Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-18-13ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA Council Chamber City Hall - 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 November 18, 2013 Monday 5:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Commrs. Ken Curtis, Suzan Ehdaie, Steven Hopkins, Anthony Palazzo, Greg Wynn, Vice -Chair Michelle McCovey-Good, and Chairperson Jim Duffy ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Commissioners or staff may modify the order of items. MINUTES: Minutes of November 4, 2013. Approve or amend. PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, people may address the Commission about items not on the agenda. Persons wishing to speak should come forward and state their name and city of residence. Comments are limited to five minutes per person. Items raised at this time are generally referred to the staff and, if action by the Commission is necessary, may be scheduled for a future meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS: NOTE: Any court challenge to the action taken on public hearing items on this agenda may be limited to considering only those issues raised at the public hearing, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of San Luis Obispo at, or prior to, the public hearing. If you wish to speak, please give your name and address for the record. Any decision of the Architectural Review Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council within 10 days of the action. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Commission may file an appeal with the City Clerk. Appeal forms are available in the Community Development Department, City Clerk's office, or on the City's website (www.slocity.org). The fee for filing an appeal is $273 and must accompany the appeal documentation. 1. 772 and 774 Palm Street. ARC 131-13; Review of proposed classroom building and administrative office for Old Mission School in the Downtown Historic District and CEQA exemption (Class 32, Infill Development Projects); R-4-H zone; Tina Ballantyne, Old Mission School, applicant. (Brian Leveille) 2. 1119 Garden Street. ARC 129-13; Review of modifications to the approved project design for Garden Street Terraces which was approved with an Addendum to the certified EIR; C-D-H zone; Garden Street SLO Partners, LP, applicant. (Pam Ricci) Architectural Review Commission Page 2 COMMENT & DISCUSSION: 3. Staff a. Agenda Forecast 4. Commission ADJOURNMENT Presenting Planners: Brian Leveille and Pam Ricci ® The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Please contact the City Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance. Z city of Meeting Date: November 18, 2013 san lui s om spo Item Number: 1 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Review of a proposed classroom building and accessory staff office. PROJECT ADDRESS: 772 & 774 Palm St. BY: Brian Leveille, Associate Planner (781-7166) E-mail: bleveille@slocity.org FILE NUMBER: ARC 131-13 FROM: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) which grants final approval to the project, based on findings, and subject to conditions. SITE DATA Applicant Representative Zoning General Plan Site Area Environmental Status SUMMARY Tina Ballantyne, Old Mission School Principal Jim Duffy, Architect R-4-H (High -Density Residential with Historical Preservation Overlay Zone) High -Density Residential 9,232 square feet (.21 acre) Exempt from environmental review under Class 32 (Section 15332), Infill Development Projects. The applicant, Old Mission School, is proposing to redevelop the subject property with classrooms to accommodate 7 h and 8a' grade classes which are currently operating off -site at the Mission Prep campus. The site is currently used for a rental residence and office space associated with Old Mission School, and contains five parking spaces. The 7`h and 8t' grade classes are currently being accommodated in overflow classrooms at Mission College Prep which is located adjacent to Old Mission School on Broad Street. An administrative use permit was approved on October 18a` authorizing the proposed school use in the R-4 zone, and approving the request for off -site parking allowing the continuing use of parking facilities located at Mission College Prep, On October 28t', the Cultural Heritage Committee found the project consistent with the Historic Preservation Guidelines and recommended that the ARC approve the final design. The applicant is now seeking the ARC's approval of the project design. ARC 131-13; 772 & 774 Palm Street Old Mission School Page 2 1.0 COMMISSION'S PURVIEW The ARC's role is to review the project in terms of its consistency with the Community Design Guidelines (CDG). 2.0 PROJECT SITE INFORMATION The subject property currently contains five parking spaces and two single-family homes, one of which serves as a rental residence for the Old Mission parish and the other serves as office and storage space for Old Mission School. The existing structures are not historically significant and are proposed to be demolished to accommodate the new development. The project site also includes a cluster of olive trees that the City Arborist estimates at approximately 100 years old which will be retained with the project. The property is zoned High -Density Residential with the Historical Preservation Overlay (R-4-H) and is within the Downtown Historic District. The Old Mission Parish Church and Master List Mission property is located immediately across Palm Street. The Diocese of Monterey currently owns the subject property as well as the neighboring property to the west along with the Old Mission Church, Old Mission School and Mission College Prep. An apartment building borders on the north and two single-family residences border the site to the east. 2.1 Site Information/Settin Site Size 9,232 square feet (.21 acres) Present Use & Development Residence and office use in two structures Topography Flat, developed site Current vehicle access Driveway from Palm Street (proposal will remove driveway access) Surrounding Use/Zoning North: Apartments, High -Density Residential (R-4) South: Mission Museum and Church, zoned Downtown -Commercial with Historic Overlay (C-D-H) East: Residence and Office use, zoned High -Density Residential with Historic Overlay (R-4-H) West: Residence, zoned High -Density Residential with Historic Overlay (R-4-H) 2.2 Project Description The two existing buildings will be demolished and asphalt paving removed to make way for the proposed new development. Two single -story buildings are proposed for the school use. The larger classroom building is 3,789 square feet and includes three classrooms, restrooms, and a small meeting room. The smaller building is designed as a small staff office/lounge space for teachers and is 560 square feet in size (Attachment 3, reduced scale project plans). Along Palm Street, the existing curb cut will be abandoned and street parking will be restored. ARC 131-13; 772 & 774 Palm Street Old Mission School Page 3 Mission Revival architectural style is proposed. The applicant's project statement explains this style was selected to complement surrounding Old Mission properties and to be compatible with the historic neighborhood. The proposed architecture includes flat roofs with curved parapets and clay tile roofing. An arched entry provides a clearly visible access point to the site. Windows are arched and inset into the building walls and the finish is smooth troweled stucco. Site improvements and surface finishes include an accessible ramp, covered arcade, landscaped courtyard, raised seat walls, permeable pavers, and scored/colored concrete. Operational Program Consistent with the use permit approved for the project site, the proposed classrooms may only be used for classroom instruction (Project Description, Attachment 3). All other activities such as drop off/pickup, assembly, physical education, recesses, and lunch breaks will occur at the main Old Mission School Campus. Students will be escorted to and from the site by teachers and staff. Outdoor spaces at the project site are not intended for play or recreation and no amplified sound, electronic bells or buzzers will be used. The ongoing use of the project site is subject conformance with the project description and conditions of approval reviewed through the administrative use permit approved by the Community Development Director on October 18, 2013. 7 Z D..A M- Qfofia+inc Statistics Item Proposed' Ordinance Standard 2 Street Yard setback (main building) 15 feet 15 feet Street yard setback (break 18 feet 15 feet room/office building) Interior yard setbacks (east 6 feet 5.5 feet (buildings up to 15 feet) elevation, 15' max height) Interior yard setback (north 5.5 feet 5.5 feet elevation,1S' max height) Interior yard setback 5 feet 5 feet (administration building west elevation, 12' max height) Max. Height of Structure(s) 17 feet 35 feet Lot Coverage 51% 60% Parking Requirement 8 spaces 8 off -site parking spaces approved in administrative use permit review. Bicycle parking N/A No requirement for uses that require less than 10 spaces. Notes: 1. Applicant's project plans submitted 8-14-Zo13 2. City Zoning Regulations ARC 131-13; 772 & 774 Palm Street Old Mission School Page 4 3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS Community Design Guidelines The following applicable guidelines from the Community Design Guidelines are highlighted followed by staff's analysis of the project's design consistency with the cited guidelines. 3.I.B.I. Architectural Style. Staff Analysis: The above guideline states that while variety in design is generally encouraged, the compatibility of new projects with the existing environment should be a priority. The project's Mission Revival architectural style is compatible with the prevailing architectural character of the area. The Mission is located across Palm Street and the property, including the Church and museum, occupies the entire portion of the block between Broad and Chorro Streets across from the project site. The project site is also in close proximity to the main school campus which is developed with Mission Revival architecture. • 3.I.B.2. Neighborhood Compatibility Staff Analysis: The project is consistent with the above guideline since the proposed development maintains its own identity and complements its surroundings. The proposed buildings are an appropriate design theme for the neighborhood since there is similarly designed Mission architecture in the vicinity and the proposed structures are proportional to existing development on the north side of Palm Street which are also primarily single story structures. The proposed project includes appropriate building setbacks and massing and the proposed colors, textures, and building materials will be compatible with the neighborhood. ■ 3.I.B.3. Design Consistency Staff Analysis_: This guideline discusses that building designs should demonstrate a consistent use of colors, materials, and detailing throughout all elevations of the building and that each building should look like the same building from all sides. The proposed buildings incorporate a consistent design theme at all elevations of the two buildings with smooth troweled stucco, lighting, windows and doors, and clay tile roofing extends around the building capping the parapets. • 3.I.B.5. Rooflines Staff Analysis: Roof design is an important element of a structure having an image of permanence and quality. The project design is consistent with Design Guidelines since it has a continuous screening parapet and is topped with tile and cornice elements. The flat roof design is consistent with the Mission Revival design style and the parapet design includes curved elements and architectural details. ARC 131-13; 772 & 774 Palm Street Old Mission School Page 5 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is exempt from environmental review under the Infill Development Categorical Exemption (Class 32). The project complies with this exemption since it is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Regulations, is on a site of less than five acres and is substantially surrounded by urban uses. The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species and will not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality and the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. In the previous staff discussion in the administrative hearing and Cultural Heritage Committee review, staff was anticipating the need to prepare an initial study since the project could have the potential to disturb archaeological deposits due to its close proximity to the Mission. Staff has determined that environmental review is not required since the project fulfills the above discussed requirements for the categorical infill development exception and the project design already incorporates measures which will minimize the potential for adverse impacts to archaeological resources with the use of caissons and compliance with existing requirements of the City's Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines. 5.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS The requirements of the other departments are reflected in the attached draft resolution as conditions of approval. 6.0 ALTERNATIVES 6.1. Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues. 6.2. Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the Community Design Guidelines. 7.0 ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. Vicinity Map 3. Applicant project description 4. Reduced size project plans Included in Commission member portfolio: project plans E •:. RESOLUTION NO. ####-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION GRANTING FINAL ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPROVAL FOR THE PALM STREET ANNEX PROJECT AT 772 & 774 PALM STREET (R-4 ZONE; ARC 131-13) WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing for the purpose of considering project plans for final approval in Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on November 18, 2013, pursuant to an application filed by Tina Ballantyne, applicant, for the purpose of considering ARC 131-13, a proposal to construct a new classroom building and staff office at 772 & 774 Palm Street; and WHEREAS, The Cultural Heritage Committee reviewed the project plans in Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on October, 28, 2013, and recommended final approval of the project based on findings of conformance with the Historic Preservation Ordinance; and, WHEREAS, An Administrative Use Permit hearing was held in the Council Hearing Room, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on October, 18, 2013, for review of the use permit proposal to establish the school use and off -site parking and was approved subject to final architectural review approval. WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and evaluation and recommendations by the staff at said hearings. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The Architectural Review Commission hereby grants final approval to the project (ARC 131-13), based on the following findings: 1. As conditioned, the project's design is appropriate and will be compatible with surrounding development. 2. As conditioned, the project design is consistent with the City's Community Design Guidelines for Residential Projects. 4. The project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of those working or residing in the vicinity since the proposed project is consistent with the site's High -Density Residential Zoning designation, and the project is consistent with relevant zoning and development regulations and will be subject to conformance with all applicable building, fire, and safety codes. 5. The project is categorically exempt under Class 32 (Section 15332), Infill Development, of the CEQA Guidelines since the project meets the following criteria: Resolution No. ARC-01411-13 772 & 774 Palm Street, ARC 131-13 Page 2 a. The project is consistent with its general plan designation and applicable general plan policies. b. The project site is within City limits on a project site of no more than five acres and is substantially surrounded by urban uses. c. The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. d. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. e. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. SECTION 2. Action. The Architectural Review Commission hereby grants final approval to the project with incorporation of the following conditions: 1. Final project design and construction drawings shall be in substantial compliance with the project plans as amended and approved by the ARC. A separate full-size sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that list all conditions, and code requirements of project approval as Sheet No. 2. Reference should be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed. Any change to approved design, colors, materials, landscaping or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Director or Architectural Review Commission, as deemed appropriate. Significant changes to the exterior building design to respond to potential structural and/or exiting issues shall return to the ARC for review and approval. Significant changes to the exterior building design to respond to potential structural and/or exiting issues shall return to the ARC for review and approval. 2. The color board for the project presented at the meeting was supported by the Architectural Review Commission. Plans shall clearly note that all stucco surfaces are not a sprayed -on product and have a smooth troweled finish. A sample of the finish shall be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. Any modifications to the approved palette shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of a building permit. Building colors, materials, and all exterior details shall be shown on the building elevations approved as part of working drawings. 3. The proposed use shall remain fully consistent with the project description and proposed daily operations described in application project submittals including the ages and grades of students and numbers of students and staff described in the proposal and approved in the associated Administrative Use Permit approval #A131-13. The operations shall also remain consistent with minor modifications to the use description which the applicant has agreed to in association with the withdrawal of appeal AP -PC 131-13. 4. Prior to issuance of building permits, written Director approval of the proposed consolidated approach as described in Chapter 5 of the Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines is required. The report shall contain all required information and required components of Chapter 5. 5. The locations of all wall -mounted lighting fixtures shall be clearly called out on building elevations included as part of working drawings. All wall -mounted lighting shall Resolution No. ARC-####-13 772 & 774 Palm Street, ARC 131-13 Page 3 complement building architecture. The lighting schedule for the building shall include a graphic representation of the proposed lighting fixtures, and cut -sheets shall be separately submitted for the project file of the proposed lighting fixtures. The selected fixture(s) shall be shielded to insure that light is directed downward consistent with the requirements of the City's Night Sky Preservation standards contained in Chapter 17.23 of the Zoning Regulations. Details of all exterior light fixtures, including any service area lights, need to be included as part of plans. A note shall be included on plans that "Lenses of exterior wall -mounted lights may be modified or shielding devices added after installation if the Community Development Director determines that they emit excessive glare." 6. The existing driveway approach shall be abandoned in favor of curb, gutter, and sidewalk per City Engineering Standards. The building plan submittal shall show and label the adjoining metered parking spaces and shall show additional metered parking in the area of the abandoned approach. The plan may require the relocation of one or more spaces and meters to provide a complying parallel parking layout. 7. Any sections of damaged or displaced curb, gutter, and sidewalk shall be repaired or replaced to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. Displaced sidewalk in the area of the street trees shall be replaced as necessary. A tree grate shall be included around the existing street trees to remain if a grate could reasonably fit around the existing tree and crown. Sidewalk area removed or replaced shall be constructed back in Mission Style Sidewalk per City Engineering Standards. 8. The proposed landscape plan for the area in front of the Administration Building should consider at least one street tree per City Engineering Standard #8010 to provide additional street tree coverage in the gap between the existing sidewalk trees. 9. The building plan submittal for demolition, grading, and new construction shall include pertinent tree preservation notes for the existing on -site trees to remain. 10. The building plan submittal shall include a complete grading and drainage plan. The drainage plan shall consider all existing historic upslope and off -site drainage that is tributary to this site. The proposed drainage plan shall show how any tributary drainage is collected and conveyed to an approved point of disposal. The drainage plan shall consider the historic runoff from this site for both quantity and point of discharge. Changes to the historic drainage may require additional drainage analysis from a licensed civil engineer. The drainage analysis, if additional runoff is directed off -site, may need to justify the capacity of the existing downstream drainage improvements. 11. