HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/04/1993, 2 - ADOPTION OF A DOWNTOWN DESIGN PLAN. �O�'°'uuiI�IIIIII�uI`NUIIIUIII "J f L a„ P M "ITEM O41.3
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT'
From: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director °
Prepared by: Whitney McIlvaine, Associate Planner
Subject:. Adoption of a downtown design plan.
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution (1) adopting A Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center as along
range plan for the physical development of the downtown, and (2) approving a mitigated
negative declaration of environmental impact.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
Staff recommends that the proposed downtown design plan be adopted by the City Council
as design guidelines for both private and public development projects in the downtown. In
response to comments made by the public and advisory bodies, some changes to the plan
text and graphics are recommended, primarily for clarification. A list of changes is attached
to the draft resolution for adoption. To implement the plan, staff proposes:
■ Incorporation of appropriate policies, guidelines, and standards of A Conceptual
Physical Plan for the City's Center into all relevant City documents affecting future
downtown development, including general plan elements, zoning regulations, ARC
guidelines, the parking management and bicycle facilities plans, and engineering
standards.
s Budget consideration of City projects and related property acquisitions specified in
the downtown plan as part of the City's capital improvement program,beginning with
the 1993-94 budget.
■ Separate environmental review of site specific development projects at the time of
their proposal.
■ Planning Commission review and a status report to the City Council every two years
to keep the plan current.
DISCUSSION
Plan History
Discussions during the General Plan update by the downtown area citizens' committee
1
city of san Luis oBispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
concluded that some type of plan document was needed to weld together all of the
individual studies that have been focused on parts of the downtown, but not on the
downtown as a whole. In late 1990, the City Council authorized the preparation of a
Downtown Plan and directed the City Administrator to establish a committee of community
design professionals who would be willing to do the work on a voluntary basis. The
administrator appointed Charles Crotser, Rodney Levine, Andrew Merriam, Pierre
Rademaker, and Kenneth Schwartz to be the design team. To assist the design team,
representatives were invited from a broad spectrum of the community to meet periodically
.to present representative viewpoints, offer advice and critique the plan as it developed idea .
by idea. (A list of participants is attached.) Key staff from both the City and the County
participated from time to time in providing information and project evaluation. A local
consulting firm,Crawford, Multari, and Starr,provided staff assistance, assembling data and
establishing basic map and graphic formatting. Copies of the poster exhibit,A Conceptual
Physical Plan for the City's Center,are available at the Community Development Department
in City Hall.
Previous Review
The completed design plan was presented to a joint meeting of the Planning Commission
and City Council in the spring of 1992. The Council then referred the design plan to the
Planning Commission and staff for more detailed analysis and public review prior to `.
bringing the plan back to the Council for final action. The Planning Commission conducted
a series of study sessions during the summer and early fall of 1992 with members of the
downtown design committee. On October 28, 1992, at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission, staff presented a summary evaluation of the plan concepts. The Commission's
review concluded with direction to staff to solicit specific comments from the Architectural
Review Commission (ARC), the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC), the Parks and
Recreation Commission (PRC), and the City Traffic Engineer. A summary of submitted
comments is attached to this report.
Plan Format
The downtown design plan has been developed in part to provide property owners,
developers, and interested citizens (as well as staff and decision makers) with a single
document which graphically illustrates a long range vision for the downtown and provides
guidelines for public and private investment. The plan proposal is presented in its entirety
on a 26" x 39" poster. The face side illustrates a plan view of buildings, streets, and
pedestrian ways, complemented by three-dimensional sketches of possible design solutions
for selected parts of the plan. The reverse side is devoted primarily to a verbal description
of the plan, its goals and objectives. The design committee approach to plan format was
specifically intended to promote display of the plan in the hope that it would be more
2
.g
City Of San Leis OBISPO
NUNN COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
frequently referenced.
It may be desirable to slightly alter some of the future printings so that the poster can be
folded into an 8.5" X 11" size. Staff recommends development of a separate 8.5" X 11"
handout, which_ cross references plan concepts with the specific sections of implementing
documents, such as the General Plan and the zoning ordinance.
Implementation Time
To better clarify the timeline associated with the plan, the design team is recommending the
following language be added to the text of the plan:
The plan is a long-term blueprint meant to be "time neutral" That is, it does not
propose a specific date by which the plan or plan components would be accomplished
The plan has been designed as a guideline so that both private and public investment
in the downtown could work to be mutually reinforcing. The only reference to time is
contained in the chart which identifies key properties that the City should acquire. These
times are not meant to be rigid
Use of the Plan in Project Evaluation
While the plan view and perspective graphics of A Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's
Center enable an inspiring "big picture" look at how the design,guidelines might translate
into a three-dimensional environment, the site specific detail also tends to convey a degree
of precision and a sense of finality that,without further clarification,may prematurely freeze
design solutions or preclude consideration of alternatives.
Comments made so far, as part of the review process, suggest that the plan would best serve
the community if implementation strongly encouraged individual development projects to
be consistent with the vision and goals described by the plan, but did not confine design
solutions to only those land uses and site development configurations depicted by the plan
graphics. This approach would be consistent with the intent of the design team. They have
recommended additional language to be included in the plan for clarification:
The plan is meant to be conceptuag yet the design team felt that the delineation of the
plant should carry a note of realism. Hence building footprints have been illustrated to
convey that realism. These building footprints are offered as suggestions and are not
meant to be fired More important are the connecting pedestrian linkages created by the
suggested building outlines.
3
0?
mxoiliixlp city of san lues oBispo -
0i;% COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Environmental Review
Because the conceptual design plan (1) is not time specific and likely to take decades to
implement, (2) is intended to be primarily advisory and conceptual in nature, and (3) will
not in itself effect any changes to the physical environment, the attached initial study
concludes that the plan will not.have a significant negative environmental impact. Individual
implementing projects will be subject to environmental review at the time they are proposed.
Recommended Changes to Plan Text and GraRhics
Minor changes to the plan's text and graphics are recommended, primarily to clarify the
plan's intent and correct misprints in the original document. Changes, as recommended by
the Planning Commission with concurrence from the design team, are attached to the draft
resolution.
Changes to the plan's text address the plan's intended timeline; the issue of literal versus
conceptual interpretation;preservation of historic structures; San Luis Creek as a biological
resource as well as a recreational resource; parking; and alternative-transportation.
