store windows) are enforced after projects are constructed. This program should be part of the city’s overall zoning enforcement efforts.

2006 Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital

Policy AC-2.1.1: Emphasizing Important Places with Art Use public art to strengthen the District’s identity as a local cultural and arts center. Public art should accent locations such as Metro stations, sidewalks, streets, parks and building lobbies. It should be used in coordination with landscaping, lighting, paving and signage to create gateways for neighborhoods and communities.

2006 Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital

Policy AC-2.1.2: Funding Public Art in Capital Improvement Projects Continue to set aside funds from the capital improvement project budget for public art and arts-related improvements. Ensure that these funds are actually spent on physical improvements rather than operations.

2006 Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital

Policy AC-2.1.3: Reuse of Vacant and/or Underutilized Buildings Support the temporary reuse of vacant and/or underutilized storefronts and other non-residential buildings for arts exhibition.

2006 Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital 2006 Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital

Guiding Principle

x x x

116

2006 Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital

Policy AC-2.2.1: Using Art to Create Identity Use art as a way to help neighborhoods express unique and diverse identities, promoting each community’s individual character and sense of place.

2006 Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital

Policy AC-3.1.1: Affordable Artist Housing Include provisions for arts professionals in the District’s affordable housing programs.

2006 Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital

Policy AC-3.1.2: Live-Work Spaces Ensure that the District’s zoning and land use regulations support the development of live-work space for artists in a variety of settings around the city.

2006 Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital

Action AC-3.1.A: Zoning Amendments Conduct a review of planning, building, and zoning regulations as they relate to arts uses to: (a) permit and/or create incentives for joint living and work quarters for artists in new and existing structures; and (b) make it easier to use garages and accessory buildings on residential lots as studio spaces, provided that issues such as noise, fire safety, environmental protection, and parking can be addressed.

2006 Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital

Policy UD-3.1.6: Enhanced Streetwalls Promote a higher standard of storefront design and architectural detail along the District’s commercial streets. Along walkable shopping streets, create street walls with relatively continuous facades built to the front lot line in order to provide a sense of enclosure and improve pedestrian comfort.

2006 Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital

Policy UD-3.1.12: Programming of Outdoor Space Encourage the programming of outdoor space with events and activities (such as performances, arts, and farmers markets) that stimulate streetlife and active use.

2006 Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital

Policy ED-2.2.4: Destination Retailing Continue to encourage “destination” retail districts that specialize in unique goods and services, such as furniture districts, arts districts, high-end specialty shopping districts, and wholesale markets. Support the creative efforts of local entrepreneurs who seek to enhance the District’s destination retailing base.

Policy LU-2.4.7: Location of Night Clubs and Bars Provide zoning and alcoholic beverage control laws that discourage the excessive concentration and potential negative effects of liquor licensed establishments (e.g., night clubs and bars) in neighborhood commercial districts. New uses that generate late night activity and large crowds should 18th Street in Adams Morgan 2006 Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital

2006 Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital 2004 DUKE Master Plan 2004 DUKE Master Plan

Action LU-3.1.A: Industrial Zoning Use Changes2/14/2016 Creating a Mixed Use district where residential, commercial, and lesser-impact PDR uses are permitted, thereby accommodating livework space, artisans and studios, and more intensive commercial uses. Create a cohesive and memorable place with diverse sub-areas whose primary functions and/or focus may be somewhat different. Knit new development with surrounding neighborhoods and the Howard University campus to respect their character and to honor the pedestrian in this transit oriented environment.

x x

2006 Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital

Foster a spirited environment of local entrepreneurship in which local businesses are provided enhanced services and opportunities and the best in new retail ideas are supported. Promote cultural tourism initiatives based on the rich African American historical and cultural assets of the area that will bring economic development opportunities for local Policy AC-1.1.6: Performance and Events in Non-Traditional Settings residents and businesses. Encourage the provision of spaces for performances and art events in neighborhood parks, community centers, schools, transit stations, residential developments and public areas in private development. This can help reach new audiences and increase access to the arts for people in all parts of the city.

2006 Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital

Policy AC-2.2.2: Neighborhood Fairs Encourage neighborhood festivals of appropriate scale and location to showcase local culture. Such festivals should be planned and managed in a way that does not adversely affect neighborhood health, welfare, and safety.

2006 Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital

Policy AC-4.3.1: Engaging Our Arts Community Increase the involvement of the arts community in the design of the physical environment, and include artistic considerations in local planning and redevelopment initiatives.