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. The plan shall show all existing and proposed utilities along with all utility company meters. The plan shall show the location of the existing utilities located within the public right-of-way for reference. Resolution No. ARC-####-13 772 & 774 Palm Street, ARC 131-13 Page 4 12. The applicant shall submit a landscaping plan containing an irrigation system plan with submittal of working drawings for a building permit. The legend for the landscaping plan shall include the sizes and species of all groundcovers, shrubs, and trees with corresponding symbols for each plant material showing their specific locations on plans. The surfaces and finishes of hardscapes shall be included on the landscaping plan. The project's landscape and irrigation plans need to be in compliance with the City's Municipal Code Chapter 17.87 and Engineering Standards. The requirements can be found online at: http://www.slocity.org/utilities/download/engstandardsnewland.pdf . 13. The site shall be maintained in a neat and orderly manner at all times. All landscaping shall be maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan. 14. The location of any required backflow preventer and double-check assembly shall be shown on all site plans submitted for a building permit, including the landscaping plan. Construction plans shall also include a scaled diagram of the equipment proposed. The back flow preventer and double check assembly shall be screened using a combination of paint color, landscaping, and if deemed appropriate by the Community Development Director, a low wall. The size and configuration of such equipment shall be subject to review and approval by the Utilities and Community Development Directors. 15. The building plan submittal shall include a complete demolition and topographic survey plan. The plan shall show all existing trees to remain and trees to be removed. The trees in the area of the existing storage building shall remain unless otherwise approved for removal by the City Arborist. 16. The applicant shall submit a plan that delineates the location of the property's existing and proposed water meter(s), water services, and sewer laterals to the points of connection at the City water and sewer mains. The City's Utility Billing records indicate that the site is served by two existing 5/8" water meters. Please verify whether one of these existing water meters is proposed for landscape irrigation at the site. 17. If the property's existing sewer lateral is proposed to be reused, submittal of a video inspection will be required for review and approval of the Utilities Department during the Building Permit Review process. If a new lateral is proposed, the existing lateral must be abandoned per City standards. 18. Address Numbers: Approved address numbers shall be placed on all new buildings in such a position to be plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property. Numbers shall be a minimum of 5" high x 1/2" stroke and be on a contrasting background. 19. Fire Department Access to Equipment: Rooms or areas containing controls for air - handling systems, automatic fire -protection systems, or other diction, suppression or control elements shall be identified for use by the Fire Department and shall be located in the same area. A sign shall be provided on the door to the room or area stating "Fire Resolution No. ARC-####-13 772 & 774 Palm Street, ARC 131-13 Page 5 Sprinkler Riser" and "Fire Alarm Control Panel". Fire sprinkler risers shall be located in a room with exterior door access. Show Riser room on floor plans. 20. Knox Box: A Knox Box shall be provided on the outside of the Fire Sprinkler Riser Room with a key to the room. 21. Fire Protection Systems and Equipment: Fire protection systems shall be installed in accordance with the CFC and the California Building Code. An approved NFPA 13 system will be required for this project. Shop Drawings and Specifications shall be submitted for review and approval prior to installation. The fire main and all associated control valves shall be installed per NFPA 24 Standards and City Engineering standards. The Fire Department Connection shall be located along a fire apparatus access. 22. An approved fire alarm system is required for this project. The fire alarm system shall be interconnected to the main campus, unless an approved 2 way communication system, approved by the fire department, and manual pull stations are provided for both campus. 23. Emergency Planning: Outdoor assembly areas shall be designated and shall be located a safe distance (at least 50 feet) from the building being evacuated so as to avoid interference with fire department operations. The assembly areas shall be arranged to keep each class separate to provide accountability of all individuals. Please designate on plans. 24. Fire Safety During Construction: Buildings undergoing construction, alteration or demolition shall be in accordance with Chapter 14 of the CFC On motion by Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: REFRAIN: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 18t' day of November, 2013 Pam Ricci, Secretary Architectural Review Commission 000r, C-D-S-H H- �i3 -3; VICINITY MAP v'Oo .a� �vvvp File No. 131=13 W� OLD Mission School — Palm Street Annex 772 & 774 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Description of the Project: The Old Mission School (OMS) has experienced consistent growth in enrollment over the past few years resulting in the need for additional classroom space. The school intends to use the Annex property for upper level 7th & 8th grade classes. Currently, these students are attending classes in overflow classrooms at Mission College Prep. Mission College Prep has also experienced increased enrollment over the past few years, and can therefore no longer offer classroom space to the elementary and middle school. Old Mission School is proposing to redevelop an existing lot that currently includes residential and office uses, into new classroom and supporting administrative spaces to accommodate the existing enrollment at the primary Old Mission School campus around the block. This proposal will redistribute the existing middle school student body currently accommodated on a temporary basis at Mission College Prep, with no proposed increase in enrollment or staff. The proposed project involves the construction of 2 two buildings. The larger building will house 3 classrooms, accessory restrooms and a small meeting room, which will be used for small group or one-on-one sessions. Occupancy on the site is limited to 90 students maximum. The smaller building will accommodate a small staff office and lounge space for teachers. The buildings frame a side courtyard with circulation to a small landscaped yard at the rear of the property. The existing driveway at the Annex will be eliminated and replaced with standard City curb, gutter and sidewalk. Windows on the east side of the facility will be non -operable, with east -facing classroom doors posted with the following or similar language "This door may be opened for emergency egress only". PROJECT STATISTICS Primary purpose — 7th & 8th grade classrooms for currently enrolled students Students — approximately 25 per classroom Staff — 3 teachers and 1 site administrator Hours of operation — 8am- 5pm (classes 8am-3pm) PROPERTY BACKGROUND The existing 9,232 square foot (.2 acre) lot is zoned R-4, High Density Residential and is bordered on three sides by similar R-4 zoning. The Old Mission Parish Church is located immediately across Palm Street and is zoned C-D Downtown Commercial. The Diocese of Monterey currently owns the subject property as well as the neighboring property to the West along with the Old Mission Church, Old Mission School and Mission College Prep. An apartment building borders on the North and a single-family residence borders the site to the East. The subject property currently contains two single-family homes, one of which serves as a rental residence for the Old Mission parish and the other serves as office and storage space for Old Mission School and five parking spaces. Previous uses included a beauty salon. These existing structures are approximately 50 years old, have no historical significance or architectural merit and will be removed to make way for new development on the site. The existing site topography slopes slightly towards the rear of the property and consists of asphalt paving/parking towards the front and lawn/landscaping behind the rear house. While the proposed plan assumes the removal of four trees (two fig, two avocado) the design accommodates a cluster of olive trees that the City Arborist estimates at approximately 100 years old. OPERATIONAL PROGRAM In the morning, all students will be dropped off at the main OMS campus on Broad Street, per current and historic school procedure. Each school day is started with a student body assembly on the main OMS campus, after which a portion of the 7`t" & 8t' graders will be escorted by their teachers, walking to the Annex classrooms for the morning's lessons. At noon, teachers and staff will again escort these students back to the main campus to join their peers for lunch. After lunch, the balance of the 7t' & 8`h graders will then be escorted to the Annex for afternoon classes. At the end of the school day (approximately 3:00), all students at the Annex classrooms will be escorted back to the main OMS campus for after -school activities or pick-up by parents. Student drop --off and pick up at the Palm Street Annex is prohibited at all times throughout the day, except for disabled access. Long term teacher and staff parking for the Annex will continue to be accommodated in the existing OMS parking spaces in the parking garage at Mission College Prep. The intent of the proposed project is not to increase enrollment or capacity at Old Mission School, rather to adequately accommodate the school's current enrollment. Existing OMS students have been utilizing Mission College Prep classrooms on a temporary basis. All students at OMS are currently escorted by staff on a regular basis to Mission College Prep for classes and to the Old Mission Parish Church for church services. Therefore, no significant change in use or intensity is proposed with this project. All primary activities at the Annex campus are intended to be indoors with the exception of a short passing period in the morning and afternoon when the students will occupy the patio/yard areas. Students will not utilize the Palm Street Annex site for outside assembly, recess or lunchtime activities. All Physical Education classes and recess periods will continue to occur on the main OMS campus. Outdoor spaces at the Annex location are not intended for play or recreation and no amplified, electronic bells or buzzers will be used. Public use of the Palm Street Annex site is prohibited, and occasional uses after 5:00 pm. shall be limited to those related to the Old Mission School and Parish. a m x V V V V Cil v 3 N (D fD rt ul v Z3 r C O U- 0 !7 cu 0 O v MW rcn V F" • 0 w 0 0 n ri z m z m m z Z G) tn X !q z m 9 0 r- 0 z LA I m z f PALM STREET M 0 0 N m O a n m C N m 2 m m z m m Z O S333126'W 6366 �Y 3 {{ 3 t PALM STREET i i s r �e o o' F z w , � ■ ■ / [ � . . . � � m >� ^ 2 [} � .. ...:./}.. { ® . � � - { ( ( z n � v a� E � } Z o � N � C m 0 0 z Z A p ➢ O z Z � n 0 0 z z c c � a m r � m a A p Z 1 n z � C � � � n z m C — Z G1 Ell (1 I 111 i. 1 O 2 f+ 3 N ^M y z N, _ 1 n\ city Of Meeting Date: November 18, 2013 SAn WIS OBISPO ItemNumber: 2 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Review of modifications to the approved project design for Garden Street Terraces. PROJECT ADDRESS: 1119 Garden Street BY: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner (781-7168) E-mail: pricci@slocity.org FILE NUMBER: ARC 129-13 FROM: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) which recommends to the City Council that the revised project design be approved, based on findings, and subject to conditions. SITE DATA Applicant Garden Street SLO Partners, LP Representative Oasis Assoc., Carol Florence Zoning Downtown Commercial (C-D) & C-D-N (historical preservation overlay zone) General Plan I General Retail Site Area 1 48,418 square feet (1.1 acres) Other 1123-1127, 1129-1137 Garden Addressees Street & 712, 720, 722, 728, 736, & 748 Marsh Street Environmental A Final EIR was certified on June Status 1, 2010. The City Council approved an Addendum with final design review of the project on November 1, 2011. SUMMARY v �ti r a01� w en t � On November 1, 2011, the City Council approved the final design for the Garden Street Terraces Project which is a mixed -use center in the downtown core including retail, residential units and a hotel. The proposed project site, shown in the aerial photo above, consists of six parcels, including City Parking Lot No. 2, bordered by Broad Street, Garden Alley, Garden Street and Marsh Street. On August 8, 2013, the applicant submitted modified plans. The main difference between the current proposal and the previously approved plans is that the existing buildings located at the corner of Broad and Marsh Streets will remain with development of the project. The applicant is seeking the ARC's support for the modified project. The ARC's action will be a recommendation to the City Council, who in this case, will take the final action on the project design. 92 YA Garden Street Terraces Project (ARC 129-13; 11-18-13) Page 2 1.0 COMMISSION'S PURVIEW The ARC's role is to review the project in terms of its consistency with the Community Design Guidelines (CDG). Attachment 6 is the 8-15-11 staff report which provides a detailed project description and an analysis of the project's consistency with the applicable guidelines. Relevant excerpts from the CDG are included in the analysis where pertinent. 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 21 Site Description The 1.1-acre site is currently developed with a mix of public parking (City Parking Lot 42) and 12 one- to two-story public and private buildings, seven of which are historic resources, including 748 Marsh Street and 1119, 1123-1127, 1129-1137 Garden Street. The site is zoned Downtown Commercial. The Garden Street portion of the project site is within the Downtown Historical District, but the portion of the site containing City Parking Lot #2 is not. Surrounding properties consist of predominantly one -to two-story buildings occupied by office, retail, restaurant, and residential uses. 2.2 Project Description As shown in Table 1 below, the project maintains the mix of retail, residential, and hotel uses previously included. The predominant project change is the retention of the single -story buildings along Marsh Street that were previously proposed for demolition. The overall square footage of the project is reduced from 135,448 to 93,425 with the retention of the existing corner buildings at Marsh and Broad Street, rather than the construction of a new building here with three levels of floor area. Table 1. Project Land Uses (Final Design 11-1-11 & Current Project) Final Design 11-1-11 Current Project Use Details/Units Size (sf) Details/Units Size si) Retail 25,047 20,542 Residential 8 units 18,023 8 units 8,640 Hotel/Restaurant 48 rooms 53,740 64 rooms 46,630 Trash room/ground 7,061 3,563 floor circulation Parking 74 private spaces 31,577 41 private spaces 14,050 Total 135,448 93,425 The project plans include the two buildings at the corner of Marsh and Broad remaining as part of the project site area as well as part of the overall retail project floor space. However, these buildings are under separate ownership and any changes to the exterior of these structures are not a part of this project review. Garden Street Terraces Project (ARC 129-13; 11-18-13) Page 3 Project parking is private and is set aside for the hotel and residents. There are 41 spaces provided at the ground level. The previous project also included a basement level of parking that is no longer proposed. Parking will be overseen by a valet service. 3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS Comparing the previously approved elevations with the current plans, the Contemporary architectural style with elements of Spanish architecture in terms of some of the materials like the smooth finish plaster and clay tile roof and details like rafter tails has been maintained. The overall height and massing of the new structure proposed for City parking Lot# 2 is generally the same as previously proposed. The Garden Street and Garden Alley elevations of the building are very similar in appearance to the prior project design. This report focuses on the following: 1) The changes to the Broad and Marsh Street elevations of the project with the retention of the existing structures at the corner. 2) Modifications to colors and materials. 3.1 Marsh Street Elevation With the retention of the corner buildings, a 44-inch wide exit corridor is required between the existing buildings and the new project. This creates the need for a solid property line wall without openings that appears above the corner buildings when looking at the project from Marsh Street. Figure 1. Marsh Street Elevation Staffs Analysis: While the elevation view may overstate the visibility and prominence of this wall, staff finds that the design could benefit from additional articulation. The applicant has addressed the concern by proposing two different treatments for the visible wall: 1) a solid brick wall adjacent to the portion of the building with the ground floor retail and the residential flats above; and 2) a vegetative "green wall" for the continued wall. The green wall is an interesting solution that has been used successfully in a number of different projects. The vegetative element adds a different color and texture and provides more greenery Garden Street Terraces Project (ARC 129-13; 11-18-13) Page 4 to the downtown core. Specific construction details including irrigation information for the green wall have not been provided yet. The applicant team has indicated that they will provide more information on the wall design at the ARC meeting. Attachment 8 includes an excerpt from an article in the October 2013 issue of Landscape Architect about a project with a green wall and discusses some of the specifics with the phases or layers for a green wall. The circumstances in design and climate may differ, but the information may help the Commission to understand some of the components to this technology and construction. Condition No. 8 is recommended which would require that the design details on green wall construction and irrigation be included on working drawings submitted for a building permit. There are a variety of different ways that articulation could be added to the brick portion of the wall. The end goal is to add interest, but not make the wall too busy or a focal element. One idea would be to utilize another type of material already used in the project. Staff suggests that using one of the synthetic wood screens shown on Sheet A.12 might be an elegant solution for the taller portion of the wall where it steps. Commission Discussion Item: Discuss ideas for additional articulation for the property line wall. 3.2 Broad Street Elevation Community Design Guidelines Section 4.2 BA provides guidance on minimizing the scale of taller, larger buildings downtown. A key element to the success of a larger building fitting in is to respect the historic lot pattern and rhythm of development by using changes in materials or setbacks to express different tenant spaces at the street level. Staffs Analysis: The two tenant spaces are predominantly brick with an intervening horizontal textural trellis that provides for a material change. The brick shown on Sheet A.15 is a variegated taupe that will show more texture and variety than comes across with the elevation images. The spaces appear a bit repetitive, but adding a different color or material could make the elevation look busy Figure 2. Broad Street Elevation Garden Street Terraces Project (ARC 129-13; 11-18-13) Page 5 Commission Discussion Item: Discuss whether any additional variety to differentiate the tenant spaces is desired. The green wall analyzed with the review of the Marsh Street elevation turns the corner and is also visible beyond the corner building from Broad Street. The wall then steps up in height and transitions to brick. Staffs Analysis: Staff finds the proposed treatment here appropriate given the proximity of the building beyond with a trellis balcony and openings. Commission Discussion Item: Discuss whether any other treatment to the brick wall is desired here. 3.3 Colors and Materials Sheet A.15 shows proposed colors and materials. The board with actual samples will be available for Commission review at the meeting. The brick color is lighter than the gray brick previously proposed. The brick color was a discussion point by some members of the public that felt that it was too dark and ominous looking. Another change to materials is the addition of the vertical rectangular patterned accent colored composite cladding. 