Changes to plan graphics would clarify traffic direction on Marsh and Higuera streets;
correct the reference to perspective drawings #7 and #8 on the color-illustrated side of the
poster; more accurately reflect the footprints of existing buildings in the proposed Heritage
Park area; and show access for vehicles on Morro Street between Higuera and Monterey
streets.
The Council may want to suggest other changes to plan-view and/or perspective graphics
1. Council members agree that changes should be made to any of the plan's
design concepts, such as Heritage Park; or
2. Council members would be uncomfortable approving projects as rendered in
plan view or in the perspective sketches.
Fiscal Impacts / Public Investment
The plan advocates a number of City projects and related property acquisitions, which are
divided into three categories according to their implementation priority over time: short
term, midterm, and long range projects. Because of current budget constraints, the City
Finance Director has recommended against establishing a separate capital improvement
fund.for public projects and property acquisition at this time, unless a funding source other
than the City's general fund is identified.
4
,1111111$11011111 CTCy of san L„A1S OBISPO --
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
However, comments submitted to the Planning Commission have emphasized the need to
demonstrate tangible support for the downtown plan by identifying City projects which can
be accomplished in the short term given current fiscal constraints. One potential
demonstration project might be a redesign of Garden Street for one-way traffic and
installation of related pedestrian and bicycle improvements. (Listed as item 6 under short
term City projects in the text of the plan.) This project would be financially feasible if the
City could secure a sufficient grant allocation through federal transportation programs to
cover project costs.
The Planning Commission supports improvements to Garden Street as an initial
implementing public project, with concurrence from the downtown design team, Garden
Street merchants, and the Business Improvement Association.
ALTERNATIVES
As an alternative to the CAO recommendation, the Council may:
1. Continue the item for further discussion, with specific direction to staff to provide
additional information.
2. Adopt a modified version of the resolution and/or recommended changes to plan
text and graphics.
Attachments
draft resolution for adoption
list of recommended modifications to the plan
summary of advisory comments
minutes of the 3/24/93 pc meeting (forthcoming)
initial environmental study
In the Council packets:
8.5" x 11" copy of plan text
wmL-cc\downtown
r 5
a -5
i
DRAFT RESOLUTION FOR PLAN ADOPTION
�j
a-b
Resolution No. (1993 Series)
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CTTY OF SAN ItUIS OBISPO
ADOPTING A CONCEP'T'UAL PHYSICAL PLAN FOR THE CITY'S CENTER
AS A LONG RANGE VISION FOR THE DOWNTOWN AND
A GUIDE FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INVESTMENT IN THE DOWNTOWN
WHEREAS,A Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center, hereinafter referred to
as the "Downtown Plan", has been prepared and presented by the Council appointed
Downtown Plan Committee; and
WHEREAS, the design decisions incorporated within the Downtown Plan are the
product of ideas generated both by the Committee and by a representative panel of citizens
who interacted with the Committee during the 15 month plan development process; and
WHEREAS, the Downtown Plan has subsequently been reviewed and evaluated by
staff, .the Planning Commission, the Architectural Review Commission, the Parks and
Recreation Commission, the Cultural Heritage Committee, the City Traffic Engineer, and
the public, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has received comments and recommendations, which
will be considered at each step of implementation, from those who have reviewed and
evaluated the Downtown Plan;
THEREFORE, the City Council resolves as follows:
SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The Council hereby approves a
Negative Declaration for the Downtown Plan, finding that the plan will not have a negative
impact on the environment, and noting that individual public and private projects in the
downtown shall be subject to CEQA requirements for environmental review at the time of
proposal.
SECTION 2. Plan Adoption. The Council hereby adopts A Conceptual Plan for the
City's Center, including approved modifications as recorded in the minutes of this meeting
and attached as the "Summary of Recommended Modifications to the Downtown Plan."
SECTION 3. Implementation. The City Council directs appropriate staff and
commissions to incorporate relevant components of A Conceptual.Physical Plan for the City's
Center into all City documents affecting future downtown development, specifically:
1. Design concepts proposed in the Downtown Plan will be included in the update of
the Architectural Review Guidelines.
2. Appropriate parts of the Downtown Plan shall be incorporated into the update of the
Land Use, Housing, Circulation, Open Space, and Parks and Recreation elements of
the General Plan.
3. The Zoning Ordinance shall be updated consistent with downtown development
policies as amended into the General Plan.
4. The Parking Management Plan and the Bicycle Facilities Plan will be updated to
address key transportation concepts presented in the Downtown Plan.
5. The City projects and related property acquisitions specified in the Downtown Plan
will be considered as part of the City's capital improvement program.
6. Individual public and private projects in the downtown will be subject to CEQA
requirements for environmental review at the time of proposal.
7. To ensure the plan remains current, the Planning Commission will review the
Downtown Plan every two years and submit a report to the City Council on the status
of the plan, including any recommended text or graphics revisions to keep the plan
current with changes in economics, transportation technology, retailing, community
tastes, and any other variables which may affect the vision of the downtown over
time.
On motion of seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of 1993.
Mayor
ATTEST:
/ City Clerk
a-�
APPROVED:
City - trative Officer
orn
LIST OF RECOMMENDED MODIFICATIONS TO THE PLAN
07-Ar)
RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO PLAN TEXT
Heritage Park
The implementation suggested in the plan to achieve a mid-block promenade, reads:
As a condition of new development, the rear 25 feet of all lots should be offered to the
City for dedication as a public right-of-way.
As described, the implementation is not reflective of requirements needed to achieve the
mid-block walkway depicted on the plan because (1) the rear lot lines are staggered and (2)
an additional dedication provision would be necessary to create the circular park at the
terminus of the walkway. (Area 10 on the face of the poster.) To enable configuration of
the walkway and terminus as shown on the plan, staff recommends the following alternative
language:
As a condition of new development, property dedication should be required for all lots
in the block bound by Nipomo, Marsh, Carmel, and Higuera streets, in order to create
a mid-block pedestrian right-of-way and a terminus park as illustrated.
Alternative Transportation
A number of advisory comments stress the importance of alternative transportation modes
as one of the best ways to improve the pedestrian experience. Staff recommends the text
of the plan be modified, as suggested below, in acknowledgement of these comments, and
to better reinforce the desirability of accommodating alternative transportation as a way of
relieving traffic congestion and improving access to downtown.
replace key concepts "a" and "c" under "transportation" with:
Minimize vehicle congestion in the downtown core by locating parking facilities at the
core's pen'phery along key streets that enter the city and by encouraging use of alternative
modes of transportation.
