Loading...
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.