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In December of 2009, the City's environmental consultant, AMEC prepared an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the Garden Street Terraces project. On June 1, 2010, the City Council certified the Final EIR for the project through Resolution No. 10182. A Notice of Determination was filed with the County Clerk on June 3, 2010. Based on the City Council's actions taken on June 1, 2010, the applicant and the project design team redesigned the project to be consistent with the Reduced Development (environmentally superior alternative) and Project without Public Parking Spaces alternatives included in the certified Final EIR. In 2011 the applicant filed revised plans which reduced the mass and scale of the proposed new structure and retained the historic resources located along Garden Street. An Addendum was prepared in 2011 to document how the revised project eliminated several identified impacts in the Final EIR and the need for certain corresponding mitigation measures. The City Council approved the Addendum with their approval of the final project design on November 1, 2011. The current project is further reduced in scale and results in no new impacts beyond those previously identified in the EIR and Addendum approved by the City Council. This update to the previous Addendum includes a new project description and incorporates the Addendum and Final EIR by reference (Attachment 5). The update also reiterates the required findings that the changes in the project description do not result in new or more severe environmental impacts since the EIR was originally prepared. Garden Street Terraces Project (ARC 129-13; 11-18-13) Page 6 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Comments from the other departments have been incorporated into the recommended resolution as conditions of approval. 5.0 ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. City Council Resolution No. 10312 (2011 Series) approving the final design 3. Vicinity map 4. Revised project plans 5. Update to Addendum reflecting the revised project description 6. 8-5-11 ARC staff report & minutes 7. 9-19-11 ARC staff report & minutes 8. October 2013 excerpt from Landscape Architect magazine on a green wall design Included in ARC portfolios: 11" x 17" colored project plans Attachment 1 RESOLUTION NO. -13 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION RECOMMENDING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT DESIGN TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF ARC 124-06 (1119, 1123-1127,11294137 GARDEN STREET AND 712, 720, 722, 728, 736, 748 MARSH STREET) WHEREAS, the applicant, Garden Street SLO Partners, LP, on August 8, 2006, submitted a request for architectural approval of a proposal to develop a mixed -use development project in the downtown core know as Garden Street Terraces; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted public hearings in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on August 15, 2011, and again on September 19, 2011, for the purpose of evaluating the final design of the project; and WHEREAS, the applicant submitted revised plans to the Community Development Department on August 8, 2013 for architectural review of the modified project design; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on November 18, 2013 for the purpose of evaluating the proposed revisions to the previously approved final design of the project; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section. 1. Findings. The Architectural Review Commission hereby makes the following findings in support of the project, and recommends final approval of the project design to the City Council, based on the following findings: Findings 1. As designed and conditioned, the building materials, style, character, and form of the new structures within the project will promote the architectural character, style, form, and materials of the existing Downtown Historical District and complement Resolution No. (2013 Series) Page 2 the architectural character of the surrounding buildings and area consistent with the City's Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. 2. The project is consistent with standards contained in the City's Community Design Guidelines for the downtown, which encourage projects to be pedestrian -oriented, and to have proportions and design details that complement surrounding structures 3. The project's design is consistent with the design principles contained in Section 4.16 of the Land Use Element including providing pedestrian -oriented spaces on the ground floor of buildings, continuous storefronts, and upper floor dwellings and offices. 4. The project is consistent with the mitigation measures adopted by the City Council on June 1, 2010 with the certification of the Final Garden Street Terraces Project EIR, and with the Update to the Addendum approved by the City Council on November 1, 2011 with the review of the final project design. Section 2. Action. The Architectural Review Commission hereby recommends final approval of the project design to the City Council, subject to the following conditions of approval: Conditions 1. Final project design and construction drawings shall be in substantial compliance with the revised project plans reviewed by the ARC and ultimately approved by the City Council. A separate full-size sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that list all conditions, and code requirements of project approval as Sheet No. 2. Reference should be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed. Any change to approved design, colors, materials, landscaping or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Director or Architectural Review Commission, as deemed appropriate. 2. The final design approval shall be valid for five years from the date of City Council approval. 3. The project is subject to all of the conditions approved through City Council Resolution No. 10183 (2010 Series) for a modified use permit and tentative tract map, and the conditions approved through City Council Resolution No. 10312 (2011 Series). If a previous condition is modified with this latest approval, the latter condition shall prevail and supersede the former wording of the condition. Any phasing of the overall project, shall receive Community Development and Public Works Department review and approval. 4. All applicable mitigation measures contained in the Final EIR shall be included as conditions of approval and are incorporated herein by reference. Resolution No. (2013 Series) Page 3 Building Design 5. The colors and materials for the building shall be consistent with the color boards approved with the modified project design. Any modifications to the approved palettes shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of a building permit. Building colors shall be shown on the building elevations approved as part of working drawings. 6. To augment Condition No. 14 of City Council Resolution No. 10312 (2011 Series), plans shall clearly note that all stucco and plastered surfaces are not a sprayed -on product and have a smooth hand -finished appearance to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. A sample of the finish shall be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. To augment Condition No. 18 of City Council Resolution No. 10312 (2011 Series), the sign program shall include language that Internally illuminated cabinet signs, including individual channel letters, are prohibited as a form of signage. 8. The specific design details of the green vegetated wall construction and irrigation shall be included on working drawings submitted for a building permit. 9. Additional wall articulation shall be added to the brick property line wall of the Broad Street portion of the new building visible from Marsh Street such as using one of the synthetic wood screens. 10. Consistent with Mitigation Measure TT-11a, the applicant shall pay parking in -lieu fees prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project. The precise amount of this requirement will be determined by the City Council with their review of the final project design and lease agreement. Individual tenant improvements will be evaluated to determine whether the parking requirement is increased and additional parking -in -lieu fees are required, such as with restaurant uses. Utilities 11. Submittal of a video inspection will be required for review and approval of the Utilities Department during the Building Permit Review process for all existing laterals that are proposed to be reused (referenced with Utility reference Note #3). If a new lateral is proposed, the existing lateral must be abandoned per City standards. 12. Plans shall show the 8" PVC water main in Garden Street that was recently installed, confirmed with the record drawings for the 8" water main. 13. Each residential unit shall have a separate water meter installed in the sidewalk per City Standard 6210. To reduce the number of connections and service lines from the main to the meters, utilize City Standard 6260 wherever possible. If any of the commercial spaces will be sold as individual properties or condominium units in the Resolution No. (2013 Series) Page 4 future, individual meters to each privately owned commercial space will be required. This may be applicable to the commercial spaces along Garden Street. 14. Existing meters and service lines may not be appropriately sized to serve the proposed uses. Water service line size and meter size should be indicated on the plans. 15. Water services in Garden Alley driveway shall be relocated out of traffic area to adjacent sidewalk area per City Standard 6020. The existing water services shall be abandoned per City Standard 6050. 16. Fire service line size and connection detail to City water main shall be indicated on plan. 17. Correct the labeling on sheet C.6 to reflect the correct trash and recycling area. 18. Food preparation facilities shall provide an area inside to wash floor mats, equipment, and trash cans if not performed by an off -site service. The wash area shall be drained to the sanitary sewer. Fire 19. A minimum 16 feet unobstructed roadway width was agreed upon for Garden Street, inclusive of a 4 foot wide area adjacent to the project that has rolled curbs that fire apparatus can drive on and is clearly demarcated from the sidewalk. 20. This design has sleeping rooms with the rescue/escape windows facing Garden Alley. The window heights exceed the capability of fire department ground ladders and Garden alley is too narrow for ladder truck access. The latest edition of the Building and Fire Codes allows exceptions to this provision if the building is sprinklered and is built of Type I, IIA, or IIIA construction. The proposed construction type shall be Type IIIA, IIA or I for this portion of the project to mitigate access to rescue windows. 21. All new buildings shall have their fire sprinkler risers in a room on an exterior wall with an exterior access door. Please show these rooms on plans. 22. Recess fire department connections that are exposed to pedestrian traffic. Standpipes for manual firefighting operations are required on each level of the building. Building 23. If project is submitted on or after January 1, 2013 the 2013 California Codes will be the adopted and applicable Codes. Resolution No. (2013 Series) Page 5 24. Plans show that project is to have two accessible parking spaces. Plans show the two spaces in tandem, please note that accessible parking spaces are not allowed to be in tandem. Section 1 I29B CBC. Public Works and Transportation 25. Amend Condition No. 25 of City Council Resolution No. 10312 (2011 Series) as follows. Plans submitted for a building permit shall address the following items related to the public improvements for Garden Street, Marsh Street, Broad Street, and Garden Alley: a. Complete details for the in -ground pavement lights across Higuera at Garden Street. b. Final loading zone areas, design, and displacements. c. Detail any public art proposals within the public right-of-way. d. Detailed parking meter layout for the angled parking spaces. e. Inclusion of at least one accessible parking space. f. Restoration and/or improvement of the existing bicycle racks on Garden Street and the public racks located with Parking Lot #2. The racks shall be located in the general area of the existing racks and areas of future need. In -street bike racks may be considered along Broad Street. g. Final parkway or streetscape design including pedestrian streetlights, tree grate upgrades, Mission Style sidewalk tile band details, and accessible crossings. h. The proposed roll -curb and fire lane markings (red curb) shall be maintained by the developer or property owner association by agreement with the City. Street sweeping along the roll -curb and "saw -tooth" curb line where not cleared with standard City street sweeping will be the responsibility of the developer or property owner association. i. The existing 8' sidewalk along the West side of Garden Street shall be improved to 12' in width from Marsh Street to Higuera Street. j. Public Improvement plans and record drawings will be required for the work within the public right-of-way. On motion by Commissioner and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: REFRAIN: ABSENT: , seconded by Commissioner The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 181h day of November, 2013 Pam Ricci, Secretary Attachment 2 RESOLUTION NO. 10312 (2011 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING THE FINAL DESIGN OF THE GARDEN STREET TERRACES MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT IN THE C-D & C-D-H ZONES (ARC 124-06; 1119, 1123-1127, 1129-1137 GARDEN STREET AND 712, 720, 722, 728, 736, 748 MARSH STREET) WHEREAS, the applicant, Garden Street SLO Partners, LP, on August 8, 2006, submitted a request for architectural approval of a proposal to develop a mixed -use development project in the downtown core known as Garden Street Terraces; and WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) conducted a public hearing on July 25, 2011, and determined that the revised project design is appropriate in the Downtown Commercial Zone and Downtown Historical District, and recommended final approval of the project design to the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) and City Council; and WHEREAS, the ARC conducted public hearings of the final design on August 15, 2011, and September 19, 2011, and recommended approval of the project design to the City Council on September 19`h; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on November 1, 2011, pursuant to an application filed by Garden Street SLO Partners, LP, applicant for the purpose of considering ARC 124-06, final design review for the Garden &reet Terraces Project; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that was previously certified by the Council on June 1, 2010, along with the Addendum dated September 2011 prepared to update the EIR to be consistent with revised project plans reviewed by the CHC and ARC; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Final EIR as updated by the Addendum dated September, 2011 adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City's Environmental Guidelines, and reflects the independent judgment of the Council. The Council has reviewed and considered the R 10312 Resolution No. 10312 (2011 Series) Page 2 information contained in this Addendum in its consideration of the final project design and finds that the preparation of a subsequent EIR is not necessary, based on the following findings: Findin s 1. None of the circumstances included in Section 15162, which require a subsequent EIR have occurred, specifically: a. The project changes do not result in new environmental impacts. b. The circumstances under which the project is undertaken will not require major changes to the EIR. c. The modified project does not require any substantive changes to previously approved mitigation measures. 2. The proposed modifications to the project description are consistent with prior Council direction to update plans to be consistent with the Reduced Development and Project without Public Parking Spaces alternatives included in the certified Final EIR approved by the City Council on June 1, 2011. 3. All of the updated mitigation measures are reasonably necessary to reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels and become project conditions. 4. The changes are consistent with City goals to promote the intensification of infill sites, respect the context of the site's setting in the Downtown Commercial Zone and Downtown Historical District, provide a project scale compatible with its surroundings, accommodate pedestrian flow through the site and onto adjacent streets, and bring economic vitality to the downtown core. The proposed scale and design of buildings will be compatible with surrounding uses as found by the City's Architectural Review Commission with their review of project plans and are consistent with the City's General Plan, Zoning Regulations, and Community Design Guidelines. SECTION 2. Action. The final design of the Garden Street Terraces Project (ARC 124-06) is hereby approved, based on the following findings, and subject to the mitigation measures listed in the attached Exhibit A and the following conditions: Findinas As designed and conditioned, the building materials, style, character, and form of the new structures within the project will promote the architectural character, style, form, and materials of the Downtown Commercial Zone and Downtown Historical District and complement the architectural character of the surrounding buildings and area consistent with the City's Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. Resolution No. 10312 (2011 Series) Page 3 2. The project is consistent with standards contained in the City's Community Design Guidelines for the downtown, which encourage projects to be pedestrian -oriented, and to have proportions and design details that complement surrounding structures 3. The project's design is consistent with the design principles contained in Section 4.16 of the Land Use Element including providing pedestrian -oriented spaces on the ground floor of buildings, continuous storefronts, and upper floor dwellings and offices. 4. The project is consistent with the mitigation measures adopted by the City Council on June 1, 2010 with the certification of the Final Garden Street Terraces Project FIR. Conditions Final project design and construction drawings shall be in substantial compliance with the project plans approved by the City Council. A separate full-size sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that list all conditions, and code requirements of project approval as Sheet No. 2. Reference should be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed. Any change to approved design, colors, materials, landscaping or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Director or Architectural Review Commission, as deemed appropriate. 2. The final design approval shall be valid for five years from the date of City Council approval. The project is subject to all of the conditions approved through City Council Resolution No. 10183 (2010 Series) for a modified use permit and tentative tract map. If a previous condition is modified with this latest approval, the latter condition shall prevail and supersede the former wording of the condition. Any phasing of the overall project, shall receive Community Development and Public Works Department review and approval. 4. All applicable mitigation measures contained in the Final FIR shall be included as conditions of approval and are included in the attached Exhibit A. Building Design 5. The new project building through its lowered height and design which includes wall offsets, tiered massing, and visual gaps at upper building levels meets the intent of the parameters included in the Reduced Development Alternative of the EIR for upper floor setbacks eliminating the need for Condition No. 2 of City Council Resolution No. 10183 (2010 Series). 6. Historically accurate window specifications for the buildings at 1119 and 1123 & 1137 Garden Street shall be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) with their review of project plans and details shall be included in working drawings. 7. Changes to the rear elevation of the building at 1123-1127 Garden for new windows and Resolution No. 10312 (2011 Series) Page 4 doors shall be a quality and historically accurate treatment. Specific details shall be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) with their review of project plans and details and specifications included in working drawings. 8. The existing variety of color with the tenant spaces within the buildings at 1129-1137 Garden, or a similar new proposal, shall be maintained to reinforce the character and interest of the block. 9. All of the significant and contributing character -defining historic features identified in the Garden Street Terraces Project Analysis prepared by Chattel Architecture, Planning & Preservation dated April 2011 shall be retained and incorporated into the project consistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards and Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. 10. The building at 748 Marsh shall be painted in a color consistent with its Spanish architectural style that differentiates it from the new construction beyond. 11. The central portion of the Marsh Street elevation of the new structure shall be finished in a compatible color to differentiate it from adjacent storefronts. 12. Plans submitted for a building permit for all project components shall include window details indicating the style and type of materials for the windows, mullions, their dimensions, and colors. Plans shall also include the materials and dimensions of all lintels, sills, surrounds, recesses, and other related window features. 13. Plans submitted for a building permit for all project components shall clearly show details for all railings, balconies, decorative architectural features, and storefronts. 14. The plaster finish for buildings shall be smooth -troweled as noted on plans. Planning 15. The project's required archaeological monitoring report shall be reviewed by the Cultural Heritage Committee. 16. The specific art proposals for the project shall return to the ARC for review at a later date once developed by artists and approved by an art jury as overseen by the SLO Arts Council. Consider an additional location for public art at the corner of Marsh and Broad Streets. 