Parking Structures
Comments have questioned the need for locating ten new parking structures as shown on
the plan. Additional structures were deemed necessary by the plan designers to offset the
loss of existing surface parking and to minimize vehicle congestion in the downtown core.
The plan identifies key sites along the most commonly travelled streets into the downtown
which the designers felt were best suited to accommodate peripheral parking. Because the
number of structures will ultimately be based on future parking demand, the"P"designations
on the plan should be described as 'potential parking structure sites," which would not.
preclude alternative site development should the demand for parking be less than the plan
anticipates.
Surface Parking
During Planning Commission review of the design plan, it was suggested that elimination
of surface parking might not be the best solution in all cases; that retaining or allowing
small surface lots may be appropriate in some cases. Therefore, the following alternative
language is suggested:
* under primary goal No. 6:
EUmbume-.Encvurq a oggo t l surface parking within the core area to allow infill of
commercial and mixed use functions.
* under standards for Area 2:
��trrage.tn,�lt�f�tr�aCegarTrrn���wi#�retu� servtc��r,parfc a �ctrrd use'.
Mission Plaza Extension
Concerns have been raised regarding the relocation or demolition of historic structures in .
the Mission Plaza extension area to make way for new cultural facilities as suggested by
both the plan's text and perspective drawing No. 2 (Area 3). Plan designers stress that the
plan is a very long range vision, perhaps 50 years or more into the future. Given such a
timeline, it is reasonable to think that the neighborhood character along Monterey Street
will change significantly in response to community needs and desires for expanded cultural
facilities. In the near term, conserving historic structures in place is the best way to ensure
their continuing contribution to community heritage:
For consistency with existing City policy related to historic preservation, the following
language should be incorporated into the "standards" for Area 3:
Existing historic structures along Monterey Street, identified in the Historic Resource
Program, should be maintained and readapted to accommodate new cultural facilities
where feasible and desirable. Relocation or demolition should be considered only when
it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City Council that adaptive reuse of
existing structures is not economical, nor functional; nor consistent with the goals of the
Mission Plaza extension.
San Luis Creek
In order to better acknowlege San Luis Creek as a biological resource in addition to its
aesthetic and recreational value, the text of the plan should be amended as follows:
* under primary goal No. 9 - as written:
a-�a
Enhance San Luis Creek as a visual resource.extend its accessibility within a compatible
setting. _J
* alternative language:
Enhance San Luis Creek as a visualaraic`rt resourcearr ertoerrt
* under key concepts "pedestrian access and environment, d' - additional language is
highlighted:
access along San Luis Creek
Extend pedestrian acc ng �•trttnttt{�terfe�ptt�+2 tv<xarrur
.
* under key concepts "community character in a park,a"-additional language is highlighted:
Open up the creeks to more visual and physical access 'rpvrde ctzerts along the creek
fai-puff access,and ache�ecr�atranz anrl`tes�ezcx ether mus ttr�tsrxat acc�sx:only
Gateway Arch
At an earlier Planning Commission meeting, the following modification was suggested:
* under key concepts "gateways to the downtown, a":
Provide an entry arch ORNMON"N on lower Marsh Street or near the freeway
off ramp. (A similar change would be necessary under"public projects" for Area 14.)
Miscellaneous Changes to Plan Text
The following revisions to the text of the plan are recommended to clarify or reinforce plan
concepts consistent with comments received and recommended implementation.
* to clarify "anchor" under primary goal 10, add:
Anchors may consist of a single department store or a complex of small stores.
* under primary goal 15, include language recommended by the ARC:
Encourage clear transitions (zone boundaries) at mid-block rather than at the street.
* to clarify the City role in funding projects, add under"implementation: public investment":
The adjacent table recommends priorities for city acquisitions and public projectset
�o avarlabt7rty rf,��nds
x_ 12
° consistent with staffs recommendation to retain theposter format of the plan and publish
a separate cross-reference to implementing documents, revise text under "implementation:
adoption of standards and guidelines" as follows:
paragraph l -
Standards should be incorporated into the General Plan and then referenced in the zoning
ordinance and € ersl¢rnerirt�g:.da: n
:bx:;;J�awsw.w:Nxa:....:'w>%^w:v;:.i:"•+.::.::o:i.::a:::o:::.as i:2v:a:
paragraph 2 -
Guidelines should also be included in the General Plan,
and be considered by staff, advisory commissions and the City Council when reviewing private
and public projects.
A separate handout, which cross references plan concepts with specific sections of implementing
documents, shall also be available for property owners and other interested parties.
l
-]ij
RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO PLAN GRAPHICS
Changes in plan graphics are recommended to:
1. Clarify traffic direction on Marsh and Higuera streets.
2. Correct the reference to perspective drawings#7 and #8 on the color-illustrated side
of the poster.
3. More accurately reflect the footprints of existing buildings in the proposed Heritage
Park area, which could be retained, consistent with development concept for.Area
10.
4. Show access for vehicles on Morro Street between Higuera and Monterey streets.
a -��
I
1
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
i�
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED REGARDING THE DOWNTOWN PLAN
Overall, the comments received from advisory bodies, other agencies, and individuals are
very thoughtful and reflect a strong and shared desire to ensure the continued vitality of the
city's downtown. Comments range from the very specific to the broadly conceptual. Taken
together, they highlight the magnitude of the conceptual plan's vision. A summary of
comments are grouped below by source. Meeting minutes and comments as submitted are
available in the Community Development Department for further reference.
Architectural Review Commission (ARC)
ARC members agree that the plan will be, and already has been, best used as an "idea tool."
Commissioners explicitly requested that their support and praise for the downtown plan, and
the work that has gone into creating it,be clearly relayed to the Planning Commission. The
ARC reviewed the downtown plan at two separate meetings. After much discussion, the
ARC formulated the following list of recommendations:
1. . Emphasize Higuera Street as the "Main Street" and pedestrian center of downtown.
Vehicles should not be accommodated at the expense of pedestrian amenities.
Pedestrian amenities such as bulb-outs and street furniture should have a high
priority among the capital improvements proposed by the conceptual design plan.
Improvements along Higuera Street are the most logical starting point for physical
implementation of the plan. Accommodating increased pedestrian traffic along the
street frontage is more desirable and more feasible than channelling it into mid-block
pedestrian ways.
2. Encourage paseos only where they (1) serve a function, such as a logical short cut,
delivery access, and as access to upper level housing; or (2) where they occur
naturally, such as along the creek. Emphasize development of creek walkways and
viewing points, over the creation of new paseos.