2004 DUKE Master Plan 2004 DUKE Master Plan

2006 Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital 2004 DUKE Master Plan 2004 DUKE Master Plan

117

Policy UD-3.1.8: Neighborhood Public Space Provide urban squares, public plazas, and similar areas that stimulate vibrant pedestrian street life and provide a focus for community activities. Encourage the “activation” of such spaces through the design of adjacent structures; for example, through the location of shop entrances, window displays, awnings, and outdoor dining areas. Allow for the active expression and appreciation of music with particular emphasis upon the area’s jazz heritage. Ensure that existing residents receive opportunities and a voice in shaping how the destination district develops.

x x

Phoenix Revitalization Economic Development Community Engagement Document Name

Roosevelt Neighborhood Special District Plan 1989 Roosevelt Neighborhood Special District Plan 1989 Phoenix Arts District Policy Plan 1992 Phoenix Arts District Policy Plan 1992

Description At appropriate locations, encourage the placement of functional or interpretive artworks reflecting the aesthetic of the Arts and Crafts Movement of the late 1800s and early 1900s. Examples of such artworks include street furniture, light standards, gateways and markers. Encourage neighborhood art aworks donations and federal or state The Arts District will provide wide using rangeprivate of artistic and cultural experiences grants. designed to capitalize on and augment existing and planned cultural facilities in the area. The Arts District will include public spaces and facilities to accommodate indoor and outdoor artistic and cultural activities for both daytime and evening hours.

Phoenix Arts District Policy Plan 1992

The Art Walk Area will include indoor spaces and facilities (such as galleries, studios, performance and practice spaces) and cultural and educational facilities that enhance the unique character of the Arts District. The Arts District will have a distinct image and character reflecting its unique role as the cultural and artistic heart of the City. High quality urban design will be utilized to create a unique character for the area that is beautiful and stimulating while being safe and economically viable.

Phoenix Arts District Policy Plan 1992

The Arts District will have a basic framework, a safe pedestrian-oriented environment.

Phoenix Arts District Policy Plan 1992 Phoenix Arts District Policy Plan 1992

Phoenix Arts District Policy Plan 1992 Phoenix Arts District Policy Plan 1992 Phoenix Arts District Policy Plan 1992 Phoenix Arts District Policy Plan 1992

Phoenix Arts District Policy Plan 1992 Phoenix Arts District Policy Plan 1992

The Arts District will include a safe pedestrian circulation system with walkways and plazas that separate, as much as possible, vehicular and pedestrian activities while incporating opportunities for bicycle travel. The current level of private vehicular access will be maintained and opprtunities for public transportation will be enhanced. Neighborhoods will be preserved and enhanced The existing housing stock will be preserved and protected. The Art Walk Area will include opportunities for mixed-use developments, emphasizing retail uses, to serve both the Arts District and surrounsing neighborhoods. Local streets will be protected from non-residential traffic by providing street closures where necessary. An organization will be established to oversee the ongoing maintenance of the Arts District Encourage developments to define pedestrian walkways and open spaces through building forms. Encourage active uses, such as restaurants, galleries, and speciality retail along the southern portion of the Art Walk, to provide for pedestrian activities during the nightime hours. Encourage plazas, courtyards, and gardens within the private developments to provide unique experiences for the pedestrian.

Policy

Goal

Objective

Recommendation

Action

x x x x

x x

118

Phoenix Arts District Policy Plan 1992

All new commercial office developments within the Arts District should be required to participate in the Central Avenue TMA.

Phoenix Arts District Policy Plan 1992

Establish on ongoing relationship among the Phoenix Art Museum and Phoenix Central Library architects and the Planning Department to achieve site plans consistent with the Arts District Policy Plan. Negotiate Art Walk improvements or easements through the Zoning Review process when development proposals are subject to the process. Create development incentives to encourage the private sector to provide Art Walk amenities compatible with the overall Art Walk concept.

Downtown Phoenix Strategic Plan 2004

Create an urban mixed-use district for downtown that encourages housing development in office and commercial projects. Downtown offers a unique opportunity to provide vertical mixed-use buildings as well as live/work options for entrepreneurs, consultants and artists. Existing historic office buildings offer a significant asset for adaptive re-use for residential and mixed-use development.

Downtown Phoenix Strategic Plan 2004

Increase the presence of visual and performing arts and artistsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;including live-music-- in the downtown. Take the next steps in creating a multi-use downtown arts space that will provide exhibit and performance space for local artists, possibly in a historic building. Continue also to renovate and expand existing city downtown cultural facilities that serve the needs of emerging artists and cultural organizations.

Downtown Phoenix Strategic Plan 2004

Encourage more artist housing and gallery and performance space downtown. The artist housing should be included in the downtown housing strategy. Gallery and performance space should be encouraged as part of the ASU ground-floor retail strategy and in other public and private developments.

Phoenix Arts District Policy Plan 1992 Phoenix Arts District Policy Plan 1992

Downtown Phoenix Strategic Plan 2004

Use small business assistance programs to assist artists and arts-related businesses. This includes creating a pilot storefront program to assist artists with building renovation and providing business consultants to artsrelated businesses. Explore use of incentives for artists and arts-related business through best practices and legal research.

Downtown Phoenix Strategic Plan 2004

Explore ways to protect and enhance the existing arts presence along or in close proximity to Roosevelt Street as well as in the Warehouse District area.

Downtown Phoenix Strategic Plan 2004

Enhance the Zoning Ordinance to ensure that developers are required to provide active, ground-level uses that engage pedestrians and encourage connectivity.