17. Details of lighting fixtures shall return to staff for review and approval, either prior to, or along with, the plans submitted for a building permit. The locations of all lighting fixtures shall be clearly called out on building elevations included as part of working drawings. The lighting schedule for buildings shall include a graphic representation of the proposed lighting fixtures and cut -sheets shall be separately submitted for the project file of the proposed lighting fixtures. The selected fixture(s) shall be shielded to insure that light is directed downward consistent with Section 17.23.050 of the Zoning Regulations. Details of all exterior light fixtures, including site lighting and service area lights, need to be included Resolution No. 10312 (2011 Series) Page 5 as part of plans. A note shall be included on plans that "Lenses of exterior wall -mounted lights may be modified or shielding devices added after installation if the Community Development Director determines that they emit excessive glare." 18. A specific sign program for the project shall be to the review and approval of the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). The sign program shall include information on the sizes, locations, colors, materials, and types of signage proposed for various buildings and project directional signs, including garage and hotel entry signage. Project signs shall be designed to be compatible with the architecture of proposed buildings and to complement the site's setting within both the Downtown Commercial Zone and Downtown Historical District. Once adopted, the sign program shall contain provision for the Community Development Director to approve minor deviations to the approved sign program if findings can be made in support of the exception being consistent with the intent of the program, and in keeping with the design characteristics and historical context of the building(s) and/or site. The Director may refer signage proposals to the ARC if there are concerns that a particular design is out of character with the sign program. 19. Mechanical equipment shall be located internally to buildings. With submittal of working drawings, the applicant shall include sectional views of buildings, which clearly show the sizes of proposed condensers and other mechanical equipment to be placed on the roof to confirm that parapets and other roof features will adequately screen them. A line of site diagram may be needed to confirm that proposed screening will be adequate. 20. The required fire risers for buildings shall be located internal to buildings. Other fire department equipment. shall be located internal to buildings where feasible. The externally mounted Fire Department Connection (FDC) for buildings shall have a chrome or brass finish to the approval of the Community Development Director. Trees 21. Tree protection measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. The City Arborist shall review and approve the proposed tree protection measures prior to commencing with any demolition, grading, or construction. The City Arborist shall approve any safety pruning, the cutting of substantial roots, or grading within the dripline of trees. A city -approved arborist shall complete safety pruning. Any required tree protection measures shall be shown or noted on the building plans. Contact the City Arborist at 781- 7023 to review and to establish any required preservation measures to be included with the building permit submittal. 22. A tree protection bond or surety shall be provided to the city prior to demolition, construction, and/or tree relocations to the satisfaction of the City Arborist, Public Works Director, and Community Development Director. The surety amount shall be established in accordance with current standards for evaluating tree value. Resolution No. 10312 (2011 Series) Page 6 23. All new or relocated trees shall be installed per City Engineering Standards. Existing trees to remain shall be upgraded to include a tree well and grate per City Engineering Standard 48130 where determined feasible by the City Arborist. 24. Any required off -site compensatory tree planting as required by Mitigation Measure VIS-5b shall be 24" box stock. Said plantings shall be completed prior to acceptance of the public improvements or prior to occupancy whichever occurs first unless otherwise approved for deferral by the Public Works Director. Public Works 25. Plans submitted for a building permit shall address the following items of the Garden Street Improvement Plan: a. In -ground pavement lights across Higuera Street at Garden Street. b. Final loading zone design/placement. c. Public art proposal, if applicable. d. An increase in height of the parking bollard to improve its visibility. e. Inclusion of one on -street ADA parking space. f. Use of the four existing Peak bicycle racks. g. Final parkway designs. 26. The Garden Street Alley plan shall include a decorative pavement treatment for its entire extent between Garden and Broad Streets and show all existing and proposed public and private utilities. Improvements to the public alley, including final bollard design, shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director. The proposed grease interceptor may be located within the public alley. A separate encroachment agreement shall be recorded against the property. 27. Final street furniture details shall comply with the City Engineering Standards in effect at the time of submittal or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 28. Disruption to pedestrian or vehicle traffic and/or property access shall be minimized subject to the approval of the Public Works Director. The contractor or sub-contractor(s) may be required to provide written notice to any affected properties prior to commencing with work. A list of properties to be noticed shall be approved by the city and documentation of delivery of said notice(s) shall be provided to the city. Upon motion of Council Member Carter, seconded by Vice Mayor Ashbaugh, and on the following vote: AYES: Council Members Carpenter and Carter, Vice Mayor Ashbaugh and Mayor Marx NOES: Council Member Smith ABSENT: None Resolution No. 10312 (2011 Series) Page 7 The foregoing resolution was adopted this I" day of November 2011. ATTEST: Elaina Cano City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: J. De trick kitAttorney y H P� 04 J 9 E EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A o � � r`�i, •� o ii O •ti 4+ O. o y 0 0 Eo 'c5a o R 'r �40 w o o E y o" E a b> 40 Z Ir n •v F•� c. i Y o y Y cni =1 'y rn �. aq oar. (U >tw o 00 vQ, 3 b o id c G F m 3 N c n o aroi aq co u a'"i 3' a o "' Ll a� ro v C7 G w vo, a °o v Q "a ca nn 04a' ppo 0 % hUyO � a% G o 'a AC nyai - ' d ml 1Qo N.0 to 0. o L0 o :c cd .0 w o OD �a 0 0 a U Co m o n; Encv p a� q Q. y � " c � 3v �� � o.o.� a� � � �' �� �Cq•� ono K; � � � �, .> > y H mu 0" o aroi 6 a o. ca aoi ° o a.ro o o C av 3 `w�a o o5"�W ¢ oww 0 ob• i' a �R. aroi-O c 3 0 o v "b °c' c o> d _ � *� v.�'�.:.c coiCCU L o 3 0 0.0 0¢ o x h �2'� Ca �°' M �, o a�i'w°�' ai o v ° 3..aw �t1w aid'v�i fe y N 0 0 m Q � 0 y � a c U o 0 v y •p o 0 'uv r ¢ `° o a� a 'A A a 8 � •p 0Cq Q U d cC (7 w Cy roi LL o U N ES-14 Garden Street Terraces Project Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY � r u lc ID 0 J.. O '3 ca^ cd sia.. a YO � ��6�6��• v�i �Q •4) O w•+ U y >i 0 .�... Qy f+ -0 '- O Q L) ♦+ 71 t1. .•-� N w y rf:• (]. �., V ° F," F+ N {w 47 cd t+ 61 �' -.i O r N ? Q CA ° O U .Y Q ❑ rj, W Q G �- v O H G R a� R U cC .� ate,7> ° 3 0 03 .�. i ;� b *" o Co 7�yyQ ¢ Y¢ s .� b o n c b Q Y3� Q N V 0 Q. � � � O � G •� xV� -0 > .=r U R � y � Y d Gl U O ti U' U t3 .. 2 v 91. 000, U .�� y v> P Ch 0-0 u ° ay•o.d `3 8��° o �� aUi n'3•� z .5d 0 .> w d ° o�'`^N R �a�A ¢ .0b�a N P y r, U,O y > o p �ppU a� ,�, V p�M� a� c%dz c1 a3i. .r v�pq A `0 3 �_ > ��' ' VI •� o `H Ao°n o 0Cd N-0 00 x u O ¢, C •��'' y `cp �; 3 `X L U a"i �, 'y o A O t« C ,� 3 w U G 3 .V v, N o° o o Q c 'O b c o o w o a"i b ;y d aoi U �, a `J 75 o C 'p y •. o .. aUi v 0 cva w .o is W aL1d s ° A ?a4a�a�i � o �c�a. P. (a �vd v� ad.o mQ a� Ewa KZ 4•s o� u0 <c) Garden Street Terraces Project Final EIR ES-15 9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY u y a+ a•�•+ 42 . = a A n i o a° b= w o ai cui O U W ai O " b ;d O O p ra J 4) bA O c y o oY «� .� pp?� U � 4° � H � � ° 0o o m o 6� � � ' L � A ' a� d a c 0 Q^ 1-0w v U45 a�i api o c L o 9 °Cy I �° o d v Q Q ?� Q �, Q v at°i i w' a A o to �.+ U p C'. •.'y "'L,y p U U cd 0-0 i' ES-16 L � 0 - •p CO u U tj (D b110 U c $ o °A3 °35 dh� c E •o a c� 5y�,�,� O W 4, 0- L W a� K ° �O -0 O U ,J T o o _ _ N v, Ov1 cd O v Garden Street Terraces Project Final EIR Am EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CO) 4. o � C2 °o o v a en avwn45v a o. ,o °U� 0 g a �L� 2 o� o o0�w r CO • ,� o Q,•3 •a 4., y •� '� O N v Q ate[ o p o 0 8 04 a�i ° o a o o a y v c v C cn o y 3 o v to y ,� 3 N N P ai �v cq •_ w i O oq a ,�; a .= 9 a v o b =;> o 'A o a'v o Q° p, w ea v ° J+ s.J C �� vi -0 C6 Ci b iy y O 8 ;r W GL w p l y o 0'A ° a y ° n v ie eD �° A° b C v � .o o Ty p �a ou 0 g 6 ro � U C ' > 3 cn o :3 � � •� A 4 Ed ro no'% a ts. a w � i° wcd oLE' o°.c .a N v o v Li o y tu wFF. , 'C3yG,'� .aa°a�R[i: . vO.OdO aic7C� '$�qpa,� •�y °y i3`°' aO�G�6q 6v a�ai Qy yo a� 'qyN -°�:a �px* o � l" .•�yF>4 'Yy UwG y Q,a.v.0 o v °Gw O wC0 u o'm to a '2O _1 C N po f30, A0E! i Oa "= 4- ,,Q -j Op O� � O O Q O_° _m sd O A cv 0 L) lr� O .0 cd uCL 1+ O°y xi > .oO 7 0 o O .� O P. v A •a V � o c> •d :? ,� p ,� ��•' a> •� Cp./"". y`' c�.i 'O " � "gOeo ' n. •�ro -' O Q'N p y 'T7 F •cva �"i `� 3.� v�,.� vhao v� cgi0.a1•o �F" .ya ° qv ° o gv��� c� av dgypew, oy ov`��' ao ia� C7 N � dMvo-0 4 v" dO a ON U vU�i v v Owo „bAQ a� a.'o p • • • • • u O • • • as C d 7 00 p. V y y O_ N oQ � � V n` •1 P U V C.� > Pr> o C.4: Q.5 o } �a i0�a.� .doz'd o a ° w 3 m y o a c p o 0 �o��'• > ayi ram. E p, 0 C r%ZW v U o Garden Street Terraces Project Final EIR ES•-17 E7{ECU' tVE SUMMARY � O ca a z � o � 3�UC7 o b O a�°° a (: C) O`� O E a�c`n�01 p .0 cB .� .° z 3 0 ° = on adi �, a cd cd -rJ C id O cd 5 '«g p a� aCi a� w• O .'� O ?? Sp ro y w rn '.�"�„ «+Cd O J~ ^C7 TJ N ti 'O al td C y °C. U CV 0 u U 5 ° w "-',� '= n �.� a� QV 0 aka CEd �,�?: oroC�ns' o nn >ena �YOir,u�3v C:L to 5°�':� 0 000,,-.r�o�o 0•° ° °n " c F 0 5 0O ai H o ° o •�, .° `f� +-' ,., ,'� o in > 'd CY va •,�7 .G �n "k ,� `''-' In id id a eCd °� gbw`"oC ��4. 4a �gso �, a�5.�,a��v N "' `° w' O fn a �°0F o� 0 oo o o :Syt aroo>>00p� a„°C�a , p 0 ; 0 � U a� ' ob° Rv �,�UA o b` Ca 3 y 5 c >'o°'na�i CJ � ° �3 Cu k bx �b � a °'cay. 5� 0 �° a .� °9 o > °' ° a o�n ° ° a� d t, y .� ., �, w 0 5 „ a� p 5 °' o O O �aCd o a O Q. E� o o� 3 b o 3 .5 � a 0° 0 0 -et �,' q> ° •? 0 c%i a�i �a w Cd Cn m *U- a) cw+i b ° 'J O 5 s U o � r, v M 5 5 ❑ d .? � a� C Y ' �3 $3 '� 0 & E] � 0 a o y a0i a d w .c0i ° o '� ¢ a v :J o C1 D o c o. o Q '°'' Q U (� a y C o d ��y 5 0 5 •� � o tun 5U o I as 0 V3 3 rsg a, o a0.0 w 5 0-0 on 0 C N .d C A ES-18 Carden Street Terraces Project Final EIR Ui7 EXECU77VE SUMMARY !� v �f to � O � •O � C � � .O � 'S O p N .a .���' too°';° a�5ibqq 5o d �R o (uo> a. Cd ° °o a. ^�' b 3 n d is o 0 ,x aJ IJ G b `b' t " .� cA to 9ti ,Co a �. 00O o3 '•��ai. S1 o't "5 oo°'mCr�—'a •a O cd R =Q C a�uy y C pp aG o u iw ' o.0 5 �� a 0�wYo�x wa x cyi y y49 • °' a"i a o 00 a v b N w 5 c aCi ri a� 3 R> -� p �p O y�-d �w tica�iwo oa 3 ��b d oza c Garden Street Terraces Project Final EIR lC o 0 O '� y 3 9 lu q IOU avi O o`b a i �M+ Q N X O ov OHO d h .� .� N FL^i +�• 0 Ca Qs c.� 3 . '9 'O O '� •C � U oh cis 01 M C rn p A 'O Q yU ES-19 9 m y d b as •fin Fz+ O rrO IBC FA v cc CZ a Z 0% .'C C a w v � �a t V in EXECUTIVE SUMMARY N � p w a� a 0. yu N > w�'0 Cu 0o p y •p � b 0 3 cc a +- V .. Q CO C y a O a O tw a •'" .' >v�a N asi f j G a'+ •y m G 'b v Wp 6) o o.� °� 3 °mac ai a0i O aCi O G aCi NO .� O i0 ar v 01 `� �n 8 F V s. a� 0 Y� a�'.. N U f _. o C Q. pNy 7 N O C n v�i O .� Q 0 al N O O y v V lAO •p C O ctl Ca. G a a 0 > s. O 3 sp, >> w,° p .-r N Cd C. 41 0 O y o � O pp w N N � at U > O G p•' N 'U aCi 'N yO.� (r� i�+1 RN *" N 'O �"" U -= pN& = -,, > V 'D •'O"'' � ate+ � .f�' O T'.+ •�;,. m •V F., G ^`p 'O '0 Q" N N V] O w0+ tQ L > 0 .°= 4.o Y .; °� $« ° O' 2 N w g w p, o O N C�>ji '� .o V a a N C b d C o aai R o o Q c`Qn..r o .0 iG �� N A S1 id ❑ o R P'p o*.� �. y t0 O o 0-0ro o v > a °q a.o V5 v� o �a ��y avw o. �> c 0"c E � cA-0 n � h ° ° :C 'o v a� cA x ca a�i v o > N w 'v o �; 3.5 `' « '.+ > """" C, C y^' „ 'N F. dj '.� '�J' p, 8 V C7 w O s. O aI Fi ttf 'D r+ m y V l-+ v '4= aU a s cv y Joty y w r: a W pp a� .a A 's s, o o ti a CuN C cS .� Q. o y o M w o w .. a b> as o; Usa ° AO o o E o .o CyA o 'vaow w 3 0 �c� N� p. i my o ya• o o N• ab u a x °' 0 °CC o • • • • • • !r d G 0 Cd N 0 Cd otb O N cd a a` �00 a C6v Cd is Cd o M u vi U Q ES-20 Garden Street Terraces Project Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Zs •D O c G y O O Q a as x '� [/] m a s � �° �, .� �a U c L o bA.> p 'o c e >.p °' y �`1 m Q C� �� �'np o v �`�'.� .� P.Q �a ��•0 E. -C�;3 'b •5 � � o�',.�o jo y � o '6: "p N '�J' 19 p� E! b. c L N y tV, -j V vQi y .p N a' Cu Cj 4 E 34 p4 0 ° N to L ° � o .. c°1i a r o 0 v r° 0 0 �, 4. o w 0° -, E U . °° a_ a c 0 0 0 q d a •� -13 h o i c o n �x 0. .0 E ERd LZ, +.. O b�• Q 3 ' 'b O u N [fir 4• z-O� p i 'b •fi m a ° o o• �� � -r VVV1 Q Ei N >+ 0. •�rp•" �'• d U ' y L 1°+ OA c. • a S in Q' (n 0 '«,,,,^' C cd a; Q Cd h o c ai a cVi o o Q CR C.. N 4+ V G .0 ° 7 tii p v' Q W O 'L P. 0 = 0 .a °°' '� Oo � a T Y pQq o ,�,i .c a� Q •� � '� � °q•'; y � ^" l0 ° �t Ca p o � •0 3 c1 . _ ,c � o fl, " .° o i�+ '.C, Q �°3' cN C�cU7 w 7yy� 6? Q .5 ° .2i .•�;•�' ,,raO00 � .rR-r1 '.�+, O b ,QF� o R v V �+ 1.�o 'A�N E.y y Cd UV Ni7 C �N, NNN +.� U N N ,Q g N O Nc N N � p A N U y b Q o Y'�b c.319:4 i Cd b d a •� p U a•+ N y Mv° E! y o 0 n ti c i .>. 4 iC o w V O b "C p O .+ ^r O y pq O O 0 '++ y r••. U U O .Y N 'b N .L. N d G. %' C+A H C. O j •C 4. O y N A b V Q' N A .0 •„G„ -�.• f�' rn F+ a• L '^ p t". a7 •CU �„+ yd R ¢ aci 3 Q � :a o b g a �°J-, wp. •2 O E C •fl U iL A o 'b Ir•.1 N Qw (C Vl N .ter P. .La cC 00 ,0 .� N�•+ c(A. O 4Y,., b N �T' iC •� i� O., a0i v V O y W O y�., V N •� •J' Vi 0 Gi w Q ;� (U C o v, C `. �' C ..V,, y °� V .� G �. ,`_d C FCd+ O t❑Va '^ O +• r.. 'p U r >❑ y V •,O 'O C p U O CL L O. 'b V d N V rn C eA �bA O E! i Q G O O V A !�' c L .o a Z `' 0. u .9 E a� m° y G > o 0 N . 2 3 «�� p ++ C y U >, Q z O i� '� .L 'Lf U d bQ.l) u :'.': chi C`d `.5..a 'D 3 W c� ti •-- N M p U O, Cd a+ C�3 CA 1 VJ �Oi w V C ca "� '}• " o W err Cd � v e.�3Ujo V1 = - L•. i�-. ts ti -D r1 'V C v V1 � C4 F M a> 23a-� Carden Street Terraces Project ES-21 Final Ell? 4 W a� F EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-22 Garden Street Terraces Project Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY KO i ►J` ID rN7- G N e•' y •L .4 •� s G G d a .� W G eb N a 3 0° G •� .� !�~ 4� w 4. ' ' y N L N • N N ° •� N N ti b Cdd .�",.. may++ A3a�3� U o o m a tw 5 0° j° a.o c ab a o.> o� �b.�5 �.5 > .� +- w O CV p iy 3 0. 0 to a> V N ca N •.d' 0 b0 'l g'd '`� ,,, ,°, 8' yN,, O Jg iJ F' V y " G V y V ,a; .� N p• �9d 'ate•+ •� G 4O •t% N V 1 'O G O (d V YO y a .� G a • �o•' (LI 4+ --0 QOo NG C> N00 y d N �V'" Nai� U O A L"' •�N � U .'CAaqq�� y U cNd 'Qfl -VVi ^it/df �V WO ty a� N'S UWx 09 04-3y .'a°o% v 3OV Ty V V.a] ❑Q O a.p°x�+'y � �go �E 'b .� CR. �G�Qo O a+ y 'LS �' C N V •r, w a� 'G ty G 5 id 8 G O � Is!•� � '� b o �w ° u�i � •� T � DO � � w ~f1.. >'.yi � C d •p •� ftY +, p ; •� U a� aVi o c"~i a'�.+ > O .a o c '3 `o'.12 � o 0 CN ved ai o G (-� • C I"0.ai+CAp damOqO G .0 y G •• �O�W' PutGi QUiiijjj .N+ G p , q C - '.O y N O v�vu 'N vN O�C N ffCd y p O ' id s• W VO C. iV.. p .��' ` o > d N UU CU yP, A O 00.5 6 b n�ad o O CA > id w PO •C G � eGd �•Q Cps rye -o� =�6Gi t?•v m N y R "A p a> ,� m 6i N , ° C 'q .� Ili Q I/ � 9 CA -,- c�eq w33�° a5 y �� G��b a ��� a� cd bq � � ��.. U � ►, v .� bA Ep ES03 Carden Street Terraces Project Final EIR N W Cd EXECUTIVE SUMMARY U o U o � � w bCd lu PG o > Q' O CO id cr0 O .v O •� e� � > F t; �' a0 cC cd O U cA� O �j, V �.. W W 'b � O •�"' w a! a © � � '� O � y N � 'G 0> w Nbb U •�En b tC � =O riN 0,0 wwCS N -n lQ f•y F. ._ C1 .r. •yA.. U to r i-+ .��+ r6J lV awi Id 00 W. au ay� "T' ' O�£� c% [ o� � o a 1C." oO baa ' O u Ow T i >61 a. ty »t'N aD0 -0 M va`il tAd c°3' Y m n. c 'y ❑ 0 w' CA Fs -a .� c " >,'a 0 8 ❑ p ' bo u to °" a^O C❑ N� Q '•a*+, ~flCd-' w.NC� l'O1:.i 'O 0N �a� b Lp Cd wmt3a'd0*w0 a bn U obC.0ti-0 0 bh ay3 ••a�tOA�yUOO¢irO 'j'•�ti ,yN :'.L=5 0 .O -0 cc O A ho OU O a CO pO O O 4' O0OD •Oi'd - > C3 .� bn N p N ty 'ram"' .7L• V A, �� O (�. 'D^•�'VCO Eb 0 000 92 7 " O 'B 0vcd� O ob aJ a'0 Cu bA bA O cr.0 -,1 y 'j bA 00 R 'b�A awi y � fL O p.,.� O � � 7 +t � O O � 0 U ict O r > A u o cG • v °r° ao .c o? . ayi o''C > ` aai axi A 3 a ° v a a '> '> u Q a ca '—D U 00 W ..... CO V U r 'y� •tl � Y O yy •V ►H G V a0 p4 o a'v^ a�i v •CO 'O A tr, O r U vi U 'V; M b ES-24 Garden Street Terraces Project Final EIR M A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY C.1 0 O 8 U Y U Cd 4) b Im U v cn~ �'a.— a`�aao v. nne).�as �°' Co�oe)CA �.�° -°j°�� CO 0) V .C". Vi w" "U �•+ A f'. > •� U w r3 8O U P.'. 1-01 m �FE aa)) v 0. > e) L) ma) 4 Ci wON�dG GO Oua) O •v Cd N a) a) G 4- ° aQ ~'!1 U ' 'y w C v 4.. .O 1 is +� � OA � .� y chi c0 c U u Q c ro o c o c G 09 �.:, O ^ pa. ' � >av) C e] `"- e) W p r, ONcO •Cea a7) 1.�C a 4a0 p ° •� o a Y eai 'ri> £ ae .G 'a o nn a� o ° �a •� 3 a� a N b l� d v CL O �y O to 7 y + A p + ►, 0 .G �' r� GA tC O p 0 y •> F+ w N bA (n CJ' �O ❑ 77 U > `/ ° F ."j e) Q r"Oi� ctl 'a�'1• c V. rn a) Q r. q Q E y >' r. CC O 'd cd a�- 'C. f3 'bD Q O w O U't Q C e cd v �> a °Q- C6q aUG 5¢p•—'1tia) ¢°cOFaj IV •o );° � Fm ay°W. y C w O SO O° y r�''j �'j •O V a obi E o x •` a oG ,r° U cs a ox°mod ° .c ge)�, '00 0c 0, >aoa,a,a�� s 3 C 1 Q U� Q m. a e>i o f v 3 � U U U Cd 'C •O �•+ ev C a�"i � U ca > a aS �, m d c e) ��••I 0 • a Q > o � i� � U ';I � Z U o tb `oh Garden Street Terraces Project Final EIR ES-25 a) U y N W R ,yr EXECUTIVE SUMMARY R s x i0 i•" ,� ,_, Otw K N •cy U �3 'G A "" �v ay-.. d0 O 5 paaio b3�, 4) a 3c � 41 .o �y ^G co a� ,� ' pq O Y V is O� aNi f—� .44- O 7 vi E 0. R. N .� C) a. r N cd GC C O O 4) O 3 .O y C v i fl FaiE2v e0: > R. 0. d :3 iicr 04 ��E c b no5C> � R' cd O � � A O ya xL' ctl V �+ �-• y ai e0 L) y •�J .U+ Y V aV c0 td m cOd 9b w a [ y ' 3 0 `° is > w 3 a �� IC U C W N V"" y f�-7 ate.+ ,� vj 'C V1 N �' y O 'Li .b a-• V �•' G .0 'ti 0 t0 •y Fa.1•' N •.. Y0w 3 `" 3°oa)•oHta taEtag- -0 "O ° �.. w •O O v' a�'i aUi q '� .n F O p m 4)tp 4 0. D. T A o a� o N y ca o 4) . �G .Cd ° r %i i+ yVan V •O Gi .� i.+ V ' ..O V> .� '4 ^A U cO co id 'O ��• c�0 d o 0 4.' .� t�ii vi l�V .*'� Va v, �' t o 't7 �'+ o N o V 3' Cd N 10 ¢• C.a r r W V 42 •b W 'O o s. o c `❑° o v' � °q a>i o > ° x dl p �p .o cpr cu o o ar s� ., 0o v w 0. w^ id U fl cK v b C) A P a) C a A 8 ES-26 Garden Street Terraces Project Final EIR N W EXECUTIVE SUMMARY w a P 0 Al 3 a� y ca ¢ a' o .� � C b a °CUM c O .0 •b /C +7 °y' F+, L ° N ¢ ° a N itl 40. 0 °' (/) •0 .oc �o ° ...,,o�,a y a ao��Z E G duo 0. y a c0 � 0 q y 'O c 0."O 'b •fl y u a� O .Q .O 0- O + a� T L O Cd O O .-� O «7 ' 'O O O° a,tn N > ° oFn i2 L "+ . C^ 'l° c'u,"0- cH .� ,° G o +�,. °Q .'a•' ,+�.'. t`/�� y i o• ,� ¢ •S y o o .� V a� N,. N O ,U 4C.�� 4.ri •� U y �O v'-'i U 01 to 41) n w.° do) N � . .„ :+ y N � � N � L'� f0 4S pU �" 6l N .L�.' tG •�.. f7 ❑ 'V .> ..�.. �+ ° N Y �d q 'b .fd pp O Yi °' ocC .� �aa�i o• a 6 a ❑ -FR °E cd pp n ° ' A CyA �o .I ° U ao o aUi u A 4: u a�i 9 ° y .n �b 3 03 c o0.u'.� d a�i a°i y o° v ° o a'� a id aai O En ` '° �° O 'x �a O •O a a,Ej ,r V is .y am 2 •� +s �i p a U° O o °' U .o ° ? O aai a C* ^� p' o cya 41 O �OCd a> � y o r r�. a 3 c va a� o O o 0 D O U p a W x w•' a u .� ' 7 Cti U �v o U N am' W 2 cd r: V 0-0 U ayi o c�a 1 a '3 U L a� '^ ar '*„ 0 p .� b y G o a.O - : °oU a, � - .�`n.a° n �i a 3 � o� 9 14< 2' 3U � �marn41 s do 0y,,•o F 0.�", V •Tr' WO) y N V U a b� h . N 1 Vl M V` (u 4 O O Garden Street Terraces Project Final ED? ES-27 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 — C v C R7 C bA L`�i+l 0' O p U d 0 E a ,a c o a w 0 3 C G' ❑ CAp o 0 0 o a w v o y 0 0 0-0 '� c� U N LU^ C O i "�'' C7 '� .ty '� 'O •b 0 0> 'C! w a a a tkh an •n ts .0u W w y L y C y '�' •� 0 •"� (d •QA 'Z% > 'O C L Val•.^I QU7 �] ii ,_ N U i.L i Q) .� L+% •a'i p, 1 ,•� fir�+'+• y Vi n 00 d `a C° 2 3 Cd on CA 0 44 X.E 1c.> on ;.Y.E 1. O ���_ A.0 0N 0. Cam. U' ctl O O fl. n to y pp .� .b � p y .14 •� � o•E o a '° E ''' i •a� •te � � ow � � o°'n � o cv 0 M H C N a •d U 9 N f1. U c O . � �� �� i • •.. O ro o _ I P ai I W � � vO � � 'O P. Q U w A N Ck W d ES-28 Garden Street Terraces Project Final EIR A N e� i� EXECUTIVE SUMMARY m a� E u � o a � fl o E A4 •� � ,o }c w •n w E 3 '� Cd '6 • p CO F.-t�00 N ,O O O to C O T° a N v 0 y rn !3 p 0 Ly d 0 CN y�n p}, gy'iGd YCd y `" x.°gF'O Ei id ° j p4. O•.s,O ODU p tlQN 4. � N pO N G CO brbp t N Cd . U to ', j E •y J 00 �' bq Cd N . r.." U ¢' • L R A, .0 y .Q 'b .~ V] a..o o 'bA,p w oan n .5 ° b d N O (�„ id a A id p p, e`d N c' p, > 2 ° 0 .4 17 .� •O CEO pp *p l] dd -�i w 0�] y 'b •id N T °'o cY~� O O °' O` d b a p ciai crd vq 3 y r 0 0 r a°'i 12 � '.o, °fn o O `� �Y. ��• O •O a� is •:+ ?? c> ai .d*y"�Jd N p y OD %y d" '6 wO t� 3dM Ua• 01a� y� O 14T"•No 0. •--, •p G. c •�= a°i. abi E �d aL�� �s•°"^� c an •M LA °.9cwa. �b y 44: •'3' '3 .F'. '�". •° .D U N •�^ 'O C .3 N y y }°. 'o� V Cd 'd P. W y��'� +~•. N a' rn > �. 0> y .� w �' y A'' �L' O w 'G O ✓' 7 A W 'Ci, N N N Cd O YO X O V N V G ' bq O rn N ,A v' 'O •^ N •CYO .dw '� vi N y Ci cd .L1 a� Y ss �u.���°.3 R ° a°i a� o yed� .� o " 0 0 Cd Ca °'c P w c. AM cg w E Iq • Ca .a CJ r C V .o o ° eui Cd vy� ca X 7 H � u . cd O ?. �+ C • .a vOi O rv+ w1 u nq a o Fi � o •a •o ° `~ � a�i ° �b a• Garden Street Terraces Project ES-29 Final EIR A, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY y v y N U u O N OCL y y� rr • by O bq O � y y a o a o a, o o ' Cd U U q ap. 6�l RJ E y a CO O F.1 Q A Ted > cd cd O O O -5 'a 3 °gym °av�yc`�i oa��0' 3`d=o °'°A O 32 E 40,eUn �' id ° N u O "u0, `ea Ch ed OU •� T T'b .