3. Emphasize variety and hierarchy among streetscapes and open space areas to .
enhance place recognition and way finding. Encourage each street, paseo, plaza, and
pocket park to develop its own unique character. Garden Street provides a good
example of this suggestion.
4. Utilize parks as the primary gateway expression.
5. Encourage clear transitions (zone boundaries) between the downtown and
surrounding residential neighborhoods at midblock rather than at the street.
6. Intersperse lodging and housing throughout the downtown, but especially around
open space amenities such as creeks, parks, and plazas. Because of its proximity to
the Mission Plaza, the Blackstone Hotel should be designated for residential use.
61 -17
7. Relieve the pressure on Mission Plaza as the only large outdoor gathering place by
creating a public plaza on the Court Street site. Court. Street Plaza could be
designed as a more urban space - mostly hardscape and seating punctuated by shade
trees -in contrast to the more serene, park-like setting of Mission Plaza. The Court
Street Plaza could work in conjunction with the proposed resurfacing of Monterey
Street near the County Government Center for large scale events, or just on its own
as a gathering place and for small scale events. Improvements to the plaza could be
organized as a voluntary community work program..
8. Emphasize a more natural riparian setting for the creek area extension of Mission
Plaza. Consider loosening up the underlying street grid if Broad and Monterey
streets are closed to create a more park-like setting. At least in the near term, retain
..the existing residential structures along Monterey Street.
9. Due to current constraints on public spending, physical implementation should focus
on aspects of the plan which can be (1) "tested" - such as, trying one-way traffic on
Garden Street and selectively expanding the sidewalk area along Higuera Street - or
(2) accomplished with the help of community volunteers -such as, design and phased
installation of Court Street Plaza.
Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC)
The CHC focused primarily on the Heritage Park concept and other aspects of the plan
related to historical preservation. The Committee supports the expansion of the Historical
Museum. The Committee also supports the concept of a receiver site for historic structures
that might otherwise be demolished. However, individual committee members expressed
reservations about the ultimate success of the Heritage Park concept as described by the
plan. The major concerns focused on (1) the danger of Heritage Park becoming an excuse
to move historic structures rather then conserve them in place; (2) the difficulty of providing
architectural continuity and a sense of authenticity and (3) the feasibility and fiscal impact
of achieving the right-of-way necessary to create the mid-block pedestrian way. Additional
suggestions were made to:
■ Consider an alternative location outside the downtown to function as a
receiver site for historic structures.
■ Conserve historic structures along Monterey Street in place rather than
transplant them to a heritage park. -
■ Incorporate historic markers for self-guided walking tours into any system of
pedestrian directory signs.
■ Provide a strong transportation link_ between Cal Poly cultural facilities and
the downtown.
Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC)
The PRC review concentrated on the "City in a Park" concept. The Commission endorses .
(1) preservation and enhancement of San Luis Creek; (2) the extension of Mission Plaza,
-A
which the PRC suggests be given the highest priority; and (3) landscaping of major streets
and pedestrian ways as a vital component of the city's urban forest. The PRC is specifically _.
recommending that: J
■ Public restrooms be provided throughout the downtown.
■ Active play areas for children outside of the creek area be provided.
■ Protected areas for wildlife habitat along the creek be provided.
® The open space and parking at Higuera and Nipomo streets be retained,
rather than replaced by commercial development as shown on the plan.
■ The proposed mid-block paseos be reconsidered, in favor of more emphasis
on improvements to existing sidewalk areas.
■ The transit terminal at Santa Rosa Street be reconsidered.
Commissioner Kourakis also submitted individual comments, recommending, in addition to .
ideas reiterated in other comments:
■ Diversifying the species of street trees.
■ Identifying stages of the plan to be completed in contiguous geographic
sections. .
■ Providing a stronger link between the governmetn center, Court Street, and
Mission Plaza.
Traffic Engineer
The City Traffic Engineer recommends that the downtown plan be adopted as a conceptual
guideline as it relates to traffic and circulation. Implementation of proposed public works
projects, such as street closures and realignments, street surfacing, median installations, and
bulb-outs, should be accomplished as part of the. Capital Improvement Program (CIP).
Detailed studies of safety and circulation impacts should be done at the time individual
projects are proposed for CIP funding. As one of the first work items, the engineer is
recommending review and, if necessary, modifications to City standards for bulb-outs,
sidewalk and street surfacing, and street furniture, including benches, lighting, public
directional signs, tree wells,fountains and trash receptacles. The Engineer's comments also
point out specific safety and traffic concerns related to traffic flow, pedestrian activity, street
closures and realignments, and medians.
Other Comments Received
The Air Pollution Control District has commented that, in general, the downtown plan
appears consistent with the District's Clean Air Plan, which includes the goals of:
■ planning for compact communities
M zoning to incorporate mixed-use_development
M improving the jobs/housing balance
■ improving circulation for all modes of travel
a -.9
I
The District expressed concern over the number of parking structures depicted on the plan,
and hopes that the City will balance the needs for additional parking with support for
alternative transportation modes.
The Sierra Club and Eco-Slo have also submitted written comments on the downtown design
plan. In summary, their comments are:
.e endorse increased downtown housing.
■ recommend provision of child care and senior services sites.
■ support the creation of a Court Street Plaza as a community work
project.
■ favor siting a multi-modal transit center near the train station.
■ favor de-emphasizing reliance on the automobile and promotion of
alternative transportation modes.
e recommend an alternative approach to the Heritage Park concept.
•
a ;�o
MINUTES OF THE 3/24/93
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
(will be forthcoming)
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
city of san lues oBispo ...____:____
!!lill,►j►� ;®►ii!i� INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
SITE LOCATION DOwntOWn San Luis Obispo APPLICATION NO.ER 57-93
PROJECT DESCRIPTION Adoption of A Conceptual Physical Plan for the City,'s Center
as design guidelines for the downtown.
APPLICANT City Of San Luis Obispo
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
X NEGATIVE DECLARATION X MITIGATION INCLUDED
EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REQUIRED
PREPARED BY Whitney Mcllvaine, Associate Planner DATE 2 / 22 / 93
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S ACTION: DATE
4115 1 11:23
SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS
I.DESCRIPTION Of PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
11.POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS
NONE
A. COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS ..................................................
NONE
S. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH..........................................
NONE
C. LAND USE ................................................................. .......
MAYBE*
D. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ...............................................
NONE
E PUBLIC SERVICES ........................_.........._...........................