Downtown Phoenix Strategic Plan 2004

Downtown Phoenix Strategic Plan 2004 Downtown Phoenix Strategic Plan 2004 Roosevelt Row Design Guidelines Roosevelt Row Design Guidelines

119

Promote Arts and Culture: Protect and enhance the Roosevelt Row arts corridor by protecting existing arts-related uses and encouraging complementary infill development. Facilitate development of multi-use downtown arts spaces that will provide for exhibit and performance use. Promote the existing presence and increase awareness toward the arts community in Phoenix. Increase opportunities for incorporation of artwork and lighting into the streetscape.

x x

Roosevelt Row: Artists' District 2013

1) FIRST, DO NO HARM. Each neighborhood along the Roosevelt Street corridor has a distinct and distinctive character and different priorities for future development. First and foremost, any and all private and public development should respect, complement and conform to the existing fabric of these neighborhoods with the neighborhood playing a meaningful role in decisions that affect or guide any new development.

Downtown Phoenix Strategic Plan 2004

The Arts District will include a broad range of indoor and outdoor artistic and cultural activities programmed to appeal to a wide spectrum of socieconomic groups. The Arts District will be created and implemented by the community. The Arts District concept will be as a community based plan. The management structure for the Arts District will provide opportunities for volunteer participation in organizing and conducting events and activities. Encourage growth of live, outdoor music venues compatible with and sensitive to surrounding neighborhoods and businesses.

Downtown Phoenix Strategic Plan 2004

Create a six-to-seven-day- per- week permanent public market downtown. The market would include fresh produce, crafts, prepared foods and other retail items should be located within the network of walkways and public spaces downtown so that it is an important component of the â&#x20AC;&#x153;connected oasisâ&#x20AC;?.

Phoenix Arts District Policy Plan 1992 Phoenix Arts District Policy Plan 1992 Phoenix Arts District Policy Plan 1992 Phoenix Arts District Policy Plan 1992

x x x x x

120

Appendix C: Zoning Analysis Appendix C: Zoning Analysis San Jose Permitted? (Zoning Type

Use

Conditional Use?

Approval By?