� Y rzA ° 3 y A .0 , o .vp❑ .0 ° o c°i o aUi °' ai vq 1-1 Cd y E .5 .� A w O id cC v CL .O 3 chi . c. 4.•. w O `mod, eCv io m q- 1 8 > y 8 w N'0 �� do Nbw A E a�•b`_ °•°.tiy ss ° a.S y a.0 O'er O O d w id U > y y y Cu v; •O F� y C UU. aai �_' +J•, 5 d0al ° b Cd ° >�� °a�- 5 auk °) 2 N p O ° O su. • �„� U ai 'O U yU, ed .'' A •ry y a' O y U .a...' ,w,,, C>d ° �r O 5 .? O O Y .0 T q 'b O O A 42 D •yN�' •.V� OA+ .�OQ., A©•. p .qUqR� A'� .❑V `Oei .4Ui Nf1 b0A ,=: •O� .—•F,'am ed N UC A d v A 40+ 0 ld OvOi .O 0. 2-0 a� y N O N A •2 OA o �N�1 " •y C cd .o o oA °p `�Q�]1 v E c {P+ •L. �i 1--1 4'y ° .Si ..yr•° y y (y Fr ft{ U .5 •y W T Q Qa W U a U 8,8 m y WM vU U O C la U O 'O . N R •'O a N.2 �.E aE vCd� 2 o o .y � 24 U • ~ O A 'b � O F `. •� N U .� � 6 o U o 0 w a �b0'D v 'o to O 5 at 03 ° o tt p y?y bA Ayy CA ,O �qq ci y v p ' y � P ECa O tY" OW 9 i ° E a� 1 ES-30 Garden Street Terraces Project Final EIR LdwJ Pi W m V t~ Is Y 'Z N° 0. V N ap cad bA cd 'D c� 0 Ob to cc 6J o b o C 0, c X `ds c0 Y CIA n.mE'� mac° CA a3 G V N .0 N �• N � d tV V] t�. � 4 - 3 's p A c y r O bA -- y p� -0 .r�7• O 3 � yO" O. � � ' O O bA � O 40 V •Y Ry O vi C^ • O `� N m CO cd ci p cd 3 N A•v•3Q.fl �Q � a.A a � �•�.� 12 Garden Street Terraces Project Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-31 3 a 'i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 0 a y .a ^ N C bA4. 40 aw. _ y a a�i 4 O — as .> o CL �, 5 °' E > ay'i 'w +,4.�' �.� a'Ou -d as o � 3 15 0U(D0 Ear � �o oo� 5 ar as *� 0 5 ?? p o c p A. Z A c ° 0^ (u coi C w C � > oi N .y - O N�a�oN�CUbooy a, p ° -0 Z .Y con w K3 .5 ° " a 3 E b°�°' L.d Q �'on o o�: R on o a'ocm o as w a o c h ra. a•� E.S oK R�^o �'w �� one a ° 'r.b o-COW Cr C bA3dis ¢o >r 5b '9zpr� 4. QE Q>`° o�"?°E� ooTCgop.5°�-�;vaoa'ti �' io H Vl N y [C A O —con 'f 00 .r v, � �y � � .� a� o A a Q N C a�i v `❑ �o•v � c� � 0 coo oo �>� d �.� 5� 5 ' ro w sa ❑ d y d c°� cn .� ° E-•� ;: d o. a..E I I F ES-32 Carden Street Terraces Project Final EIR -J c? O p RS c ai y y y tA y N Oy p. w ¢ 7 o °ppu A p a r ubD U A N I f I I Garden Street Terraces Project Final EIR b Crm do 3 n 3 ej U F. Qm a E=v•�, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 'b a $ p c i m a 3� Layy 1 O .+ A-0pm r— y y W oA O 7' 4 bA o o. v ` F. •"'; oo v t .a � a A 6 o� 0. c2 won 0. •� °'y y �' �v o � � E ro ° `�' 3 •U aai o 0 a•° Y A ° � y �.� �� vi � T N "C is ° y yyi�n E v E w � Q. 0O •�j N � ^. 02 IJ a a• c� �-vc°3y�E0C� ES-33 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 0 oar o o4) po c YO w 4, Cd „ •v � �, •o w n� 'ti 3b E3'�3 Cr V C «� O 'x •� 'p 4r u n b o w tCS rw 3 a '> >, c0 14 > G uto ° _O �>^, a ©o -0914 a $ d a to C O �'- 5 bb `'�° -°'a Q, w LO G. T a o. o❑ _o ` y ca N 0 ZA O tC 'O +� y C �v a� a, tai O Y bA X m q U O M cc uCd "a00�' °'cb R IS ��Q � c $'330>aai� a o Y U a� " 20 0 m 0 u 0 = °" w � a>Cr OD k�o v, AOL. aj$ ° m ° a � *� xecc�dii tc�Ns� � � ,yr' � �a �' Q, a� a� .o y •"-, y `'' 4� a°i a �''� y � a `� � '" 'd b 43 0y4-'.O, :a+i cC °O 4 ccv> toZ 'r. M o°m o ° O >no 0 � eai Q .c v .� A °o c� zZQ O v `-' .14 c gal .G ✓ 3 H . • • r • • • W • E 'e7 d O � a y0 A m � tC U C a +� O 0. O 0-4 tw > U by 0 0 N O 77 y ? ° e p " .o O z -3 M za>� ES-34 Garden Street Terraces Project Final EIR L W _u EXECUTIVE SUMMARY w v E v 010 £ d o Qtcf O U O_ td O U W y .d o w ab ab _ � � �' aC�i 3 � � �' aoi 3�• o a bA U U V 11! • •Vl L Lam-. •N �o ° w y •,,, p 'fl N y N 0 0 bp o a .CA ('/?j °:.o ate. p a? '� 'N -•mow y N , S. a iti CC rD O :n•"1 v .� a c°j v o o d ti A cd au o `a �, o C 3 y "a �S:L •+ O 00 }" •U y H '� ° 'd N ❑ 00 d •�„* _� ° ?Q, a� _.,.7 big fn .n CL �+ N q 'd N y_ td a.. bA y '� ° A 3 i� ° O to °t,' ? kj n aq 4 :+ � 0 ,3, � 3 � `n � a: 3 O m o t= ' a td ° .: oi 41. 3 a v 3T .�v. O 'Q tl y `O. �r� .•o p �, ° •Uai .'t7 •g '�°� nno be 0 ,Z OO oO °q a o y; m p.• G y m a� o°o aA A 4 > a u� a� a a� •�o c c a o a .c b .a c o q° ° a o c an E a o N d� �•o a� 'r �� C o �'o - o p. a �w p. 0 w 0 -0.o ¢ •iC �O ¢ >, ; .w-� ;; O F .O rn -O ai ,� ``" O 'd 4.. y o °' n �' -0 3 o o byp '� aC 4)i pp n cw .� •G N M y U i O N 3 Q cd cd •bq td 3 N °.w a A c0a ZZr °� z y a p� a0i W wW va >1 `� .� Ca �� ev .r W P. U �!+ tC d d �+ N Cam•" sN, �!A w0 q ♦ • • • G tNV tad i U t'a id a t20 t°J ♦ • • • 0 � w � •� d a c. c U.� a 0 En °id Z a� a >, _ a� > O .A > fl n -� `3 v Q. d 52 MI y y 0 U N t� © v .�... -D {� N U , d L' O Q. cN+u'd gC N b zo z4� Garden Street Terraces Project Final EIR ES-35 lV W EXECUTIVE SUMMARY w CA d0 �� �..A�oon y•oa�rs.� ��;j�: u cc 'a 8 O o o .o > C N as m C N •o p ro 3 0° on b °a c 3 mo <u o a� as a) �. ar A v, o ttro E3o c v.� a>i ;F tpp7 N c0 C R N LL p,• E u N 3a�3a��;• a�,o°�� c a�E•�!� CIO O ? U ai 'O p, C aGi 'y s o cGd m ro O° A G Y .� `� c w -[ 5 in a� aJ q ° °' o a U CA Um �c� a�.53b q P.awa°cR �yt O cYd P 4" '�+",� 44: C O Q fro-• 4� ,iiV K � W :5 a�i '� a�i N E O en C ,d>� .b�p+ a 12 .0 In y0y 'in :O , 0. A cd ro � C Cq � U O y V ¢' t0 'fl 0 O V ca O 'go.a U o y .� �_ 7°,': w a s nn' c i� o a� „ 3 _� V .5 oai •°�a' A U F" ' ` a °b cn bro3 .E tl mN 0 °' w p �p °" EV an ,.Y5 oWc S •o�' v t-- E o ro E " 3 n° ell .5 C w a 01 rov cd C.E•' c °x ro 4� O S ro U O DO N O N aM P .O 0 '+ V H tl • aoiO.? ° aUi �a`'i ayi G h i p� v id��+•r��'� Ca �Q 'O try in .GJ y N •� V M y' tV0 O O .. V �%„ ��' '� C E C O> C �, .� 1 lu on N m p E! M.-CAoo���p 0 a.0 ,C: U 'a 0 ° • S at to v a b o ro y o g•p °° s. U � M •^� � � 'N � � odo � •V ar 'C7 R U 40. •r a s Lz'i ES-36 Carden Street Terraces Project Final EIR A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 0 •� w v CO a) ° H ° I:L CA to 3-9 3.9« oav« oa W 04. ro- n bo.= P N Cd Do C „0°„ y b T d r3 C y N. hD qq _ G � U y � 'O H 4ti Cd M C •a •O a) m ,O U W ^ y`�y •,��,+ p L_L �+ •Lby "' icy O r.J ro/l ld ^O .".'�i ^ I�r w •�"� y ° •.�Y-+^•• tV .Cr N Ei A ° b �b 0 � �.,m O° 0.°!' .pC �OOa•� R e� •��.0c Cd H C, ,d ?, :d O cs. O O U y 3 H, vi w tj O a + CO ,O V) U C0 O C~a N a) •• a) p rs•o o ncn 4'W p �w 3w•5's ao� �. 3 0 ° o o N •«, W .� j U W a N O H> .�y -d CC 0. O V E' c o +� a -0.- 0,) Y a�i b w t� a«i 3 Q o. '� 2 b .^oC m O a) p O O p jj yO N 't 4-0 Co Q 3o W w N , op .r 4w Q id �. y F'. �;., C� Ly w O N > p, ,r. '+•+ f . �O t, O '� '«+ Fes., ¢' U A toN t n y ^ a+ -0 OA 'Q O .O ,d O y •'�. W N ryy N N 6) Q+ +'' a O 7 •� U �` .'l• 9 +� y Oh taxi R y -0G U ��• o U •�) 00 a •v"�i w e 940. ai CO o .� E Cl, Zed nfJ �" aCi G •p .0 b �v ��y?Ra❑yN,0 ° u On y G a d• L-� 4)u � " H ° o 'aW°o 0 tb o 5 'o.p o w° a > ,"n P. A v�i C C O .O G1 W N a) ^ N 0. •� N bp Otj O rn ,❑ 'O ❑ 3 ,•�-�:� �, O w 3 oq o a x U a95 p 3 o .� o 'd o yn a, o o w 9 Q a°$> '+. « td Q v -o -d � oo 4) °�' .b ti y .� >. u4 d ° •-- , w . U O.oae c °. 'n o ro E � � � E-� E-' a) On U •o � � :� � U •'c y ,� ,., '� � *' � .� �, � cd W a. cd 3 A'ti A y ° Cd ° C: ".5 o �^ °W' rs 5 m • a) c W _� b w $ >O-d°� °.tj ?? bCy cqqO o 3.5-0 0 o0 3ti•Q aEoa5° 3. 01 a) 4(5 „ u. a ems) a „ �b u��a)�� tu w a�i rA 4J tl GL Ed 0.2 Ca o o'y o o F•cs. >.50� F- aGl�vaar�,on.ca Garden Street Terraces Project ES-37 Final EIR u q E� f EXECUTIVE SUMMARY U y O [d U O •On 2C bQ N m N >> r •� � �•° aai,a.ti �•� aai �� � y ° ° �O �3a�b 0 °' ° y a� a CL y N N W N N p.' O O V � � °� O O >� °� Y ° � a°i ,� � is ❑ > p cpa .E O a� ti0.. ' 0. •.y p a� a�i O �.. w .A °' b 6 AL w° 41 bju b ,4 a°b° oho °c �ci�a. o' 0 ,yam„ 4, i1 bn - '> •" ° D ,,., u fl. .0 3 'd w �:AO U � 0 o ma eta, �; �„ A „ bn •'� S: •.•+co o gyp' `°o°'�U 4�-4. a �o oJ��3yu�a,A "oR U� o a " � a� � m 'moo � A �o��`y ❑po �, S Y O rn N 'D •p .�G 'O W a"i 'CJ p M N O U I7 ° ° R� bq E b �n ¢Q a�i 21'ir Q N C U U N N y �. cv 1 3 ' •�R G] cd N y .� d W. 'L7 A •q y p p,.E O N Z A a0i N E n E I F U . p Cn E y CA n o° o '5 $ `' m a o y •-,��3 ai V O y G, 6 R E U a0i 0 R a+ as O y❑ w CA Y vi O o F 3 3YAA Y u ES-38 Carden Street Terraces Project Final EIR N W Z EXECUTIVE SUMMARY h CA O CA C a �a d� `Cd d � � q ' i bn N� ti i+".� �••U iU.ii�, .� IU" U j 1U-� bA Gy, R7 06 a cco� �,°aoiv �a�io� vo>30 0E " °own S�'ac^�n w37en. EC S .N M r a ❑ c a a o o P. y P. c c° y w a U O u id E �, P 0 13 .n a • 0. O OW Q N4 'O y 'a A •R: 'b ti W '�E1- O N N % U o4. u P 3 0 a`� 3 °w a"i �.4 -IOUo ° ° O N d �' '��„ -e o �` one.0 ; a� E O +••O 'y U U fO R .[ 'V .� In 0)-•PnA l N Cy `n ,�'C T Cd on cy O p y ca A U 0 �o 0 P. A '0 U 4- O 0) $a °a"iy.�+�30� 3.E u'E �,. ago '_ $ap,�ma°ia;nP,-A ZA.° w > �'" 4��Q oHwy U o cn E- "o o ¢ .� A P. H o F ui F� a�i E, F, c p o P. m 0 �•.�� aE �ar4� p-o�C7Uw A o o �o.an �c y � 4) C7 ax >, ':~ o a, �• A chi Ua�3 �}ca? ai o In oA oC OA pca00 o . a aon m En -1"- c o w •H � N C CS7 O! H O U N ' fPd U O rn fl. fl ^ cps _ +°V p d? v c°> O r E is •E 42 O+ P. U N U O QI U r 0.1 � •�, 'O O P• y O A .O OJ (a O .E �" 0) G4UQ N'O0 Carden Street Terraces Project Final E!R ES-39 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 0 N v o V rr�p aq � oq u N o 15 av ai. •«.� � p ' orb °A �SUE.sN W T O r U O O '� O CAA O , 9,20 cd O oA C O O V1 O U L" -d 0 IOJ N e� G O G N O N w ., O N N • o Ll IL) � , 0 a N a A v, 0 fu Q4 'moo Y a c. � ti Q b O N (j Cn N R td N LV ro 0 ro U Q] a N O F+ w 3 ,Q ,U y cd y U ' H � � ES-40 Garden Street Terraces Project Final EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY es .b a� � 3 � co �.'O ¢ W U U V N A V 0 cc Cc, rl to N O O 60 w t+ OO Q Cr fi v ����a �-C3Cd U .�.^ � .� 'O eC •`�' h r �❑", 9b •� N O O. w wqq WJ 9b O O fl. Cl• y. 9b O G. 'O •C7 '�,. 1N�r .� •ice. .g Az ^3 a• O" a' Q' ) 8 E o 0 � o o c c a � aq o0 oA /G z F F F 2 � O •C O Cd_ 0 •� � a a 0 ej a.� 3 w o'3'cc 3 aVV bow v,a c,.A,Q13 N p d D C cOi . a: .+ to y R Q G w .G a any C,:g ��o w �cm �9V 3 Cd a m � a� 0 .A,o� O IT 2 diUC At 1 Q O .5 a`di dd E'I aoi Ni a. - . •y1°� 1 1 Garden Street Terraces Project h,-41 Final EIR F Attachment 3 PF-H 0 -D VICINITY MAP -D-H File No. 129=13 1119 Garden A a a o z w a u m N u w -SR °�n w°V a c�<�Q N ra Sze aY 5 wow o�3 — Z, �Sw°a o,an°a �uc°�d `3 gvi c°ia oA��a O (0 U X U e a U � yy Q a n U W z x o a a o 1 a s cn w A Ua c Q a Z O L.L 3" I � U)Lu � o UJ p O cu W U U) Z c H w 0 � W > Co m a0i U w 7 a o a) c6 °Q Col P(9 w� �O �� >� (/) v, `� - a L O = Z `� in Tf w Q Q in C Q) C6 a Attachment 4 5 I zz_ s� o w > W °l � 4 Z Z a m u z o a a J W a '6 � a a 3 zo p�o�nz �°daz wwc�N� wow o 0 w °w J J¢a acso� 'w 000w�w-''�=?Foo w° aawrc pwwww °i» o--��wQ�� N -._..- - --- - - C - Co k N C 0 U N En Co a Co-_ C M U N O U ILI', - O EKx dEEx 8 o� ` g a _ E E tea_ C§ w__ raaaa ��LLmo�a�° LL`AzLL� r LLJ o �a i� �I� O 2 c 2a V� s � O L rya O �yr O y Qom d M R cC F .D y J N rry N O V T y I Z: r 7Y/ d .LU.. .`U.� aU.+ 3 N 'O O � `n b by U N FU U E o E 3 v o ElILI an to E d C V A Ci O O C a r U Y O N N U @ p O V Y R r O V = '6 t h -� F d N 0 a a ✓] O `° � � C R ^v, > N L' '• � x � ,° R cOd � O � _ .^ c> o N ,L.• > N � O > T � ✓: 3 q U V v .,O. G x � y O U � R U .,� y t6 � � �' A d � � 3 a � �G o0 nl _, fl. YN U � y J U � ^. 75 o U ". o_ C7 m .N "O U CL O ,� O E R w 73 2 N OV E V U: 4' N G C 0 0 U O O V O U O y. C i b �"' O O OD !• O N d t 1 .L � J�- -R L o .� � ° w U R y � m a U -- > CL 'O O V T7 6J "' `'A.. U y ''n U N y > 9 U> 'O ai a> > iU,.. O O Q V C N� y N .L.. Q 'D �V+ 'u •O. C ' a C G _I•'.:.. p C O G O R w N ai U 0' m .V u= R G' R O' V "' E— d C D o J° n C4 R ti E v ai ° y y ro 3 o a E E o m R aA i aai Y o can a A > o Q o U E� o U J n. R a ?' a ,c o 4 [° = s E = Q n' Q' E cA E U n z - 5 9 a r a, g E S"T� 2SoN a- Q) ma 1.? '10 I 5�F ;Em s u a p j 2 [7 - - - - - - - - - - - IT oncu q --------- - ml 4-J kE tj CL 4-� T—F NE 4 J 57 LA laalls IPLoJg --------------------------------------------------- ------- — --------- T - - - - EI ol E 0 M J.—Is q—W 1 G 1 / I�--) C-4 � a 6 II � EEE O � a E sadj+�M'A �# §•'4� i�i 3 5 d: s O m V 1 l r � i-r N u.- Q i.Ml to 0 r-L. o: a 0 c? C) laa�lS 4s�eyy 1 1 1 1 I � 1 ; 1 N I 1 1 � 1 0 1 � } i 1 L a-i C N �aaaa5 e�anbjW L I t I a a i I S peo19 i.__.______—. I I � c Iq d cu ^0 a v L P Lo f V III I 5€ E o� { O 9 W (G 2-1 N O Z N .. V Z J C CL 4 aaajjS peoig C x' rF , V a z al s ; w oW �J 0000s 30 �000s ota- r _ MA 1117 1, z f � � S 0 V w�a } w w h w � a Z � .v. it ... �. Z Q W M O C J 0 U N uC W Y ,-O GU` W OF Q ~ th x c� m z\ Lwza J C � W J % i u.; W z m Z W Z O O - Q� o =zz F w a n�. c �0< . W G0 s in V o'' ca �1 F � � Cl? mS o� x o ten_ N n • M - �� o - W �¢-.5 W o. Z ZO sod j W a C - 4 5n ; - w 0- 0. a U O C Q 0 m a d s n„yr fL � W N Z Y=i ' IV ITE 7 IL V;g g" a ! s hil l 7177, , ... ....... . 1 g � u h 1' ct z� D _ ul "o�pm e.� oar o?u C _ w a 0 g; w6vo v_ - -a 6 Z U _ N ' m d o c E Ll Ll Ll V Z LU W 0 C OC W WZ W a' f 0 0 d IL 0 r O 0 m Z W LU W4 0 - ad II Z W ,a U LO ------------ a6 x� _ z z � ;� ) - � ° � ! � � ° r&e• , �\k . /� �§ ol - II I j II d II II II II II � 1 � S I I 1 I I I I I I I I I .I WEE -- I I� I I II �I I I I I I *_ Q I �a a III; I I — s I I l I I I II LL ,I �I LJ� Y o _ C/� A U m ID a 'I a I E gg H H i I 0 7 O m c0 0 z O Q 7 W J Q W H W W F- � r � O W a[I� z Wa W U t[i 0 z a w w z � w O w � V W N p W H U U z W Q � LL w Z a N z z d CD0 0 m °o o W m ¢ Q ❑ ❑ tsi v J z W 2 Z O ❑ O W j F S F X S Q O Z O Q 7 W ❑ 0 H QW N 6] U' 2i ❑ V Q N ' LL w a m U a LU C9 m -1 Y J 2 z 0 K w F W N W Z 5 t7 m a a z < Z p U Z O 2 � w o w N o W 0 w N z w N N O F W o a w o n a W U J w U d 2 Z y p LL d V% W o�0 O N d CJ Q O z M a- N C7 -,t to t0 r- co 01 Lu N O I z LO Z N i Y - a o p a _� �� � •� z C7 z 0 j M J p W W J J N a Z W a 0 w a 0fimaL �� J W �o r 2 N O — .. m N M -- G Z 0 a W J W F- W WM w H U) d a m m 0 W t7 a w z C, w o w w U W N W V 7 Z W LL W Z Q a z Z wo ",'Id w o I ¢ ¢ ¢ z w w C7 w ❑ L 3 0 0 [ w m w¢ o w oo u W z z zo Q a c7 ¢ u LL ¢ n r o J o Q ? w > r z D ¢ Q z O z z O T z ¢ U K H W !=!1 m �9 p U Q J w o N H a LL a m c) o w LL 0 x n Y J a z Q W W � w Z 5 (D m a z < Z Q J Z Q W V W Q V Z w ofr w O O Q W ❑ W ❑ N W U d z Z N Q d N w m O a Q o Z W LL Y o o J_ Q LL W w 00 J H � W 0 oa .J ao wz 02 CA J w W W H 0 a 0 w m LU LU w z LU ui Z w i LLI a z w W w L) w LU w cy") � ) §� . 2 \) }\ l O _=El 'ill 77 Vl V o o ow o S1 od I U 0 W s QI Fg �� g• aWN § gfr g 6 L -L, o r 4366'3 5 Stq 3 ppp giRYP°5 p^ ms - .$u vieu + g � 9 - rl�� oEj `7, ( a g 9 Aw i If Y_ gwy �g88 Uss ¢E GoDa 66 on .- Nr c ra E in _ - y „- aaa a s 'Ys 0 LAC cu C g U QJ ri e (a _n ^v,, }J Lx u Fn N on J L W a a LA - - n o w¢� d o Z d d d Ulf I I! I I I r f c, I { a s e , , 14 s it s9�1 s I z L✓ i w 1 s`r - � i�l 1 rc b' d I 1 �I - e 1 a m _ 2z �c� 5� yu4w J5� S p�. Z aao C a133a1S N306VO I - � I � T : y � I x I : I I� I I ..fir m VV z I I m f - 133ais Oeoaa a N � aI m • . � . _ z m . �� - � . s- . - - 8 x rq� g Fp Y� LL E`z z d V tl39 8 n � =o �w Z m�� v �B o Z m4s c m e�� ego 8 0 N _ ass € q _ 5 as6s o s: z m - U 8 U �'N a qoa gxceapa y� � � � ceaa a � 51 aJ I I L I'I I I li II I I I I I I I II I W 1 I . C� — ICI I l �r— x — " x .III I; III. I L I I j_ I O I C�,•� s �� I I I I I � `-� m [B mlm m I III I I' F -. ? '�l� f` � zo• �P3r^ a`+`a`� EL o° a l.p#tt,$�k - a s �3 idBd U j � s d � d V s I �000000 ti z F .► U-i v o a w �.._.. 4-1 o. a to EDT- F F—...-._.-._.. - l7 s d91— 3 3 - a n Lr i Y O 3u3 gg. vyy. r 5 � `OOOO ry� .. bpi W J _ C � ~ o r g B I i e °'c ECrc aW §I fPE Ta c' Attachment 5 Update to Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Garden Street Terraces Project (ER #124-06, SCH #2007071062) November 2013 ADDENDUM PREPARATION: In December of 2009, the City's environmental consultant, AMEC prepared an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the Garden Street Terraces project. On June 1, 2010, the City Council certified the Final EIR for the project through Resolution No. 10182. A Notice of Determination was filed with the County Clerk on June 3, 2010. Based on the City Council's actions taken on June 1, 2010, the applicant and the project design team redesigned the project to be consistent with the Reduced Development (environmentally superior alternative) and Project without Public Parking Spaces alternatives included in the certified Final EIR. In 2011 the applicant filed revised plans which reduced the mass and scale of the proposed new structure and retained the historic resources located along Garden Street. An Addendum was prepared in 2011 to document how the revised project eliminated several identified impacts in the Final EIR and the need for certain corresponding mitigation measures. The City Council approved the Addendum with their approval of the final project design on November 1, 2011. The current project is further reduced in scale and results in no new impacts beyond those previously identified in the EIR and Addendum approved by the City Council. This update to the previous Addendum includes a new project description and incorporates the Addendum and Final EIR by reference. The update also reiterates the required findings that the changes in the project description do not result in new or more severe environmental impacts since the EIR was originally prepared. REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION As shown in Table 1 below, the project maintains the mix of retail, residential, and hotel uses previously included. The predominant project change is the retention of the single - story buildings along Marsh Street that were previously proposed for demolition. The overall square footage of the project is reduced from 135,448 to 93,425 with the retention of the existing corner buildings at Marsh and Broad Street, rather than the construction of a new building here with three levels of floor area. Addendum to Final EIR for the Garden Street Terraces Project (City File No. ER 124-06) Page 2 Table 1. Project Land Uses (Final Design 11-1-11 & Current Project) Final Design 11-1-11 Current Project Use Details/Units SizesI Details/Units Size s Retail 25,047 20,542 Residential 8 units 18,023 8 units 8,640 Hotel/Restaurant 48 rooms 53,740 64 rooms 46,630 Trash 7,061 3,563 room/ground floor circulation Parking 74 private spaces 31,577 41 private spaces 14,050 Total 135,448 93,425 The project plans include the two buildings at the corner of Marsh and Broad remaining as part of the project site area as well as part of the overall retail project floor space. However, these buildings are under separate ownership and any changes to the exterior of these structures are not a part of this project review. Project parking is private and is set aside for the hotel and residents. There are 41 spaces provided at the ground level. The previous project also included a basement level of parking that is no longer proposed. Parking will be overseen by a valet service. PREVIOUS ADDENDUM DETERMINATION In accordance with Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of San Luis Obispo has determined that this addendum to Final EIR ER 124-06 is necessary to document changes or additions that have occurred in the project description since the Final EIR was certified. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in this addendum along with the analysis and conclusions of Final EIR ER 124-06 and finds that the preparation of a subsequent EIR is not necessary because: 1. None of the following circumstances included in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines have occurred which require a subsequent EIR: a. The project changes do not result in new or more severe environmental impacts. b. The circumstances under which the project is undertaken will not require major changes to the EIR. c. The modified project eliminated the need for several mitigation measures because of its scaled down size and the retention of historic buildings previously proposed for demolition or substantial modification, but does not require any substantive changes to previously approved mitigation measures. 2. As directed by the City Council with Use Permit 124-06 approved through Resolution No. 10183 on June 1, 2010, the revised project is consistent with the Addendum to Final El for the Garden Street Terraces Project (City File No. ER 124-06) Page 3 Reduced Development (environmentally superior alternative) and Project without Public Parking Spaces alternatives included in the certified Final EIR. 3. The changes are consistent with City goals to promote the intensification of the downtown core with mixed -use projects. 4. The proposed scale and design of buildings will be compatible with surrounding uses with the review and approval of project plans by the City's Architectural Review Commission, and approval of project plans by the City Council, consistent with the City's General Plan, Zoning Regulations, Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, and Community Design Guidelines. Signature Doug Davidso#, Deputy Director Attached: (1111L 1 Date For; Derek Johnson, Community Development Director Approved Addendum to the to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Garden Street Terraces Project approved by the City Council on November 1, 2011 Attachment 2 Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Garden Street Terraces Project (ER #124-06, SCH #2007071062) September 2011 1. Project Title: Garden Street Terraces Project 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Pamela Ricci, Senior Planner (805) 781 -7168 4. Project Location: 1119, 1123-1127, 1129-1137 Garden Street and 712, 720, 722, 728, 736, 748 Marsh Street 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Garden Street SLO Partners, LP 895 Aerovista Place Suite # 100 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 6. General Plan Designation: General Retail 7. Zoning: C-D, Downtown -Commercial & C-D-H, Downtown -Commercial with the Historical Preservation overlay (for properties on Garden Street) 8. Description of the Project: The revised version of the project will retain all of the existing historic buildings along Garden Street, but will demolish both private and public structures and surface parking near the corner of Broad and Marsh Streets to enable the construction of a Addendum to Final EIR for the .garden Street Terraces Project L (City File No. ER 124-06 Attachment � Y ) Page 2 135,448 square -foot mixed -use development. The proposed project has a maximum building height of 50 feet and would have four stories over a basement level. Proposed uses include 8 residential units, a 48-room hotel, and 25,047 square feet of ground and mezzanine level retail space. Retail space would include a 13,227 square -foot neighborhood market. Retail, hotel, and market space would generally occupy the first floor ground level street frontages along Marsh, Garden, and Broad Streets, with the upper stories comprising a mix of hotel uses and residential condominiums. A total of 74 private automobile parking spaces for the project would be accessed from Marsh Street. On the ground floor, 11 valet parking spaces are set aside for hotel guests. The basement level garage would consist of 63 parking spaces with 16 residential spaces, 34 market spaces, and 13 valet spaces for the hotel. 