NONE
F. UTWTIES...........................................................................
NONE*
G. NOISE LEVELS ......_.........................,.....................................
NONE
H. GEOLOGIC&SEISMIC HAZARDS&TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS ....................
NONE
I. AIR QUALITY AND WIND CONDITIONS................................................
NONE
J. SURFACE WATER FLOW AND QUALITY ...............................................
NONE
KPLANT LIFE................_......................................................
L ANIMAL LIFE.....................................................................
................................_..........................
NONE
M. ARCHAEOLOGICALIHISTORICAL ...................................................
MAYBE*
N. AESTHETIC .......................................................................
MAYBE*
O. ENERGYIRESOURCEUSE ...........................................................
NONE
P. OTHER ..........................................................................
NONE
III.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
'SEE ATTACHED REPORT
���-71
1
. AREA MA
PfArM S7
a
a ,a
f
7 .
s4 a Cy�`
R a
r
a•
lI f
� 10 15 4 i
r
•I r
oo oLDPI
_ � o
r _ I-
9 F
i 1. Zppfr-
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: DOWNTOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES -�
The project involves endorsement of physical design guidelines for the central business
district of San Luis Obispo, entitled A Conceptual Physical Plan for the. City's Center. The
plan has been developed to serve as a graphic representation of the City's land use policies
and architectural design criteria as they relate specifically to the downtown area. The extent
of the area affected is shown on the attached area map. The document is in poster format
with text on one side and a plan-view illustration of the downtown area on the other.
Perspective sketches on both sides help to illustrate design concepts. The plan's horizon is
roughly fifteen years. Staff is recommending review every two years to consider any changes
necessary to keep the plan current.
Amendments and updates to City documents which currently guide downtown development,
such as the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Architectural Review Guidelines, would
implement the plan. Public works projects and property acquisitions suggested by the plan
would be considered as part of the City's capital improvement program.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
For a description of the city's environmental setting, please refer to the environmental
impact report for the Land Use Element/Circulation Element updates, prepared by Fugro-
McClelland (West) Inc.,and dated January 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the draft E.I.R.).
POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The conceptual design plan will not in itself effect any immediate changes to the physical
environment. However, its policies, standards, and guidelines will be considered when the
City evaluates new construction and remodel projects in the downtown. Each new project
will be subject to separate environmental review at the time it is proposed.
Most of the proposals in the downtown design plan are already approved or consistent with
policies and programs proposed as part of the general plan update, and with current zoning
regulations. This initial environmental study focuses on those components of the design plan
which are new or different, or which go beyond the level of detail addressed by the draft
E.I.R. Specifically addressed below are design concepts related to traffic circulation, noise,
historic preservation, and aesthetics.
D. Transportation and Circulation
Buildout under the proposed general plan update would generate approximately 42 percent
more daily in-city trips (including cars, transit, bicycling, and walling) than currently occur.
The draft E.I.R. for the 1992 land use and circulation element updates notes that with road
widening and extensions proposed by these documents, significant peak hour congestion
would occur only along Broad Street toward the airport and on Santa Rosa Street near
Foothill Boulevard. Both locations are outside the downtown area. The draft E.I.R.
Environmental Initial Study
JDowntown Plan
- Page 2
concludes that the downtown area would experience peak hour congestion similar to what
currently exists. However, because downtown is a pedestrian-oriented area, slow moving
traffic is considered acceptable and less than a significant impact.
Since the design plan does not call for a land use pattern or buildout capacity that is
significantly different from that of the land use and circulation element updates,it is unlikely
the plan would encourage an increase in traffic beyond what is projected by those
documents. If the design plan is successful in encouraging additional downtown housing, the
need for certain daily trips (such as, home to work to home) could be reduced.
The design plan does propose some changes to the downtown circulation pattern which have
not been included as capital projects in the circulation element update. These include:
■ Narrowing Morro Street between Higuera Street and Monterey Street to enhance
pedestrian amenities.
■ Closing Morro Street between Monterey Street and Palm Street as part of a mixed-
use redevelopment.
■ QosMg the entire segment of Broad Street between Palm Street and Higuera Street, .
- and closing Monterey Street between the Mission and Nipomo Street as part of the
Mission Plaza extension.
■ Realigning Pacific, Archer, and Walker streets near their intersection with Higuera
Street for improved traffic safety.
■ Realigning the right-of-way at the intersection of Higuera and Toro streets in
conjunction with construction of a transit center and infill development east of Santa
Rosa Street.
■ Converting Garden Street to a one-way street rather than closing it as suggested in
the circulation and open space elements.
Street closures would divert traffic to other downtown streets, increase queuing at affected
intersections, and reduce available curbside parking. Narrowed or one-way streets would
have similar impacts. Prior to any permanent changes to the downtown circulation pattern,
the City should test out the concept, using temporary barriers to divert traffic. In this way
peak hour impacts could be evaluated and mitigations could be developed and tried.
As an alternative to realigning Pacific,Archer, and Walkerstreets, the City could try closing
Archer between Pacific and Marsh streets, and closing Walker between Pismo and Pacific
streets. This alternative has the advantage of reducing traffic at problematic intersections
a -a7
Environmental Initial Study
Downtown Plan
Page 3
without requiring realignment through privately owned property.
The design plan suggests creating a traffic circle on Higuera Street near Toro Street to mark
the edge of the downtown core area .This would involve closing a portion of Higuera and
Toro streets to through traffic. Traffic has traditionally been very light on this segment of
Hignera Street east of Santa Rosa Street. Traffic counts done by the City noted 6,000
average daily trips in 1986 and 3,000 in 1992. Because of the low volume of traffic, the
impact of diverted traffic onto nearby streets and intersections is not expected to be
significant.* Nonetheless, if the City Council decides to pursue this proposal, further study
will be needed to determine the following:
L. Impacts on the turning movements and queuing for intersections along Marsh at
Toro, Johnson, and Santa Rosa streets.
2. Impacts on the turning movements and queuing for intersections along Santa Rosa
Street at Monterey and Higuera streets.
3. Volume and pattern of diverted traffic as a result of eliminating through traffic on
Higuera and Toro streets.
Pedestrian improvements suggested by the plan to improve street crossings, such as comer
and mid-block bulb-outs, were previously studied by the City during development of the
Downtown Improvement Manual. The City Engineer and Fire Marshal concluded that
comer bulb-outs were not safe or practical due to the narrow width of many streets and the
wide turning radii of emergency and delivery vehicles. However, under certain
circumstances comer bulb-outs may be appropriate, such as:
1. At intersections, such as Chorro and Higuera streets, where it may be desirable to
restrict turning movements.