Conditions

Certified Farmers Market - Small

PQP

Special Use Permit

Director of Planning

Same as for DC

Food, Beverage, Groceries

PQP

Special Use Permit

Director of Planning

Outdoor Vending

PQP

Administrative Use Permit

Director of Planning

Outdoor Vending - Fresh Fruits and Vegetables

PQP

Indoor or Outdoor Theatre

PQP

Conditional Use Permit

Director of Planning

Retail Art Studio

None Notwithstanding the provisions of this part, no administrative permit shall be required for the placement or operation of a vending facility which solely involves the vending of whole, uncut, fresh fruits and vegetables and that meets and remains in full compliance with all of the following location and operational requirements: 1. The vendor shall attend the vending facility at all times. 2. The vending facility shall operate only on a site with an existing fixed-base host in operation on the site. 3. All operations shall fully comply with all federal, state and local laws, regulations and guidelines including without limitation those applicable to the vending of fresh fruits and vegetables, including without limitation the California Health and Safety Code, the California Food and Agricultural Code, and all regulations and guidelines promulgated by the State of California and the County of Santa Clara thereunder, as the same may be amended from time to time. 4. All activities, and the duration of those activities, shall first have been approved and authorized in writing by the owner of the real property on which those activities are planned to occur. The vendor shall have this written authorization available on-site and shall present it to the city upon the city's request. 5. The vendor shall completely remove all equipment, merchandise and other materials, including, without limitation, waste materials, from the site upon the conclusion of the vending activities, excepting such interior storage of equipment, merchandise or materials as may be allowed on the site with the permission of the owner or operator of the site. 6. The hours of operation of a vending facility shall be limited to the hours of operation of the fixed-base businesses on the fixed-base host site; however, the vending facility shall not operate, including any setup or breakdown activities, between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. During hours in which the fixed-base host businesses are closed, the vending facility shall be removed from the parcel or lot on which it operates, or shall be stored indoors. 7. The vending facility shall be placed or operated only on paved surfaces and not on landscaped areas, nor shall the vending facility adversely impact any landscaping or landscaped areas. 8. The vendor shall not offer for sale or otherwise distribute any products other than whole, uncut, fresh fruit and vegetables. 9. Each vendor shall not use amplified sound for any purpose. 10. The vending facility or activities shall not obstruct the safe flow of vehicular or pedestrian traffic on or around the site. 11. The vending facility shall not occupy or obstruct more than two parking spaces required by this title for the operation of any other concurrent use. 12. The maximum dimensions of the vending facility shall be as follows: a. The maximum height of any portion of each vending facility, including any folding or collapsible appendage, shall not exceed ten feet. b. The maximum width of each vending facility or cart, including any folding or collapsible appendage, shall not exceed ten feet. c. The maximum length of each vending facility or cart, including any folding or collapsible appendage, shall not exceed twenty-four feet. 13. The vending facility shall not be placed on or operate within the boundaries of a hypothetical triangular area described by the point of intersection of the curb-line extensions of perpendicular or nearly perpendicular streets, and a line joining two points thirty feet from that point of intersection, measured along those curb-lines. 14. The vending facility shall not be placed or operate less than one hundred feet from a freeway on or off ramp. 15. The vending facility shall not be placed or operate less than twenty feet from a driveway curb cut. 16. The vending facility shall not be placed or operate within fifty feet of an exclusively residentially used lot as measured from nearest point of vending facility to nearest point None of the exclusively residentially used lot. 17. No vending facility shall be placed within or operate from a structure or stand which is attached to or bears directly upon or is supported by the surface of the site. Vending facilities shall operate exclusively from vehicles or carts or other conveyances which are fully mobile and have operational wheels in place at all times. Vending facilities not connect to temporary or the permanent on-site pedestrian, water, gas, electricity, telephone or cable sources. A. Retail shall art studios are a permitted use in CP commercial CN commercial neighborhood, CG commercial general, MS-G main street ground floor 18. Vending facilities shall not be located less fifteen feet fromcommercial a parcel or and lot line or a public right-of-way. commercial, MS-C main street commercial, DCthan downtown primary DC-NT1 downtown commercial neighborhood transition 1 districts only if all of the 19. The vendor shall place or utilize displays of fruits or vegetables that are detached from the vending facility or visible off-site. following criteria arenot met: 20. All use signsisused in conjunction with anyof vending facility 1. The located on the ground floor a building; andshall comply with the requirements of Title 23 of this Code and with the following requirements: a. shall not be Allsquare signs shall mounted or attached to the exterior surfaces ofof theartistic vending facility not extend to beyond theof top, 2. Free-standing A maximum ofsigns one thousand fiveallowed. hundred feet be of the total floor area is devoted to manufacturing items, andand shallshall be contiguous the area retail bottom, side lines of the exterior surface to which it is mounted or attached. The dimensions of mounted or attached signs shall be included in measuring and sales use;orand calculating theof maximum height, of width, and length of ashall vending facility under Section 3. A minimum twenty percent the total floor area be devoted to retail sales;20.80.870. and b. No activities, sign shall revolve, rotate, move or create thetoillusion movement, rotation,20.75.320, or revolution, any visible moving, revolving, or rotating 4. All except for activities that conform Sectionof20.40.520 or Section shallor behave conducted in a fully enclosed building; and surface parts. c. illuminated, directly or building indirectly; but this restriction doesofnot theJosĂŠ. incidental illumination of such signs by service lighting needed in the 5. No Thesign useshall shallbe conform to all applicable and fire code regulations thepreclude City of San conduct of nighttime operations. B. A retail art studio that does not conform to all of the requirements set forth in Section 20.80.1175A. may be allowed through the approval of a special use permit d. signs emitmore or broadcast sound, outcry, or noise. A. No Shall not shall operate than twoany days per calendar week at the same location; 21. Theneither vendor operate, shall maintain the any vending and the area around the vending facilityper in aday clean orderlythe manner does notand create public or private B.Shall including setupfacility or breakdown activities, more than six hours norand between hours that of 9:00 p.m. 7:00aa.m.; nuisance. For purposes this part, a "nuisance" shall mean anyareas act ornor omission which obstructs or causes substantial inconvenience or damage to the public or any C. Shall operate only onof paved surfaces and not on landscaped adversely impact any landscaping or landscaped areas; member thereof, in the course of, or by the manner of, the exercise of rights created by this title. D. Shall not offer for sale or otherwise distribute any alcoholic beverage; 22. Eachnot vending facility shall display in apurpose; manner legible and visible to its clientele: E. Shall use amplified sound for any a. The name andasphone number of the vendor operating the vending F. Shall operate a physically cohesive collection of vendors on a site,facility; excepting only those limited physical separations as may be required by state or local law for b. The number of the city business license issued vending facility; and vendors of non-agricultural products located neartoa the certified farmers' market; c. owner's and of phone number. G.The Shallproperty not obstruct thename safe flow vehicular or pedestrian traffic on or around the site; 23. Eachhave vendor shall have secured withowner the property owner the site on whichfarmers' the vendor plansplans to operate, and and priorprior to the of any of the H. Shall secured with the property of the site on of which the certified market to operate, to commencement the commencement of operation any operation of vendor, provision for all of theprovision followingfor services in afollowing manner that comports with state local laws regulations, theand same may be amended frommay time the certified farmers' market, all of the services in a manner thatand comports withand state and local as laws regulations, as the same beto time: a. Refuse disposal and sufficient trash and recycling receptacles within the area of the vending; amended from time to time: b. Litter removal three hundred feetrecycling of the boundaries ofwithin the vending facility; 1. Refuse disposalwithin and sufficient trash and receptacles the area of theand certified farmers' market; c. to adequate facilities, portable sinks and toilets 2. Access Litter removal withinsanitary and within threeincluding hundred restrooms feet of theand/or boundaries of the certified farmers' market; and 3. Access to adequate sanitary facilities, including restrooms and/or portable sinks and toilets.

Certified Farmers Market

Special Use Permit

Director of Planning

121

Conditional Use Permit

Planning Commission

1. For such use at a location closer than five hundred feet from any other such use involving the off-sale of alcoholic beverages, situated either within or outside the city, that the proposed location of the off-sale alcohol use would not result in a total of more than four establishments that provide alcoholic beverages for off-site consumption within a one thousand foot radius from the proposed location. 2. For such use at a location closer than five hundred feet from any other use involving the off-sale of alcoholic beverages, situated either within or outside the city, where the proposed location of the off-sale of alcoholic beverages use would result in a total of more than four establishments that provide alcoholic beverages for offsite consumption within a one thousand foot radius from the proposed location, that the resulting excess concentration of such uses will not: a. Adversely affect the peace, health, safety, morals, or welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding area; or b. Impair the utility or value of property of other persons located in the vicinity of the area; or c. Be detrimental to public health, safety or general welfare. 3. For such use at a location closer than five hundred feet from any child care center, public park, social service agency, residential care facility, residential service facility, elementary school, secondary school, college or university, or one hundred fifty feet from any residentially zoned property, that the building in which the proposed use is to be located is situated and oriented in such a manner that would not adversely affect such residential, child care center, public park, social service agency, residential care facility, residential service facility and/or school use.

Special Use Permit

Planning Commission

No parking

Off-Sale, Alcoholic beverages

Movie Theare

Poolroom

Private club or lodge

1 parking space per 360 sq ft.

Art Display Structure

Special Use Permit

Director of Planning

A. Art display structures shall be allowed only as an incidental use to an existing allowed or permitted operational and occupied use, including parking lots. Art display structures are not allowed on sites that have exclusively residential use, or mixed use residential, or on vacant sites. B. Art display structures shall only be installed and maintained in the location that is specified in an approved special use permit. C. Only one art display structure shall be permitted on a site, except that corner sites may have up to two art display structures. D. An art display structure shall not exceed twenty feet in height above grade. E. An art display structure shall have a setback of at least seventy-five feet from any lot line of a lot used exclusively for residential use. F. The linear length of an art display structure shall not exceed one-fourth the linear length of the street frontage of the site up to a maximum of twenty-five linear feet. G. The surface area of the outdoor art on an art display structure shall not exceed two hundred square feet. If two surface areas of the same outdoor art are back to back so that they face in opposite directions (i.e., the relative angle between the directions they face is one hundred eighty degrees) and the distance between the two surfaces is not more than one foot, then the surface area of only one of the two surfaces shall be included in the calculation of the surface area. H. The special use permit for an art display structure shall be limited to a term of five years. An application for renewal of a special use permit for an art display structure for additional successive terms of not to exceed five years may be filed and considered in accordance with Section 20.100.840. I. An art display structure shall not display any commercial speech as defined in Title 23 of the San JosĂŠ Municipal Code or be used to engage in the commercial enterprise of generating revenue by advertising or promoting businesses, establishments or causes.

Drinking Establishment

Conditional Use Permit

Planning Commission

No parking

Drinking Establishments Past Midnight

Conditional Use Permit

City Council

Maximum occupancy load shall be that maximum occupancy load determined by the city fire marshal.

Public Eating Establishments

Brewery

Conditional Use Permit

Planning Commission

No parking

Open air sales establishment

Special Use Permit

Director of Planning

No parking

Retail Sales, goods and merchandise

Museums, libraries

Parks, playgrounds, or community centers

No parking

Live/Work

A. All work activities shall be limited to the permitted uses of the downtown zoning districts, specified in Table 20-140, unless otherwise noted in this chapter. B. All work activities and storage shall take place in fully enclosed areas. C. Prohibited uses: 1. Any use not permitted within the downtown zoning districts, as specified in Table 20-140 or under Section 20.80.720 for home occupation uses. 2. Entertainment, drinking and public eating establishments. 3. The sale of food and/or beverages. 4. Veterinary services, including grooming and boarding, and the breeding or care of animals for hire or for sale. 5. Storage or recycling, except as incidental to and in support of a permitted use in the downtown zoning districts. 6. Activities involving biological or chemical substances that require a controlled environment or may pose a health hazard. 7.Work activities that involve hazardous material or generate odors, vibration, glare, fumes, dust, electrical interference outside the dwelling or through vertical separation between living units, greater than those generated by routine household activities. D. The living unit must be occupied by an owner, employee, or volunteer of the business associated with the live/work unit. E. All live/work units must fully comply with any and all Uniform Building Code requirements applicable to the collocation of uses at the particular site.

Personal Enrichment / Instructional art

1 parking space per 360 sq. ft.

122

Chicago Permitted? (Zoning Type)

Code

Use

Conditional Use?

Artist Live/Work Space located above ground floor

Neighborhood Shopping District Neighborhood Mixed-Use District Community Shopping District Neighborhood Commercial District Motor Vehicle Related Commercial District

B1, B2, B3, C1, C2

Artist Live/Work located on the ground floor

Neighborhood Mixed-Use District

Artist Live/Work located on the ground floor

Cultural Exhibits and Libraries

Neighborhood Shopping District Community Shopping District Neighborhood Commercial District Neighborhood Shopping District Motor Vehicle Related Commercial District Neighborhood Mixed-District Community Shopping District Neighborhood Commercial District Motor Vehicle Related Commercial District Residential 4 Units

B1, B3, C1, C2

Restaurant, General

Community Shopping District Neighborhood Commercial District Motor Vehicle Related Commercial District Light Industrial