2. In conjunction with street closures or one-way streets, with a modified bulb-out
design.
The City Traffic Engineer recommends against unsignalized mid-block cross walks because
of the increased likelihood of pedestrian/vehicle accidents. New mid-block bulb-outs and
crosswalks will have to be carefully designed to minim»e confusion over right-of-way and
resulting traffic accidents.
Conclusion: Some of the proposed changes to the downtown street network may negatively
impact circulation. However, since the proposed changes would be implemented
incrementally over a long period of time, and since some changes may prove to be infeasible
given the need to significantly reconfigure right-of-way and private properties,it is not useful
aa�
Environmental Initial Study
Downtown Plan
Page 4
to assess the potential impacts of the combined changes on existing traffic levels and
circulation patterns. Therefore, each individual project will need to be evaluated for
environmental impacts at the time it is proposed to be included in the City's budget as a
capital improvement program, or in conjunction with private development.
Recommended Mitigation:
■ Traffic impact mitigation for additional trips generated should be tailored to specific
development proposals.
■ Prior to any permanent changes to the downtown circulation pattern, the City should
test out proposals,using temporary barriers to divert traffic,where deemed necessary
by the Traffic Engineer. In this way peak hour impacts can be evaluated and
mitigations developed and tried.
■ Corner bulb-outs should be installed only where they will not interfere with
reasonable emergency vehicle and delivery access to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer and Fire Marshal.
■ Mid-block bulb-outs should be designed to minimise confusion over vehicle and
pedestrian right-of-way to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director
and the City Traffic Engineer.
G. Noise
One of the primary goals of the conceptual design plan is the encouragement of residential
uses on upper stories of commercial buildings in the downtown core. Housing is currently
allowed throughout the area affected by the conceptual design plan.
Mixing residential and commercial uses in close proximity raises the issue of noise exposure.
The City's Noise Element establishes thresholds for interior and exterior noise exposure.
No distinction is made for housing in a predominantly residential area versus housing in a
mixed-use setting. While construction techniques can insulate interior spaces from
unacceptable noise exposure, exterior exposure is more difficult to mitigate.
There are two main sources of exterior noise - traffic and noise from a stationary source.
For residential outdoor activity areas-balconies,patios,yards-the recommended allowable
average noise exposure is 60 decibels from transportation noise sources, and ranges from
45 to 70 decibels from stationary sources. While this may be a reasonable standard for
housing in a residential neighborhood, it is not practical for housing in a commercial setting
where ambient noise levels regularly exceed 65 decibels.
aeg$
Environmental Initial Study
Downtown Plan
Page 5
Arguably, the emphasis on downtown housing only recalls a more traditional land use
pattern. Housing has always been a vital part of the mix of uses in the downtown.
However, in more recent years new development and remodelling in the downtown core
area have been primarily commercial. There are currently about 950 housing units in the
area affected by the conceptual design plan. At buildout the plan would accommodate
roughly 300 - 350 more housing units, consistent with the Land Use Element update.
Ultimately people choosing to live downtown will have to weigh the benefits of proximity
to jobs, services, and cultural events against any inconveniences such as increased noise
exposure.
Conclusion: Current standards for noise exposure as described by the Noise Element could
pose obstacles to construction of new downtown housing.
Recommendation:
■ In order to promote additional downtown housing consistent with City policy
regarding noise exposure, the Noise Element should be reviewed and revised to
remove obstacles to the construction of new downtown housing.
M. Archaeological/Historical: Historic Preservation
In the area affected by the downtown design plan there are approximately 60 structures
which are included on the master list of historic resources and roughly 80 additional
"contributing"properties. The master list identifies structures which have significant historic
or architectural value. These structures may be listed on the National Register of Historic
Places, or eligible for the National Register, or may be significant in terms of local history.
"Contributing"properties are buildings in older neighborhoods that contribute to the historic
character of the neighborhood.
The plan indicates that 6 contributing structures would be removed and replaced with new
cultural facilities along Monterey Street just to the southwest of.Mission Plaza. Although
it is possible that some of these structures could be moved to another location in town, there
is no guarantee they would be preserved. While relocating historic structures to make way
for new development is preferable to demolition, conserving historic structures in place
through adaptive reuse and rehabilitation is the best way to ensure their continuing
contribution to community heritage.
Conclusion: The plan is, in part, a long range master plan for downtown development that
is likely to take decades to implement. In the long term it is reasonable to expect the
architectural and.aesthetic character of this historic neighborhood will change in response
to community needs and desires for new development, consistent with the draft Land Use
Element policies encouraging the expansion of cultural facilities along this stretch of
Environmental Initial Study
Downtown Plan
Page 6
Monterey Street. In the near term, conserving historic structures in place is the best way
to ensure their continuing contribution to community heritage.
Recommendation:
■ The public projects, standards, and guidelines for Area 3 in the-conceptual downtown
plan should be revised to allow, where feasible and desireable, historic structures to
be conserved in place, and to provide for adaptive reuse of those structures to
accommodate future cultural facilities. . Relocation or demolition should be
considered only when itis clearly demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City Council
that adaptive reuse is not economical, structurally feasible, or consistent with City
goals for the Mission Plaza Extension.
N. Aesthetics: Scale and Views
One of the community goals stated in the Land Use Element update is protection of public
views of the surrounding hills and mountains, which contribute strongly to a sense of place
in the downtown area. The update also states that new downtown development should
respect views of the Bills, framing rather than obscuring them. The design.of new infill
buildings and remodels to existing buildings will have to balance view preservation with
other goals of compact development and a pattern of storefronts that encourages walking
in the downtown (LUE policies 4.14 and 4.16). Accommodating future growth while
maintaining a compact commercial core implies more vertical development. Currently the
scale of downtown buildings reinforces"sense of place" because it relates well to the overall
size of the community. The one and two story buildings also allow for plenty of sunlight
.along the sidewalks.
With a few exceptions, buildings in the downtown are predominantly one and two stories
in height, although current zoning regulations allow a maximum height of 50 feet, which
would accommodate three and four story buildings. The conceptual downtown design plan
calls for some new "landmark" buildings which could be as high as 75 feet, consistent with
building height policies in the Land Use Element update.
Conclusion: Structures permitted to be over fifty feet (50') in height will have to be
carefully sited and designed to avoid excessive shading and obstruction of key views, and to
ensure compatibility with the existing scale of development.