B3, C1, C2, M1

Tavern

Community Shopping District

B3, C1, C2, MI

Community Garden

Artist work or sales spaces

Zoning Administrator

1. The Zoning Administrator is authorized to approve an administrative adjustment to allow any permitted Public or Civic use in a B or C district to exceed the applicable floor area ratio by up to 20% over the otherwise applicable maximum. 2. A private club organized for the purpose of promoting knowledge of and participation in the fine or performing arts need not restrict use of its premises to its members and their guests, if revenue derived from the presence of additional persons is necessary for the club's program of support for the fine or performing arts and is used for that purpose. 3. A private club's program of supporting the fine or performing arts must include offering residential facilities to performers or artists; offering a venue for practice and performances; and availability of facilities for the discussion, promotion and development of skills and interests in the fine or performing arts. 4. It is permissible to serve food and meals on such premises providing adequate dining room space and kitchen facilities are available. 5. The sale of alcoholic beverages to members and their guests is allowed provided it is secondary and incidental to the promotion of some other common objective by the organization, and further provided that such sale of alcoholic beverages is in compliance with the applicable Federal, State and Municipal laws.

B2, B3, C1, C2

Special Use Permit

Zoning Administrator

B1, B2, B3, C1, C2

Special Use Permit

Zoning Administratot

Special Use Permit

Zoning Administrator

Max GFA: 4,000 sq ft; no entertainment allowed.

Zoning Administrator

The view of outdoor areas used to store goods and materials that are not available for retail sale to the general public must be visually screened from all contiguous streets other than alleys either by permitted structures or by a vegetative buffer that is at least 6 feet in height or by a combination of such features. Required screening must be located between the perimeter of the outdoor storage area and any property line abutting a public street, other than an alley. This screening requirement is not intended to prohibit openings reasonably necessary for access drives and walkways.

B1, B2, B3, C1, C2

B1, B2, B3, C1, C2, M1

Outdoor Patio (if located on a rooftop)

Community Shopping District Neighborhood Commercial District Motor Vehicle Related Commercial District

B3, C1, C2

Outdoor Patio (if located at grade level)

Neighborhood Shopping District Neighborhood Mixed- Use District Community Shopping District Neighborhood Commercial District Motor Vehicle Related Commercial District

B1, B2, B3, C1, C2

123

Special Use Permit

B1, B2, B3, C1, C2, R-4

Restaurant, Limited

Community Center

Conditions

1. The floor plan for the business live/work unit provides a functional and open area for a bona fide commercial use. 2. The business live/work unit is easily identified as a business and conveniently accessible by clients, employees and other business visitors. 3. The establishment of the business live/work unit will not impair the retention or creation of commercial uses in the surrounding neighborhood. 4. Each business live/work unit has been designed to ensure that the residential space meets basic habitability requirements in compliance with Section 13-64-400 of the Municipal Code and any other applicable codes, ordinances, laws, rules and regulations. 5. The residents of the business live/work unit will not be subject to unreasonable noise, odors, vibration or other potentially harmful environmental conditions. 1. No portion of a business live/work unit may be separately leased, subleased or sold as a work space to any person not living in the unit, or as a residential space to any person not working in the unit. 2. Business live/work units shall contain a minimum of 800 gross square feet and a maximum of 3,000 gross square feet. The work portion of the business live/work unit shall be a minimum of one-third of the total floor area of the unit or 400 square feet, whichever is greater, and a maximum of 50 percent of the total floor area of the unit. The residential portion of the business live/work unit shall be a minimum of 50 percent of the total floor area of the unit. 3. Business live/work units must be located on the ground floor or level and at street fronting elevations. The commercial floor area shall be directly accessible from and oriented towards the street, and the entrance must be clearly designated as a business entrance. 4. The residential portion of the business live/work unit shall include cooking space, sanitary facilities and sleeping space in compliance with Section 13-64-400 of the Municipal Code and any other applicable codes, ordinances, laws, rules and regulations. The work portion of the business live/work unit shall be designed or equipped exclusively or principally to accommodate commercial uses, and shall be regularly used for commercial activities and display space by one or more occupants of the unit. 5. Each business live/work unit shall have a pedestrian-oriented frontage that publicly displays the interior commercial space

Neighborhood Mixed-Use District Community Shopping District Neighborhood Shopping District Commercial District Neighborhood Mixed Use District District Motor Vehicle Related Commercial Community Shopping District Neighborhood Shopping District Commercial District Neighborhood Mixed- Use District District Motor Vehicle Related Commercial Community Shopping District Neighborhood Shopping District Commercial District Neighborhood Mixed- Use District District Motor Vehicle Related Commercial Community Shopping District Neighborhood Commercial District Neighborhood Shopping District Motor Vehicle Related Commercial District Neighborhood Mixed- Use District Community Shopping District Neighborhood Commercial District Motor Vehicle Related Commercial District Light Industrial

Lodge or Private Club

Approval By?

Special Use Permit

Small Venue (1-149 Capacity)

Neighborhood Shopping District Neighborhood Mixed- Use District Community Shopping District Neighborhood Commercial District Motor Vehicle Related Commercial District

B1, B2, B3, C1, C2

Medium Venue

Community Shopping District Neighborhood Commercial District Motor Vehicle Related Commercial District

B3, C1, C2

Large Venue

Planned Development Approval Required

B3, C1, C2

Food and Beverage retail sales

Neighborhood Shopping District Neighborhood Mixed- Use District Community Shopping District Neighborhood Commercial District Motor Vehicle Related Commercial District

B1, B2, B3, C1, C2

Flea Market

Neighborhood Commercial Motor Vehicle Related Commercial District

C1, C2

Neighborhood Parks

Parks and Open Space - Neighborhood Park

POS-2

Artisan

Light Industrial

MI-1

Chicago Planning Commission and City Council on Zoning PD

Special Use Permit

Zoning Administrator

Washington D.C.

Use Art Center Art Gallery Art School Artist Housing Artists' Supply Store Arts Services (set design and restoration of artworks) Concert Hall / Performing Arts Space Book Store Craftsman or Artisan Dinner Theatre Drinking Places (including bar, nightclub, or cocktail lounge) Legitimate Theatre Movie Theatre Museum Photographic Studio Record Store, Musical Instrument Store Restaurant Television and Radio Broadcast Studio Billiard Photographic Studio Auditorium International Organization Theater, including moving theatre

Permitted? (Zoning Type) ARTS Overlay ARTS Overlay ARTS Overlay ARTS Overlay ARTS Overlay

Base Code C-2-A, C-2-B, CR, C-3A, CR C-2-A, C-2-B, CR, C-3A, CR C-2-A, C-2-B, CR, C-3A, CR C-2-A, C-2-B, CR, C-3A, CR C-2-A, C-2-B, CR, C-3A, CR

ARTS Overlay ARTS Overlay ARTS Overlay ARTS Overlay ARTS Overlay

C-2-A, C-2-B, CR, C-2-A, C-2-B, CR, C-2-A, C-2-B, CR, C-2-A, C-2-B, CR, C-2-A, C-2-B, CR,

C-3A, CR C-3A, CR C-3A, CR C-3A, CR C-3A, CR

ARTS Overlay ARTS Overlay ARTS Overlay ARTS Overlay ARTS Overlay ARTS Overlay ARTS Overlay ARTS Overlay C-2-A, C-2-B C-2-A, C-2-B C-2-A, C-2-B C-2-A, C-2-B C-2-A, C-2-B

C-2-A, C-2-B, CR, C-2-A, C-2-B, CR, C-2-A, C-2-B, CR, C-2-A, C-2-B, CR, C-2-A, C-2-B, CR, C-2-A, C-2-B, CR, C-2-A, C-2-B, CR, C-2-A, C-2-B, CR,

C-3A, CR C-3A, CR C-3A, CR C-3A, CR C-3A, CR C-3A, CR C-3A, CR C-3A, CR

Conditional Use?

Approval By?

Conditions

124

Phoenix Use

Permitted? (Zoning Type)

Base Code

Art galleries, including sales

Arts and Culture Overlay

Residental Multifamily (R-5)

Arts and crafts retail sales

Arts and Culture Overlay

Residental Multifamily (R-5)

Beauty and Barber Shops

Arts and Culture Overlay

Residental Multifamily (R-5)

Book stores

Arts and Culture Overlay

Residental Multifamily (R-5)

Restaurants serving alcohol

Arts and Culture Overlay

Retail Clothing Sales

Arts and Culture Overlay

Residental Multifamily (R-5) Residental Multifamily (R-5) Neighborhood Retail (C-1)

Retail Food Sales, not including Arts alcohol and Culture Overlay

Residental Multifamily (R-5)

Teaching of visual and performing Artsarts and Culture Overlay

Residental Multifamily (R-5) Residential Multifamily (R-5) Neighborhood Retail (C-1) Intermediate Commercial (C-2) General Commercial (C-3)

Conditional Use?

Special Use Permit

Approval By?

Conditions

Zoning Administrator

1) Sales of alcoholic beverages are permitted upon conformance with the following conditions: a) The obtaining of a use permit in accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Administrator Section of the Zoning Ordinance. The use permit shall specifically address noise from the use, including parking lot noise, screening of lighting from vehicle headlights and light standards on site, parking access, and access to adjacent neighborhoods. b) Approval by the Zoning Administrator or the Board of Adjustment of a specific floor plan for the restaurant facility. 2) Music or entertainment shall be limited to recorded music or one entertainer unless a use permit is obtained in accordance with the provisions of the zoning Administrator Section of the Zoning Ordinance. 3) Outdoor dining, subject to obtaining a use permit in accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Administrator Section of the Zoning Ordinance.

a. The outdoor event or performance must be presented by an existing business on the property and must comply with all applicable codes and ordinances. b. The businessâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; regularly stocked items may be displayed outdoors and be available for purchase during the event or performance but payment for all items shall occur indoors. No other items may be displayed for sale outdoors during the event or performance. c. Outdoor events or performances are limited to Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays only. d. Friday and Saturday outdoor events or performances shall be limited to the hours between 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. In the A-1 and A-2 Districts Friday and Saturday outdoor events or performances shall be limited to the hours between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. No amplified music or loudspeakers may be used outside after 10:00 p.m. in the R-5, C-1, C-2 or C-3 Districts. e. Sunday outdoor events or performances shall be limited to the hours between 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. No amplified music or loudspeakers may be used outside after 8:00 p.m. in the R-5, C-1, C-2 or C-3 Districts. f. Hours and days of outdoor events or performances may be extended subject to obtaining a use permit in accordance with the standards and procedures of the Zoning Administrator Section of the Zoning Ordinance.