Recommendation:
• a To help ensure their protection, a map identifying key views should be included in
the Land Use Element update. Location specific (corner, mid-block, creekside, etc.)
design strategies should be described in the update of the Architectural Review
i I•
Environmental Initial Study l\
Downtown Plan
Page 7
Guidelines, which:
1. Prevent/minimize obstruction of views of the surrounding hills and mountains.
2. Avoid excessive shading of mid-block pedestrian ways and sidewalks.
3. Ensure compatibility with adjacent development and with the overall pattern
and scale of downtown development.
7.� 1
Environmental Initial Study
Downtown Plan
Page 8
SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Grant a negative declaration of environmental impact with the following mitigations:
■ Traffic impact mitigation for additional trips generated should be tailored to specific
development proposals.
■ Nor to any permanent changes to the downtown circulation pattern, the City should
test out proposals,using temporary barriers to divert traffic,where deemed necessary
by the Traffic Engineer. In this way peak hour impacts can be evaluated and
mitigations developed and tried.
■ Comer bulb-outs should be installed only where they will not interfere with
reasonable emergency vehicle and delivery access to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer and Fire Marshal.
■ Mid-block bulb-outs should be designed to minimize confusion over vehicle and
pedestrian right-of-way to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director
and the City Traffic Engineer.
■ In order to promote additional downtown housing consistent with. City policy
regarding noise exposure, the Noise Element should be reviewed and revised to
remove obstacles to the construction of new downtown housing.
■ The public projects,standards, and guidelines for Area 3 in the conceptual downtown
plan should be revised to allow, where feasible and desireable, historic structures to
be conserved in place, and to provide for adaptive-reuse of those structures to
accommodate future cultural facilities. Relocation or demolition should be
considered only when it is clearly demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City Council
that adaptive reuse is not economical, structurally feasible, or consistent with City
goals for the Mission Plaza Extension.
■ To help ensure their protection, a map identifying:key views should be included in
the Land Use Element update. Location specific (comer, mid-block, creekside, etc.)
design strategies should be described in the update of the Architectural Review
Guidelines, which:
1. Prevent/mffii'm 7e obstruction of views of the surrounding hills and mountains.
2. Avoid excessive shading of mid-block pedestrian ways and sidewalks.
_ 3. Ensure compatibility with adjacent development and with the overall pattern
and scale of downtown development.
May 2;. 1.993
COPIES 7n.
` °' ,, ❑ , r MEETING AGENDA
Zr o l cn�plR DATE a� ITEM
� CEtiO ❑ F[M.DiR
Mayor Peg Pinard �` WFy D�
Members of the Council M�TK/0R?r n FGLICECFL
990 Palm St. UL
❑ MCM7:T=s,•I o �.X-
San Luis Obispo, CA 9340
DearDIR
UT;'.DIzZ
j ���n
Dear Mayor Pinard.and Members of the Council ,
This letter is in regard to Item #2 - rDowntown Design Plan. Specifically,
the design plans for the 600 block of Monterey St. My husband and I resiAe at
Monterey St. This has been my family's 'and my home for the past. 40 years.
We own an apartment house at 667 Monterey St. on the same block.
As residents and owners of a business on this block we have grave .concerns
about the volunteer architects plans. for our block. The plan for this block
has no consideration for the residents (in fact they are all eliminated) .
The plan fails to see the beauty and recognize the uniqueness of this small
peaceful block which used to :be a part of the mission gardens and we consider
to be a jewel of the community.
The Committee's plan calls for the destruction of the majority of the
existing houses and the erection of a massive multi-level parking garage
next to our one story house.
Before you adopt this plan, I beg you to take five minutes and walk
- down our block from the mission to the corner. of Monterey and Nipomo
Street. Please take one last look. Notice the immaculately kept up houses,
flowers and gardens. Please stop at the. site of the existing city parking
lot and notice how discreetly it blends into the neighborhood. Notice the
view of San Luis Moutain and the tranquility of the area. Now imagine the
multi-level parking structure proposed by the Committee that':woul-d cover
the site of the. next two houses and well as several houses around the corner
and on the other side of the block. .
Please ".find another::site for the parking garage in a neighborhood where
the parking garage would be a benefit to the neighbors rather than their
destruction. The creation of an artificial "Herritage Park" is not a substi-
tution for the quality of life that would be lost by the destruction and
redevelopment of our block.
Thank you for taking the time to listen to our side of this controversy.
Sincerely,
RECIFIVE0
/; 3eP',
MAY - A 1993
CITY CLERK Kathy and Ron Vargas
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 642 Monterey St.
C.' San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
543-4656
G -c.� A
M' 'NG AGENDA
DA1 E ITEM #.
�� �� SIERRA CLUB SANTA LUCIA CHAPTER
V0VNG[O IM 1892 '
3 May 1993 COPIMTO: i
❑•Ds:otes Acion ❑ FYI
Mayor Peg Pinard � ETO' DDIR.
Councilmember Penny Rappa O ❑ FIN.NR.
Councilmember Bill Roalman Cho ❑ F:REOMF
C_3� TT.WEY ❑ FW DiR.
Councilmember Dave Romero I+d'CL�{K�O?I i-] pc,LI(t�.
Councilmember Allen Settle ❑ MCMT.*rlk_x.1 C1 RECDLa
I ED LT
n L D11
1
Dear City Council ,
Regarding the downtown concept plan to be discussed at your
May 4 meeting, the Alternative Transportation Task Force of the
Sierra Club (ATTF) offers the following suggestions:
1 . Include specif: langus: z on the integration of
bicycles with the rest o ' owntown /traffic , e .g.
To encourage and e:. snce the use of bicycles:
* Bicycle lanes should be provided on downtown streets
where bicyclists cannot easily .integrate with the flow
of traffic
* Parking facilities should be provided for bicycles is
locations that allow for convenient access to preferred .
destinations .
2 . Consider locating the proposed multi-modal center
somewhere other than downtown. Locating the center near the
train station would make it more truly multi-modal , as it would
integrate better with trains and with the future bike path along
the railroad tracks . Regional busses could easily access the
center via South Street. Property in this area should be
considerably less expensive than that downtown too.
We hope that you will take these suggestions into
consideration during your discussion of the downtown concept
plan.
Mintrel %` sr�. .BVI.y.--- MAY 3 1993
is Boche CITY COUNCIL
1570 Hansen Lane SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
San Luis Obispo, CA 93041
• 546-0518
. . . To explore, enior. and protect Me notion's srenic resources . . .