Outdoor Cultural Events

125

Arts and Culture Overlay

g. Outdoor events or performances in the R-5, C-1 or C-2 Districts shall be a minimum of 300 feet from a single-family zoning district.

Outdoor Crafting of Art

Arts and Culture Overlay

Outdoor crafting associated the property, business inside the when 1. A-frame signs of areartpermitted onwith private subject tobuilding the following: the parcel abuts anisarterial or collector street is permitted and a. subject No off site advertising permitted. subject to the following: b. A maximum of one (1) A-frame sign is permitted per twenty-five (25) feet a) Storage of materials associated with the crafting area shall not exceed of street frontage. eight (8) feet in height andsquare be limited to signage the rearper or side c. A maximum of six (6) feet of side yard. of the A-frame sign is b) Storage area shall be fully screened with a solid wall or landscaping. permitted. c) of materials associated with the crafting exceeding eight (8) d. Storage There shall be a maximum height of three (3) feetarea from natural grade. feet in height shallbe beremoved subject to obtaining use permit or in accordance with e. All signs shall daily at closea of business event. the provisions of the Zoning Administrator Section of the Zoning Ordinance

C-1, C-2, C-3

2. Shingle signs are permitted subject to the following: a. A maximum of one (1) sign is permitted for each business per facade if access to the business is available from that facade. b. A minimum clearance of eight (8) feet from finished grade to the bottom of the sign shall be provided. c. A maximum of five (5) square feet in area shall is permitted per side. d. No back lit or cabinet signs are permitted.

Signs

Outdoor Food Sales

Arts and Culture Overlay

Neighborhood Retail Intermediate Commercial

Neighborhood Retail Intermediate Commercial Bars with live Music and Entertainment General Commercial

3. Wall and window signs are permitted for structures existing as of May 2, 2008 as follows: a. Wall signs. 1) The maximum square footage permitted per Section 705.D. may be increased by twenty-five percent. 2) The maximum square footage permitted may be increased by an additional ten percent if graphics comprise a minimum of ten percent of the overall square footage of the sign. b. Window signs. 1) The total area such signsoutdoors, shall not other exceedthan forty percent of each The preparation ofof food items roasted chilies, will be window area permitted forlocated on the ground floor of the building.

Arts and Culture Overylay Boundary

C-1, C-2, C-3

Special Use Permit

Zoning Administrator

no more than 3 months per year on any site, subject to the following limitations: (1) All food products sold must be consumed off site. (2) Sales must be conducted by employees of the retail grocery store. (3) Sales area must be located within 20' of the front door and not in the parking lot, or as approved by the Zoning Administrator. (4) Sales limited to the hours of 12:00 noon to 8:00 p.m. each day. (5) Payment for product must occur indoors. (6) Employees preparing the food product shall have a food safety permit. (7) Equipment used for food preparation shall be immobile during operation. Plans for the use of equipment that is fueled by gasoline, propane or similar form of fuel must be Fire Department. (1) approved The stage by or the performance area shall be a maximum of 80 square feet unless a use permit is obtained. (2) The noise level, measured at any point on the received property, shall not exceed 55 dBa unless a use permit is obtained. An occurrence where the sound level increases up to 60 dBa for five continuous seconds or less shall not be deemed a violation of this section as long as there are no more than five occurrences within an hour long interval.

126

Breweries

Residential Multifamily Neighborhood Retail Intermediate Commercial General Commercial

Artists' Materials and Supplies

R-5, C-1, C-2. C-3 C-2

Mobile Food Vendors

General Commercial

C-3

Private Clubs and Lodges

General Commercial

C-3

Motion Picture Theatre

Intermediate Commercial

C-2

Music Studios

Intermediate Commercial

C-2

Outdoor Alchohol Use

127

Intermediate Commercial General Commercial

C-2, C-3

1. Mobile vendors or mobile food vendors shall not locate a mobile vending unit or mobile food vending unit less than one thousand three hundred twenty feet (1,320), measured in a straight line from another mobile vending unit. 2. No more than two mobile vendors, mobile food vendors or a combination of the two shall be permitted on the corner lots at any intersection. 3. Must maintain on the iste a minimum of thee parking space designated for their use.

Special Use Permit

Zoning Administrator

Beverage consumption shall be permitted as accessory uses only upon securing a use permit, if within 500 feet of a residential district zoning line. This distance shall be measured from the exterior wall of the building or portion thereof in which the business is conducted or proposed use is to be conducted closest to the residential district zoning line. *

Back Cover Photo: “South FIRST FRIDAYS,” Source: See Appendix A for source information.

128

129