❑'L 5 Action ❑
cdCDOG �9 AGENDA
Z
ODIR. MEL.i
°C o' ❑ FIM DATE�tTEM#
1I AQ%O ❑ FIRF CHIEF
Draft P.C. Minutes Y/°�=I x�Tr�t 0 FWDIR.
March 24, 1993 U clFmK/cf''r'. n roucEcH.
❑ 1._Clvrr.�-as l.:] r�c.DtR.
Page 1 ❑ cF FELE n ?�r1I Dtr..
4. Downtown Physical Design Plan: A request to consider the Downtown Physical
Design Plan; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant.
Whitney Mcllvaine, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommended that the
Commission review the recommendations for modifications to the plan and specify and
changes to the text or graphics which the Commission feels are appropriate; recommend
that the City Council adopt the attached draft resolution endorsing A Conceptual Physical
Plan for the City's Center, together with any modifications; identify and recommend to City
Council one or more public improvement projects which should be given a high priority
for achievement during the 1993-95 financial planning period; concur with the initial
environmental study which concludes that (1)the proposed plan will not have a significant
effect on the environment, and (b) individual projects suggested by the plan will be
subject to environmental review at the time they are proposed.
Whitney Mcllvaine introduced Downtown Design team members, Pierre Rademaker, Ken
Schwartz; and Chuck Crotser.
Pierre Rademaker reviewed highlights of the plan for the Commission. He felt that having
the Council identify and recommend one or more public improvement projects for the 93-
95 financial planning period may be premature until the plan is adopted. He noted that
as a group, the team was opposed to creating an open plaza on Court Street, feeling that
this area should be maintained as retail. He noted that the team supported a "closeable"
area in front of the Courthouse on Monterey Street in response to the needs of the
downtown business community and not "closing" Monterey Street.
Chuck Crotser reviewed proposals for the Heritage Park area and Mission Plaza. He
noted the observations of the Architectural Review Commission and the Cultural Heritage
Committee regarding Heritage Park, which should be a lower-density, lower-intensity,
smaller-scale transition area between C-C and C-T uses in the area. He indicated that
some guidelines would have to be developed for the Heritage Park area for determining
where to site buildings and what buildings would not be appropriate for the site.
Ken Schwartz reminisced about the creation of the Mission Plaza area. He noted that like
the Mission Plaza project, the Downtown Plan is a concept plan and not a specific plan,
noting that what is shown in the plan is not an absolute footprint for the downtown, but
a suggested footprint to give the idea. He urged the Commission to recommend that the
City Council adopt the plan as presented. He felt that the plan should receive a negative
declaration of environmental impact but each project that develops will receive an
independent CEQA review. He felt that specific issues relating to right-of-ways, setbacks;
Heritage Park, etc., can be addressed during the implementation phase of the plan..
Draft P.C. Minutes
March 24, 1993
Page 2
Whitney Mcllvaine asked the Commission to review the minor text changes proposed in
the plan, especially clarifying the timeframe for the plan and its conceptual nature.
Mike Underwood, ARC Chairman, noted that the ARC felt that the Court Street area would
be an excellent starting point for the plan, once it was adopted.
Commr. Cross envisioned the Court Street area as a open area with some minor
hardscaped areas, with the harder-scaped areas located across the street from the
Courthouse.
Commr. Williams supported the plan concept proposed for the Court Street area and the
idea of opening up the creek, with some commercial uses, in order to provide some
continuity for a central-commercial core. She felt that the space needed to be utilized to
its greatest potential.
Whitney Mcllvaine recommended amending the condition on page 5 of the staff report
relating to the Heritage Park project by deleting the reference to the 50-foot dimension for
the mid-block pedestrian right-of-way in order to make the plan more conceptual in
nature.
Commr. Williams indicated she supported the creating a separate 81/2 by 11 copy of the
plan, the time neutral language, highlighting that the plan is conceptual, the change noted
by Whitney Mcllvaine to the condition on page 5, providing alternative transportation
noted on the bottom of page 5, and the changes noted on page 7. She agreed with the
text clarification that anchors could consist of a single department store or a complex.
She was not concerned with any changes to the plan's graphics because this was a
concept plan and would change over time. She felt that references to the multi-modal
transit facility. remain in the plan for now since a grant has been received for the first
phase feasibility study.
Ken Schwartz noted for Commr. Senn that the one of the biggest issues the design team
dealt with was defining the downtown.
Commr. Senn suggested adding a statement to the beginning of the plan that the
downtown master plan can only be accomplished by good faith effort and interaction and
cooperative undertakings of government and private sector architects, and property
owners and that cooperation, assistance or reasonable flexibility should be utilized to
accomplish the goals consistent with its overall intent. He felt this would help years down
the road when aspects of the plan were being developed.
The commission concurred with this addition.
Draft P.C. Minutes
March 24, 1993
Page 3
Commr. Whittlesey supported the plan and hoped that the Council would approve. She
concurred with Commr. Williams comments. She asked that the direction of traffic flow
be noted on Higuera Street near Toro in the graphics. She hoped that the Council would
direct staffto identify tasks that the community can support. She felt there were
proposed projects that were doable now and should not be held back waiting for other
documents to be adopted.
Whitney Mcllvaine reiterated the Commission's consensus for changing the text as
recommended with the addition of language proposed by Commr. Senn and the deletion
of specific dimensions for Heritage Park, support for the Heritage Park concept, and
clarifying the graphics, e.g. to show the Toro Street traffic patterns.
The Commission indicated they were not ready to make specific recommendations at this
time, but felt that improvements to Garden Street could be one of the first C.I.P projects
undertaken because it would be relatively inexpensive to implement.
Commr. Hoffman left the meeting.
Pierre Rademaker, Whitney Mclvaine, and the Commission reviewed minor wording
- changes to the proposed language of the draft council resolution for plan adoption.
Commr. Whittlesey moved to recommend that the Council adopt the plan as amended,
including the negative declaration of environmental impact.
Commr. Williams seconded the motion.
On a voice vote, the Commission recommended that the Council approve adoption of the
resolution on a 6-0-1 vote (Commr. Hoffman absent).
Commr. Cross indicated that while he supported 95 percent of the plan, he had some
reservations with parts of the plan which needed to be reviewed by the Council.
Commr. Whittlesey reiterated that the Commission felt this was a concept plan and
recognized that there may be some flaws with the plan. This flaws can be dealt with later.
The Commission urged the Council to act on the plan, and focus on getting more
speck, during actual project implementation.