9. Project Entitlements Obtained & Requested: On June 1, 2010, the City Council certified the Final EIR for the project through Resolution No. 10182. That same evening, the Council also approved Use Permit 124-06 and Tract Map No. 124-06 through Resolution No. 10183. The first condition of the approved use permit directed the applicant to revise the project to be consistent with the Reduced Development and Project without Public Parking Spaces alternatives included in the certified Final EIR. The revised project described above is consistent with those alternatives. The applicant is now seeking final design approval of the project from the City Council based on the review and recommendations of the Cultural Heritage Committee and the Architectural Review Commission. Along with their design review of the project, the City Council will review and consider this Addendum to document the changes made to the project since certification of the Final EIR. 10.Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The site measures approximately 1.11 acres bordered by Broad Street, Garden Alley, Garden Street and Marsh Street within the City's Downtown Core and Downtown Historic District. The site is currently developed with a mix of public parking (City Parking Lot #2) and 12 one- to two-story public and private buildings, seven of which are historic resources, including 748 Marsh Street and 1119, 1123- 1127, 1129-1137 Garden Street. The project site is located between two of the City's main commercial streets, Marsh and Higuera, at the southwest end of the Downtown Core and is highly visible to residents and visitors entering the downtown via Marsh Street. Surrounding properties consist of predominantly one -to two-story buildings occupied by office, retail, restaurant, and residential uses. Zoning surrounding the site is shown in the attached vicinity map (Attachment 1) PHI-9 Addendum to Final EIR for ti_ ;arden Street Terraces Project Attachment(City File No. ER 124-06) 2 Page 3 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): None ADDENDUM PREPARATION: In December of 2009, the City's environmental consultant, AMEC prepared an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the Garden Street Terraces project. On June 1, 2010, the City Council certified the Final EIR for the project through Resolution No. 10182_ A Notice of Determination was filed with the County Clerk on June 3, 2010. Based on the City Council's actions taken on June 1, 2010, the applicant and the project design team redesigned the project to be consistent with the Reduced Development (environmentally superior alternative) and Project without Public Parking Spaces alternatives included in the certified Final FIR. With the reduction of the mass and scale of the proposed new structure and retention of the noted historic resources, the revised project eliminates several identified impacts in the Final FIR and the need for certain corresponding mitigation measures. Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines allows a lead agency to prepare an addendum to a previously adopted Final FIR if changes or additions have occurred in the project description that do not result in new or more severe environmental impacts since the EIR was originally prepared. In the case of the current version of the project, many of the previously analyzed impacts have been either reduced or eliminated. Because none of the following circumstances exist with the revised project description, the preparation of an addendum is the appropriate environmental document consistent with CEQA: 1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or 3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete. PH1-10 Addendum to Final EIR for the 3arden Street Terraces Project (City File No. ER 124-06) Page 4 Attachment 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:. The amended Project Description affects the conclusions regarding impacts contained in the following sections of the Final EIR: Table 2. Changes to Impact Evaluation (Final EIR & Current Project) Impact Statement Final EIR Current Of 3.1 Aesthetics and Visual Resources VIS-1 The height of the Broad Street fagade would create a Class II No Impact — The building has potentially significant impact to the character or quality of the been reduced in height to not site and its surroundings, exceed 50 feet; building setbacks vary from 2-26 feet above the second story; a visual gap occurs in the fagade where there is no solid VIS-2 The height of the proposed project's Garden Street Class II building exit stairway). No Impact — The historic and facade would create a potentially significant impact to the visual resources of Garden character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Street are now proposed to be retained with project development. No new construction is proposed above the historic structures located on Garden Street. (See Sheet A.8 — Preliminary Elevations and Sheet A.3 — VIS-3 Construction of the proposed project would Class I Second Floor Plan) No Impact -- The historic and significantly alter the character of Garden Street, eliminating visual resources of Garden many of the visual and historic elements which make this street Street are now proposed to be representative of and an important contributor to the historic retained with project small town character of the City's Downtown Core and the development. No new associated Downtown Historic District. construction is proposed above the historic resources. The historic resources will be retained and rehabilitated in their current location pursuant to the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Historic Buildings. (See Garden Street Terraces Project Analysis, Chattel Architecture, Planning & Preservation, Inc., VIS-4 The height of the proposed project's Marsh Street April 2011) Class II No Impact — The building has fagade would create a potentially significant impact to the been reduced in height to not character or quality of the site and its surroundings. exceed 50 feet; building setbacks vary from 2-110 feet above the second story; a visual gap occurs in the fa ode where there is no solid PHI-11 Addendum to Final EIR for the Warden Street Terraces Project (City File No. ER 124-06) Page 5 13.3 Cultural Resources Attachment 2 building (private terrace). CnR-1 The proposed project would result in significant and Class I No Impact �-- The Master List uavoidable impacts to the Downtown Historic District as a and Master List -eligible result of the demolition or significant alteration of Master List historic structures associated and Master List -eligible historic structures. with the project will be retained and rehabilitated in their current locations, pursuant to the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Historic Structures. (See Garden Street Terraces Project Analysis, Chattel Architecture, Planning & Preservation, Inc., April 2011 and Sheet A.8 — Preliminary CR-2 The proposed project would result in significant but Class II Elevations) No Impact —The project has mitigable impacts to the historic Union Hardware Building been revised to retain the (Downtown Brewing Company Building) located at 1119 Garden building, including all identified Street, a historic resource on the Master List of Historic significant and contributing Resources and considered eligible for listing on the National character -defining features. Register of Historic Places. CR-3 The proposed project would result in significant and Class I No Impact —The project has unavoidable impacts to the historic Smith Building, located at been revised to retain the 1123-1127 Garden Street, a historic resource on the City's building, including all identified Master List of Historic Resources. significant and contributing CR-4 The proposed project would result in significant and Class I character -defining features. No Impact —The project has unavoidable impacts to the historic Laird Building complex, been revised to retain the located at 1129-1137 Garden Street, a historic resource on the building, including all identified City's Master List of Historic Resources. significant and contributing character -defining features. CR-5 The proposed project would result in significant and Class I No Impact —The project has unavoidable impacts to the building at 748 Marsh Street (San been revised to retain the Luis Traditions), a historic resource eligible for the CRHR and building, including all identified the City's Master List of Historic Resources. significant and contributing CR-6 The proposed project could result in significant impacts Class II character -defining features. Remains Class II —The to historic structures both on and adjacent to the project site as language of the mitigation a result of indirect structural damage from demolition and measure was simplified to construction activities. reflect the retention and rehabilitation to Secretary of the Interior Standards for Historic Structures, rather than partial demolition and substantial remodeling of the historic structures along Garden Street. It addresses the potential impact of new construction affecting the historic buildings and maintains provisions for PHI-12 Addendum to Final EIR for the warden Street Terraces Project (City File No. ER 124-06) Page 6 Attachment 2 protection and careful staging during construction. 3.7 Land Use and Planning Policies LU-1 The proposed project would be potentially inconsistent Class II No Impact — The project with conceptual goals for Area 4 of the Downtown Plan for redesign now depicts a mid - providing new mid -block pedestrian links. block pedestrian link connecting Marsh Street, through the project, to "Bubble -Gum Alley'. The project also proposes improvements to Garden Alley. (See Sheet A.1 — First Floor Plan and Sheet C.7 -- Sidewalk and Pedestrian Improvement Plan LU-2 The proposed project maybe potentially inconsistent with Class III No Impact - The project has several of the policy objectives established for taller buildings been revised so that all under Land Use Element Policy 4.16.4 and Chapter 17.42 (C-D buildings are less than 50 feet zone) of the Cit 's adopted zoning ordinance. in height. 3.10 Transportation and Traffic TT-5 The proposed project would result in potentially adverse Class III No Impact - The project's but not significant increases in congestion to sidewalks along redesign modified all the project's frontages and interior pedestrian walkways where sidewalks and related multiple "pinch points" (e.g., street trees, newspaper racks, components to maintain the etc.) restrict pedestrian free passage to less than 8 feet, in requisite eight (8) foot clear conflict with adopted City Circulation Element Policy. path on all of the sidewalks directly adjacent to the project site. (See Sheet C.7 — Sidewalk and Pedestrian Improvement Plan TT-6 The proposed project would result in potentially Class II No Impact - Modifications to significant adverse safety impacts to vehicles entering the site the Marsh Street entrance and pedestrians crossing the parking structure driveway_ include removal of the median, appropriate curb radii, and separated vehicle and pedestrian/bicycle entrances. Bicycle parking is also provided in this location, providing a physical buffer between vehicle and pedestrian traffic. (See Sheet A.1 —First Floor Plan) TT-10 The proposed project would not provide adequate Class If No Impact - The revised motorcycle parking and would result in a shortage of required project provides the requisite motorcycle facilities. amount of motorcycle parking. Four (4) motorcycle spaces are located on the basement parking level. (See Sheet A.0 — Basement Floor Plan TT-12 The design of the proposed Second Basement Level Class II No Impact - This impact is no private parking lot and the First Basement Level public parking longer applicable. With the lot would result in potentially significant but mitigable impacts elimination of the metered PHI-13 Addendum to Final EIR for the warden Street Terraces Project (City File No. ER 124-06) Page 7 Attachment 2 on vehicle safety and interior circulation efficiency. public parking, the revised project now has only one basement parking level. (See Sheet A.0 — Basement Floor Plan) Legend for Hierarchy of Impact Classifications in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Class I Impacts - Significant, Unavoidable Impacts That May Not Be Fully Mitigated to Less Than Significant Levels Class It Impacts - Significant Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels Class III -- Less Than Significant No Impact DETERMINATION In accordance with Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of San Luis Obispo has determined that this addendum to Final EIR ER 124-06 is necessary to document changes or additions that have occurred in the project description since the Final EIR was certified. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in this addendum along with the analysis and conclusions of Final EIR ER 124-06 and finds that the preparation of a subsequent EIR is not necessary because: I- None of the following circumstances included in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines have occurred which require a subsequent EIR: a. The project changes do not result in new or more severe environmental impacts. b. The circumstances under which the project is undertaken will not require major changes to the EIR. c. The modified project eliminated the need for several mitigation measures because of its scaled down size and the retention of historic buildings previously proposed for demolition or substantial modification, but does not require any substantive changes to previously approved mitigation measures. 2. As directed by the City Council with Use Permit 124-06 approved through Resolution No. 10183 on June 1, 2010, the revised project is consistent with the Reduced Development (environmentally superior alternative) and Project without Public Parking Spaces alternatives included in the certified Final EIR. 3. The changes are consistent with City goals to promote the intensification of the downtown core with mixed -use projects. PHI-14 Addendum to Final EIR for th, jarden Street Terraces Project Attachment (City File No. ER 124-06) 2 Page 8 4. The proposed scale and design of buildings will be compatible with surrounding uses with the review and approval of project plans by the City's Architectural Review Commission, and approval of project plans by the City Council, consistent with the City's General Plan, Zoning Regulations, Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, and Community Design Guidelines. Signature Doug Davidson, Deputy Director Attached: Zv Date For: Kim Murry, Acting Community Development Director Exhibit A: Revised Table ES-1 - List of recommended mitigation measures for the revised project CA I u�hec�Cd+h, end of +he Draf+ ReGcIvh'cn) Links to Final EIR: htt ://www.slocit .or/communitydevelopmentldow_n_foadlun_ifiedgeneralplan/JDavid/Gar den %20Street%20Final %20EIR. pdf htt ://www.yslocit .or rq/com edge nera Iplan/JDavid/GST -Appendices.pdf PHI-15 Attachment 6 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM # 1 BY: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner (781-7168) DATE: August 15, 2011 FROM: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner FILE NUMBER: ARC 124-06 PROJECT ADDRESSES: 1119, 1123-1127, 1129-1137 Garden Street and 712, 720, 722, 728, 736, 748 Marsh Street SUBJECT: Final design review of the Garden Street Terraces Project. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION: Recommend to the City Council that the revised project design be approved, based on findings, and subject to conditions. BACKGROUND Situation Garden Street SLO Partners, LP has submitted applications to the City to develop a downtown mixed -use center including retail, residential units and a hotel known as the Garden Street Terraces Project. The proposed project site is located within the City's Downtown Core and Downtown Historic District and consists of six parcels, including City Parking Lot No. 2, bordered by Broad Street, Garden Alley, Garden Street and Marsh Street. The project has been reviewed by the ARC on two previous occasions beginning with an introduction in January of 2007, and most recently with a review of the revised project design and conclusions of the project's Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on April 19, 2010. Since the ARC's review of plans last year, the project design has been significantly modified in two important ways: 1. All of the historic buildings on Garden Street are retained within the project; and 2. All of the new buildings within the project are below 50 feet in height. The ARC's purview with the project is to review the revised project design in terms of its consistency with the Community Design Guidelines. If the ARC determines that there are still outstanding issues, then proposed conditions should be amended or additional conditions recommended to address remaining concerns. The ARC's determination on the project design, along with the prior recommendation of the CHC, will be forwarded on to the City Council, who in this case, will take the final action on the project design. Garden Street Terraces Project (ARC 124-06; 8-15-11) Page 2 Site Description The site measures approximately 1.11 acres bordered by Broad Street, Garden Alley, Garden Street and Marsh Street within the City's Downtown Core and Downtown Historic District (see Figure 1). The site is currently developed with a mix of public parking (City Parking Lot #2) and 12 one- to two-story public and private buildings, seven of which are historic resources, including 748 Marsh Street and 1119, 1123-1127, 1129-1137 Garden Street. Figure 1. Site Map The project site is located between two of the City's main commercial streets, Marsh and Higuera, at the southwest end of the Downtown Core and is highly visible to residents and visitors entering the downtown via Marsh Street. Surrounding properties consist of predominantly one -to two-story buildings occupied by office, retail, restaurant, and residential uses. Zoning surrounding the site is shown in the attached vicinity map (Attachment E). Revised Project Descri tion The proposed project will retain all of the existing historic buildings along Garden Street, but will demolish both private and public structures and surface parking near the corner of Broad and Marsh Streets to enable the construction of a 135,448 square -foot mixed -use development. The proposed project has a maximum building height of 50 feet and would have four stories over a basement level. Garden Street Terraces Project (ARC 124-06; 8-15-11) Page 3 Proposed uses include 8 residential units, a 48-room hotel, and 25,047 square feet of ground and mezzanine level retail space. Retail space would include a 13,227 square -foot neighborhood market. Retail, hotel, and market space would generally occupy the first floor ground level street frontages along Marsh, Garden, and Broad Streets, with the upper stories comprising a mix of hotel uses and residential condominiums. A total of 74 private automobile parking spaces for the project would be accessed from Marsh Street. On the ground floor, 11 valet parking spaces are set aside for hotel guests. The basement level garage would consist of 63 parking spaces with 16 residential spaces, 34 market spaces, and 13 valet spaces for the hotel. Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) Determination On July 25, 2011, the CHC found that the revised project design is appropriate in the Downtown Commercial Zone and Downtown Historical District, and recommended final approval of the project design to the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) and City Council (Attachment H). The Draft ARC Resolution supporting project approval includes the findings and conditions endorsed by the CHC with their review of the project. EVALUATION Since the project was originally submitted in August of 2006, the project design has been substantially modified and reduced in scale. Building heights have been reduced to not exceed 50 feet and are limited to four stories. Table 1 below compares the floor areas for land uses within the mixed use project between the version evaluated in the Final EIR and the current version of the plans. Table 1. Project Land Uses (Final FIR & Current Project) Final EIR Project Current Project' Use Details/Units Sixes Details/Units Size s Retail 10 spaces 145341 10 spaces 11,820 Residential 34 units 42,011 8 units 18,023 Market 1 unit 13,248 1 unit 13,227 Hotel/Restaurant 95 rooms 77,426 48 rooms 53,740 Trash room/ground 7,061 floor circulation Parking 147 spaces (62 65,581 74 private spaces 31,577 public) Total 212,607 135,448 Similar to the Chinatown Project, the EIR process resulted in a public dialog before decision makers that had an important influence on the ultimate project design. Changes in project impacts and mitigation measures as a result of revisions to the project description since the version evaluated in the Final EIR include those listed in the Table 2 (Attachment G). In general, the changes to the project description would reduce or avoid a number of impacts, including the Garden Street Terraces Project (ARC 124-06; 8-15-11) Page 4 project's impacts to Aesthetics and Visual Resources, Cultural Resources, and Land Use and Planning Policies. The current version of the project incorporates the Reduced Development (environmentally superior) and Project without Public Parking Spaces alternatives into the design. Compliance with the alternatives was achieved by reducing the overall building height to be 50 feet or less and having more visual breaks and greater articulation in the new building facades along Marsh and Broad Streets. As detailed in the attached Table 2, the retention of all of the historic buildings along Garden Street also made a dramatic impact on eliminating many of the Aesthetic and Cultural Resources impacts identified in the Final EIR. The following sections of the Evaluation discuss in more detail major components of the project: 1. Garden Street Buildings The original proposal evaluated in the Final EIR looked at partial preservation of the Downtown Brewing Company Building at 1119 Garden and retention of the facades only of the other structures along this street. The current proposal is to retain the Garden Street structures within the project with relatively minor modifications to the buildings and retention of all character - defining historical features. This change retains the historical resources and the character of the streetscape while eliminating many of the Cultural Resources impacts identified in EIR. The status and treatment of the Garden Street buildings has been a focus for both public comment and direction by decision makers with their review of the project. Because of this, staff has worked diligently with the applicant team to assure that the current project plans and materials are very clear about the treatment of these buildings within the project. The specific information included in the current submittal package related to these buildings is: a. Sheet A.8 — This sheet includes a streetscape elevation of the buildings along Garden Street; b. Sheets C.2.1 & C.2.2 — these sheets provide information on the specific changes planned for the historic buildings with photos, floor plans and elevations. C. Garden Street Terraces Historic Analysis Report (April 2011) — This report by Chattel Architecture is consistent with Appendix G of the Final EIR which identified the historical importance of the various buildings and their character - defining features. The report has been updated with more specific information on modifications proposed to incorporate them into the project. Sheets C.2.1 & C.2.2 are also attached in a folder at the back of the document to have the historical preservation information for the buildings consolidated. 1119 Garden Street The Master List historic building located at 1119 Garden is one of the most prominent and recognizable buildings on the block. It is known historically as the Union Hardware building and is now occupied by Downtown Brewing Company. The main building and its character -defining features will be retained with some minor cosmetic changes such as the replacement of the Garden Street Terraces Project (ARC 124-06; 8-15-11) Page 5 canvas awning with a structural steel canopy with expressed tie backs. A smaller steel canopy is also proposed to be added to the Garden Alley side of the building. The only structural change will be to remove the 14-foot deep, non-contributing concrete addition at the rear of the building. New "compatible" windows are proposed in existing openings within the original masonry wall. The design of the new windows is depicted on the Southwest elevation, but specific information is not included to confirm their appropriateness as a compatible installation. The Historic Preservation Program Guidelines discuss the prominent architectural features of buildings constructed in this area during this time period and indicates that windows are typically vertically oriented, double -hung with wood sashes and symmetrically arranged. Condition No. 6 is recommended to assure that window specifications are consistent with these design guidelines and are reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) with their review of project plans and details are included in working drawings. 1123 & 1127 Garden Street The adjacent Master List historic building at 1123 & 1127 Garden is known as the Smith Building. With development of the project, this building will serve as the lobby area for the proposed hotel. To accommodate the new use of the building, the basic structure, openings, and decorative features will be retained. On the Garden Street elevation, improvements include new windows and storefront systems in existing openings including the replacement of the central doorway with a window. The main entry to the ground floor (hotel lobby) will be at the rear of the building to be accessed by those entering the parking area to check in and have their vehicles valet parked. The storefronts will be replaced with folding glass doors that will also allow access at different times to the lobby and lounge area from Garden Street. Existing transom windows above new folding doors will be kept and refurbished. The existing canvas awnings which currently hide the transom windows will be removed. Restoration of the transoms and replacement of the aluminum sash windows on the second floor will be a huge aesthetic improvement and more in keeping with the original historic construction. On the alley and rear sides of the building, all of the existing windows will be replaced. On the alley side, new windows will be installed in existing openings. The windows and doors in the rear elevation will in some cases be installed in existing openings and in other case will be expanded versions of existing openings. This elevation is currently the "back of shop" service area and the existing doors and windows are considered to be non-contributing, The windows and doors are not identified as contributing features for the resource, but the proposed replacements could better fit the historic ambiance of the building. With development of the project, this elevation will have a much more significant public presence since it will accommodate the main entry to the hotel. For this reason, it could benefit from a quality and historically accurate treatment. Condition No. 7 is recommended to assure that the changes to the rear elevation of 1123-1127 Garden are sensitively treated with input by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) with their review of project plans and details included in working drawings. Garden Street Terraces Project (ARC 124-06; 8-15-11) Page 6 1129-1137 Garden & 748 Marsh Plans indicate that these remaining buildings will not be modified with development. However, Sheet A.8 indicates that these buildings will be repainted. Normally the repainting of structures is not a significant issue, but in this case, it warrants some discussion. Currently the small storefronts that comprise 1129-1137 Garden are painted in a variety of bright colors. The color and variety of these building colors help highlight architectural detailing, create individual identity, and add to the fun and vitality of the block. Elevation notes indicate that all four tenant spaces would be painted a charcoal slate color. This dark color tends to blend the multiple spaces into a single form, losing their individual identities. 748 Marsh 1129-1137 Garden The Historic Preservation Program Guidelines (3.4.1 d), Community Design Guidelines and Land Use Element section on the Downtown stress the importance of downtown buildings maintaining a regular fagade rhythm that respects historic development patterns and contributes to sidewalk appeal. For these reasons, the existing variety of color with the tenant spaces, or a similar new proposal, should be maintained to reinforce the character and interest of the block (Condition No. 8). The building at 748 Marsh is painted a salmon color and was previously a light tan. Sheet A.8 shows that the building would be repainted White Dove, which is a brighter white color. The color depiction on the elevation shows the color to look more like a light tan differentiating it from the White Dove color also shown on the new structure beyond. Staff s recommendation to have this building painted in a color hue more like the depiction on Sheet A.8, rather than the White Dove called out in the legend, to give more distinction to the building and differentiate it from the new construction within the project (Condition No. 10). Garden Street Terraces Project (ARC 124-06; 8-15-11) Page 7 2. New Construction in the Downtown Core The proposed project has been dramatically scaled back in size to be about 60% of the floor area previously proposed and all buildings are now below 50 in height and four stories. The buildings along Garden Street previously discussed in Section 1 are in the designated Downtown Historical District. The new building, which is proposed to occupy the remainder of the project site now developed with City Parking Lot #2 and the buildings at the corner of Broad and Marsh Streets, is not in the Downtown Historical District. However, given its adjacency to the Garden Street buildings and proximity to other historic resources in the vicinity, the CHC was also directed with its review of project plans to evaluate the new building's appropriateness in its Downtown Core setting with guidance from the following General Plan and Historic Preservation Program Guidelines: • Land Use Element 4.12: Building Conservation and Compatibility Architecturally and historically significant buildings should be preserved and restored. New buildings should be compatible with architecturally and historically significant buildings, but not necessarily the same s le. • Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 3.3.4 "...New buildings in historical districts, or on historically significant sites, should reflect the orm spacing and materials of nearby historic structures. The street appearance of buildings which contribute to a neighborhood's architectural character should be maintained. " • Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 3.3.5 In evaluating new public or private development, the City should identify and rp otect neighborhoods or districts having historical character due to the collective effect of Contributing or Master List historic properties. Building on the General Plan policy principles, the following guidance is provided in the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines: 3.ZI Architecturally compatible development within Historic Districts. New structures in historic districts shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with the district's prevailing historic character as measured by their consistency with the scale, massing, rhythm, signature architectural elements, exterior materials, siting and street yard setbacks of the district's historic structures, as described in Figures 2 and 3. New structures are not required to copy or imitate historic structures, or seek to create the illusion that a new building is historic. 3.2.2 Architectural compatibility. The CHC reviews development in historic districts for architectural compatibility with nearby historic resources, and for consistency with applicable design and preservation policies, standards, and historic district descriptions in Section 5.2. New development should not sharply contrast with, significantly block public views of or visually detract from, the historic architectural character of historically designated structures located adjacent to the property to be developed, or detract from the prevailing historic architectural character of the historic district. Garden Street Terraces Project (ARC 124-06; 8-15-11) Page 8 Staffs Analysis: The new building's architectural style is Contemporary with elements of Spanish architecture in terms of some of the materials like the smooth finish plaster and clay tile roof and details like rafter tails and window styles. Detailing is sleek, rather than fussy, but there is a wide variety of forms and materials that give the building distinction, interest and character. The building does not attempt to create a historically themed replica, but rather provides an addition that is clearly of the current time. Chapter 4 of the Community Design Guidelines (CDG — also used below as the acronym for individual guidelines referenced) provides guidance to the ARC in terms of evaluating the appropriateness of the new building in its Downtown Core setting and specific elements of the proposed design (Attachment J). Compatibility with surrounding development is provided with signature architectural elements like the Spanish detailing mentioned as well as the brick material proposed on several prominent walls. Key to the architectural compatibility of the new building is its reduced scale, massing and rhythm of different elements. The structure is built generally to the back of sidewalk consistent with Land Use Element guidance and the CDG 4.2-A, but it is not a solid wall plane along street frontages up to 50 feet. Along both the Broad and Marsh Street elevations, horizontal articulation (wall offsets) is created by ground floor entries as well as tiered massing through varied upper floor setbacks (CDG 4.2- B). Balconies and awnings add to building articulation (CDG 4.2-D 5. & 6.). There are also visual gaps created at upper building levels where no structure is proposed such as the exit stairway area on the Broad Street elevation and the private terrace area on Marsh Street. Desired vertical articulation is provided through the varied heights of different building elements (CDG 4.2-B.4. a.). While it is a single building, its design achieves the desired rhythm of multiple spaces by varying colors and materials (CDG 4.2-41). Inherent to fitting into the pedestrian character of the downtown core and remaining consistent with polices and guidelines is the continuous retail presence on the building's ground floor. Consistent with Community Design Guidelines, the building has a more transparent ground floor and upper floor window symmetry (CDG 4.2-B. 4.c). 3. Pedestrian Circulation Given its Downtown Core setting, pedestrian circulation has been a focus of discussion with the development of the project sine the site abuts several street frontages and provides opportunities to move pedestrians internally with connections to adjacent public sidewalks. Sheet C.7 of plans is entitled "Sidewalk and Facility Improvement Plan"; it gives an overall view of the project's pedestrian pathways. The project includes pedestrian access between the subterranean parking garage and the corner of Broad Street and Garden Alley, including an elevator, stairwell, and escalator with the ability to transport shopping carts. A pedestrian walkway that varies in width between 6.8'-7.8' is provided between Garden Alley and Marsh Street, with an 8.9' wide connection through to Garden Street Terraces Project (ARC 124-06; 8-15-11) Page 9 Garden Street adjacent to the proposed hotel lobby. Garden Alley is a public alley that is 14.3' wide. Beyond the site, another pedestrian alley, the infamous Bubblegum Alley provides a 6.5' wide connection between Garden Alley and Higuera Street. The pedestrian paths through the project will primarily have a surface of gray pavers that are shown on Sheet C.6. The surface of Garden Alley will also be primarily pacers, but some variety is provided by gray concrete flatwork at the project's overhead door to the trash and recycling facilities and at other selected locations to highlight building architecture. Sheet C.6 is the Garden Alley Improvement Plan and provides a larger scale plan view of the alley along with character renderings and material callouts. Other improvements to the project pathways include lighting and public art. Lighting locations are shown on Sheets C.7 and a detail provided on Sheet A.10. Staff finds the proposed lighting fixture attractive and compliant with the Night Sky provisions contained in Section 17.23.050 of the Zoning Regulations. This fixture will be used exclusively on the new building. Note No. 27 of Sheet C.7 notes that the existing sycamore sculpture on the wall of the closed City restrooms adjacent to Parking Lot #2 will be relocated to the alley wall just off Garden Alley. Sheet C.6 provides a character rendering of the approximate placement of the relocated sculpture. 4. Garden Street Improvements The project includes innovative improvements to Garden Street, between Higuera and Marsh Streets, which are generally consistent with the City -approved Garden Street Improvement Plan (see Sheets CA & C.5). Plans include one-way traffic heading north between Marsh and Higuera Streets. Angled parking is proposed with parking spaces on the east side of the street. The surfaces of the parking spaces will be decorative gray permeable pavers. A unique element of the design will be to have flush curbs before the planted parkway areas. Bollards are proposed to keep vehicles from entering the parkway area. Staff has worked extensively with the applicant on the street design and improvements. Generally staff is supportive of the design included in plans, but there are still some lingering refinements that are outlined in Condition No. 25. Public Works staff will also be at the meeting to assist in answering any questions about the proposed design elements. Conclusion The revised project in terms of its scale and mix of land uses creates an attractive and viable design that addresses many of the concerns and issues brought up during earlier public hearings on the project. The current project plans through their reduced scale and preservation of the historic buildings along Garden Street are consistent with the Reduced Development (environmental superior alternative) and Project without Public Parking Spaces alternatives reducing or eliminating many of the aesthetic and cultural resources impacts previously identified in the Final EIR. The revised project will provide an exciting and attractive new project within the downtown core which respects the character and pattern of surrounding development. Garden Street Terraces Project (ARC 124-06; 8-15-11) Page 10 Attachments: — not attached 1. Vicinity Map 2. Reduced scale project plans 3. Table 2 — Changes in Final EIR Project Impacts with Revised Design 4. 7-25-11 CHC minutes 5. 4-19-10 ARC minutes 6. Chapter 4, Downtown Design Guidelines, of the Community Design Guidelines 7. CHC Resolution supporting revised project design G:\CD-PLAN\PR1CC1\Garden Street (124-06)\Staff Reports\GST ARC (8-15-11).doc ROLL CALL: Present: Absent: SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 15, 2011 Commissioners Ken Curtis, Suzan Ehdaie, Steven Hopkins, Greg Wynn, and Vice -Chair Jim Duffy Commissioner Michelle McCovey-Good and Chairperson Anthony Palazzo Staff: Senior Planner Pam Ricci, Housing Programs Manager Tyler Corey, Principal Transportation Planner Peggy Mandeville, Supervising Civil Engineer Hal Hannula, and Recording Secretary Janet Miller ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented. MINUTES: None PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS: There were no comments. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 1119 1123-1127 1129-1137 Garden Street and 712 720 722 728 736 748 Marsh Street. ARC 124-06; Review project redesign for the Garden Street Terraces project; C-D-H zone; Garden Street SLO Partners, LP, applicant. (Pam Ricci) Pam Ricci, Senior Planner, presented the staff report, recommending the Commission adopt a resolution to recommend that the City Council approve the revised project design, based on findings and subject to conditions which she outlined. Commissioner Curtis questioned if Garden Alley would be open for service vehicles as well as pedestrians. Staff noted the alley would be open for vehicles; however, if pedestrian activity increased in the future, then delivery hours could be limited along with bollard placement for pedestrian safety. Commissioner Curtis questioned if there would be any special treatment, such as landscape, to indicate the opening from Garden Alley and Garden Street. Staff noted that improvements such as pavers, lighting and planting were proposed along the alley to make it more inviting to pedestrians. Commissioner Curtis questioned if the proposed canopy for the Union Hardware Building had a historical background. Staff noted the proposed metal awning replacing the canopy was consistent with an old photo of the building found by the applicant. ARC Minutes August 15, 2011 Page 2 Commissioner Wynn questioned if alternative meter choices had been considered other than the proposed parking meters. Staff noted they had not considered pay stations or alternatives for the area. Carol Florence, applicant representative, requested that conditions 6 and 7 be left to the approval of the Director rather than requiring the project return to the Commission for approval. Ms. Florence noted the solid waste would be collected in a centralized area on Garden Alley to improve its character and appearance for pedestrians. George Garcia, applicant architect, provided a presentation on the project, noting the proposed canopy on the Union Hardware Building would allow for the original transom windows to be exposed. Mr. Garcia further requested conditions 6 and 7 be left to the approval of the Director. Hamish Marshall, applicant, noted that, through the improvements that have already been made to the proposed project, they have worked with the other businesses operating on Garden Street Alley. Staff noted the purpose behind conditions 6, 7, and 11 were to have the details and materials provided by the applicant prior to the ARC's approval due to the Master List properties involved. Commissioner Hopkins questioned if the pool area would be shared by the hotel and the condominium. Mr. Marshall noted it would be shared. Vice -Chair Duffy asked about the proposed canopy for the Union Hardware Building. Mr. Garcia discussed the goal of the canopy design to further open the front view of the building. PUBLIC COMMENTS: David Brodie, San Luis Obispo, did not support the location of the loading bay on Garden Street and questioned the impacts of the project on the adjacent Verizon Building. He supported an increase in natural lighting for the project. He expressed concern with the contrast of the black and white colors and suggested that the ARC should clearly examine this with their review of the project. Bob Carpenter, San Luis Obispo, expressed excitement about the new structure being pulled back away from Garden Street but did not support the loading zone location on Garden Street and suggested moving it to Marsh Street. Joseph Abrahams, San Luis Obispo, encouraged the applicant to come up with a creative solution to the development of Garden Alley and that its surface materials should be inviting. He suggested the use of garden materials in the project. Sara McEre, San Luis Obispo, noted concern with the architectural treatment of the corner of the new building at Marsh and Broad. She requested the Commission tour the streets with the public before a final decision is made. ARC Minutes August 15, 2011 Page 3 Chuck Crotser, San Luis Obispo, noted that the applicant had done a great job in responding to concerns but expressed disappointment for the reduction in density to the project with the projects redesign. He supported the project and moving it on to the City Council for final approval. Elizabeth Thyne, San Luis Obispo, did not support the use of the dark gray color finding it stark and depressing. She suggested street lights for night lighting in the Garden Alley and asked staff to note in notices when the project model would be made available for further public viewing. Linda Groover, San Luis Obispo, supported the project but suggested changing the dark gray color and increasing the pavers on Garden Street. She recommended the use of Brazilian hardwoods for balcony materials. Sandra Lakeman, San Luis Obispo, indicated that there was a lack of identity to the elevations. She did not support the dark gray or the dove white color choices and noted that the materials should be high quality. She requested the Commission take a tour of the area with the public. Kathleen Ruiz, San Luis Obispo, does not support the proposed gray color. There were no further comments made from the public. Staff responded to concerns with the location of the loading zone on Garden Street by noting that Condition 25 included reference to the final loading zone design and placement. Staff noted mitigation measures addressed concerns with the protection of existing buildings during construction and pointed out the lighting proposals for the project. Vice -Chair Duffy questioned the phasing of the project. Mr. Marshall noted the new section would be built as one and the historical section retrofitted. Staff discussed working with the City Clerk to notify the public of the model's availability through additional advertisement and extended viewing hours. Vice -Chair Duffy questioned if there was a capital improvement project to pave Garden Street. Staff noted a request could be made to add it, but it was not currently included on the list of pending projects. Vice -Chair Duffy questioned condition 27 regarding street furniture. Staff noted the City standard at the time of the permits would dictate the furniture used. The Commission took a 10 minute break at 7 p.m. Staff reiterated the history of the project's review by the Cultural Heritage Committee and the purview of the ARC. ARC Minutes August 15, 2011 Page 4 In response to comments from the public for a walking tour with the ARC, Vice -Chair Duffy stated the Commission previously walked the site two months ago and individually from time to time. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commissioner Ehdaie agreed with the public's concerns with the use of the dark gray color on the new building and that it had a boxy appearance. She suggested the use of more Mission -style colors. Commissioner Curtis noted that the scale and bulk of the current version of the project was more compatible with its immediate surroundings and included a good variety in building heights and setbacks. He did not support the dark gray color proposed and would like to see alternatives provided. He agreed with members of the public that the corner of the new building at Marsh and Broad would stand out more with some enhancements. He felt that the designs of the pedestrian paseos were uninviting. He further noted concern for the Garden Street improvement plan calling its partial pedestrian orientation a "half way" solution. He noted Garden Alley should have more landscaping. Staff mentioned that the alley had proposed planter boxes. Commissioner Hopkins did not support the dark gray color being proposed. He supported more vine planting and lighting along the paseos. Commissioner Wynn supported the scale of the project; however, he questioned the proposed dark gray for the brick material. He supported the new building's design but noted he would have liked to see more variety above the podium level with details on awnings and other sun -control elements. Vice -Chair Duffy supported the scale and density of the project but had concern with the dark colors and thin brick finding them inconsistent with the Community Design Guidelines that recommend use of the best quality materials. He noted the new building lacked defining character, and there was an opportunity to provide more of a statement with the corner at Marsh and Broad. He pointed out that some of the finer building elements were not apparent in the project plans. He suggested that the applicant could finesse the mass and details of the storefronts of the ground floor spaces to better reflect the desired rhythm required in the Downtown. Commissioner Wynn noted that conditions could be added to provide a level of detail documentation for a downtown project. He referenced the level of detail provided by the Chinatown project. Staff noted that the ARC granted the Chinatown project final approval and then had a follow-up meeting to review additional details of project colors and materials. Commissioner Wynn noted that either the Commission could continue the item to gather further information or include additional conditions to move forward with final approval. ARC Minutes August 15, 2011 Page 5 Staff noted that conditions could be included to address upper -level articulation, information on bulkheads and pilasters, with additional information on the paseos. Staff noted that September 19th was the earliest the Commission could review the project again. On motion by Commr. Wynn, seconded by Commr. Curtis to continue the promect to a date certain of September 19, 2011, with the following items to be further addressed in plans: 1. Provide more information on proposed colors, materials, and textures used on the new building including consideration for a lighter shade of brick rather than the charcoal color currently proposed. 2. Consider an alternative treatment for the portion of building directly located at the corner of Marsh and Broad Streets that respects the prominence of views at the intersection. 3. Provide more information on pedestrian features in the project such as awnings and bulkheads. AYES: Commrs. Curtis, Ehdaie, Hopkins, Wynn, and Duffy NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commrs. McCovey-Good and Palazzo The motion passed on a 5:0 vote. 2. Staff: a. Agenda Forecast: Pam Ricc September 12th meeting would be held on September 19th 3. Commission: i gave an agenda forecast noting that the be cancelled and that the next meeting would Commr. Hopkins mentioned that the new fence installed in the outdoor foyer of the new location for Kreuzberg Coffee at 685 Higuera (the old Golden China) was a big improvement over the temporary white picket fence that was removed. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Janet Miller Recording Secretary Approved by the Architectural Review Commission on September 19, 2011. Ryan Betz Supervising Administrative Assistant Attachment 7 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM # 2 BY: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner (781-7168) DATE: September 19, 2011 FROM: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner FILE NUMBER: ARC 124-06 PROJECT ADDRESSES: 1119, 1123-1127, 1129-1137 Garden Street and 712, 720, 722, 728, 736, 748 Marsh Street SUBJECT: Final design review of the Garden Street Terraces Project. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION: Recommend to the City Council that the revised project design be approved, based on findings, and subject to conditions. BACKGROUND Situation Plans for the downtown mixed -use center including retail, residential units and a hotel known as the Garden Street Terraces Project were reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) on August 15, 2011. The plans reviewed by the ARC last month had been substantially modified from the version that the ARC had reviewed last year on April 19, 2010 along with the conclusions of the project's Environmental Impact Report (EIR). With the new project design, the Commission supported the retention and treatment of the historic buildings along Garden Street, and appreciated the reduced scale and height of the new structure proposed on the remainder of the project site closer to Broad and Marsh Streets where Parking Lot 42 and some private buildings now exist. However, the ARC requested that further details about the new building return to them prior to recommending final design approval to the City Council including the following: l . Provide more information on proposed colors, materials and textures used on the new building including consideration for a lighter shade of brick rather than the charcoal color currently proposed. 2. Consider an alternative treatment for the portion of building directly located at the corner of Marsh and Broad Streets that respects the prominence of views at the intersection. 3. Provide more information on pedestrian features in the project such as awnings and bulkheads. Therefore, the ARC's action on August 15th was to continue consideration of the project design to the specific date of September 19th with the requested information above to be the focus of the extended review. A copy of the August 15th report is attached for background information and a comprehensive evaluation of the entire project. Garden Street Terraces Project (ARC 124-06; 9-19-11) Page 2 EVALUATION Attachment B to this report includes a Project Design Statement prepared by the project architect. This statement provides additional background on the project's design genesis and evolution as the EIR and other entitlements have been reviewed by the City at multiple public hearings. A key component of the design approach with the new structure is to respect the existing rhythm of historic storefronts in the downtown core by breaking down the building into smaller elements of 20'-50' widths through vertical and horizontal articulation and color and material changes. With this maintenance of a typical downtown storefront rhythm, buildings that contain contemporary design elements can appear complementary. The other major design topic that arose at the last meeting was colors and materials. The architect's statement notes that the material palette was selected to pay homage to and respect historic building materials, rather than attempt to replicate them. Commission Direction # 1: Provide more information on proposed colors, materials and textures used on the new building including consideration for a lighter shade of brick rather than the charcoal color currently proposed. Applicant's Response: As further detailed in the Project Design Statement (Attachment 2) recently submitted to staff, the design team confirms the use of brick & mortar and smooth cement plaster as the two main exterior building finish materials for the new project. The matter of the brick color has been reviewed by the team, and we propose to provide alternative lighter brick elements, including alternate patterns, blends, and mortar color. The intent is to leave the strong building element at the corner of Marsh & Broad as designed, but to offset this feature by providing lighter brick treatments for the (2) other brick facades that flank the primary corner element down Marsh and Broad Streets respectively. Please refer to the revised project Elevation sheets A8.1 and A9.1 for clarification. Staffs Analysis: Comparing the elevations reviewed by the ARC on 8-15-11 with the current elevations, the changes to the colors and materials described above have had an impact on the overall appearance of the new building to address the concern with it appearing too dark and foreboding. In particular, eliminating some of the darkest gray brick and replacing it with the White Dove plaster surfaces on both Broad and Marsh Streets did much to lighten up the appearance of the structure. This change creates more variety in the wall surfaces along the street frontages which helps to maintain the typical downtown storefront rhythm previously mentioned. One minor suggestion would be to use a slightly darker, but still light color shade for the central portion of the Marsh Street elevation closest to the street to help pop it more from other like - painted parts of the building located further behind it. Obviously the elevation views cannot completely convey the variety and texture of the building materials. The applicant is proposing to include a higher proportion of lighter colored bricks and vary mortar colors used on different parts of the building to provide variety and lighten the overall colors of the brick walls. In addition, two different patterns of brick are proposed for added interest. Garden Street Terraces Project (ARC 124-06; 9-19-11) Page 3 As discussed at the previous meeting, the applicant is planning on using a brick veneer. However, the applicant team is still exploring options to use a veneer with more depth or a dimensional brick product. A revised colors and materials board and actual material samples will be available at the meeting. The Garden Street elevation of the project was modified to show the varied color scheme to the single -story tenant spaces located at 1129-1137 Garden Street and the corner building at 748 Marsh Street that currently exist as directed by Conditions 8 & 10 in the attached resolution. As changes to building colors may be contemplated in the future, these conditions have been maintained in the resolution to provide direction to staff and tenants of the desire to maintain variety in the facades. Commission Direction # 2: Consider an alternative treatment for the portion of building directly located at the corner of Marsh and Broad Streets that respects the prominence of views at the intersection. Applicant's Response: We have re -reviewed the proposed corner "building" extensively. We are of one accord that the current design proposal continues to provide for a strong, balanced "anchor" building at this focal intersection. This design possesses both historic and modern elements in its massing, scale and use of materials, which allows this building element to simultaneously announce the entrance to the downtown core without pretense, false ornamentation or disingenuous architecture. Staffs Analysis: The color changes in the brick that affect this corner of the building have been previously discussed. In addition, there have been some subtle, but important changes to refine the building detailing at the corner and create more of a distinct architectural statement. One change was to include a more enhanced cornice treatment. Another modification was to lower slightly the height of the horizontal canopy so that it is level with the base of, rather than interrupting the transom windows beyond. The more pedestrian -oriented height of the canopy along with further and more enhanced divisions in the glass better highlight the transom making it more of a focal point. The individual letters mounted vertically on the canopy also draw attention to the corner. Commission Direction # 3: Provide more information on pedestrian features in the project such as awnings and bulkheads. Applicant's Response: Supplemental large-scale pedestrian -level details and drawings, including storefront/bulkhead drawings & sections, awning/canopy details, sample signage and graphics renderings, and other graphic materials are included that clearly illustrate major pedestrian oriented features along the project's public facades. Staffs Analysis: The applicant has provided details of the additional pedestrian level features as requested by the ARC. Revised elevations show more variety in the styles and colors of storefronts. The more subtle palette of main building surfaces is further articulated by the addition of brightly colored Garden Street Terraces Project (ARC 124-06; 9-19-11) Page 4 awnings, canopies, and valances. Examples of varied signage treatments to the public facades also add to the pedestrian experience. Some specific changes were to relocate the recycled "Sycamore Tree" art piece to a more prominent location at the corner of Broad and Garden Alley and to eliminate the arches of the central ground floor tenant space on the Marsh Street elevation. One topic that came up at the last ARC meeting was why the decorative pavement treatment for Garden Alley did not extend the full length of the alley between Garden and Broad Streets. Staff has accordingly modified Conditions No. 26 to reflect this as a project requirement. Attachments: — not attached A. Vicinity Map B. Architect's Project Design Statement & reduced scale copies of revised elevations C. 8-15-11 ARC staff report & attachments D. ARC Resolution supporting revised project design GACD-PLANTMCCRGarden Street (124-06)\Staff Reports\GST ARC (9-19-11).doc SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES September 19, 2011 ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Suzan Ehdaie, Steven Hopkins, Michelle McCovey-Good, Greg Wynn, Vice -Chair Jim Duffy, and Chairperson Anthony Palazzo Absent: Commissioner Ken Curtis Staff: Senior Planner Pam Ricci and Planning Technician Marcus Carloni ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented. MINUTES: The minutes of August 8 & 15, 2011 were approved as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS: There were no comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 779, 781, 785, and 787 Hiquera Street. ARCMI 82-11; Review of corrugated metal awning additions to building facade; C-D-H zone; Beverly Maytag, applicant. (Marcus Carloni) Marcus Carloni, Planning Technician, presented the staff report, recommending the Commission adopt a resolution to approve the project design, based on findings and subject to conditions which he outlined. Jeff Bague, applicant's representative, explained the design intent behind Corten steel awnings. Beverly Maytag, applicant, noted her pride of ownership of the subject property and its connection to the history of downtown San Luis Obispo. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: There were brief comments from the Commission and consensus that the project was a great addition to the downtown. ARC Minutes September 19, 2011 Page 2 On motion by Commr. Duffy, seconded by Commr. Ehdaie to grant final approval to the ro'ect design based on findings and subject to conditions of approval included in the draft resolution. AYES: Commrs. Ehdaie, Hopkins, McCovey-Good, Wynn, Duffy and Palazzo NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commr. Curtis The motion passed on a 6:0 vote. 1. 1119 1123-1127 1129-1137 Garden Street and 712 720 722 728 736 748 Marsh Street. ARC 124-06; Review project redesign for the Garden Street Terraces project; C-D-H zone; Garden Street SLO Partners LP, applicant. (Pam Ricci) Pam Ricci, Senior Planner, presented the staff report recommending that the Commission adopt the Draft Resolution which recommends to the City Council that the revised project design be approved, based on findings and subject to conditions which she outlined. Carol Florence, applicant representative, described that 25 public outreach meetings have been conducted with residents, business owners, and the Downtown Association in attendance. She expressed some concern with condition #26 in the draft resolution regarding extending pavers the full length of Garden Alley and who would have maintenance responsibility. George Garcia, applicant's representative and project architect, provided a project overview, and stated that 95% of Downtown is plaster, brick, and mortar. He discussed the evolution of the project's design through the Environmental Impact Report, public hearings, and outreach. Regarding directional item #1, Mr. Garcia showed brick patterns and colors. In terms of directional item #2, he noted that the corner building at Marsh and Broad was designed as a strong element that gives a sense of anchor to the corner and will be given a Flemish bond brick treatment. Mr. Garcia addressed directional item #3 by using perspectives to show canopy and bulkhead details. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Vicente Del Rio, San Luis Obispo, provided a PowerPoint presentation and noted that his time before the Commission also represented the interests of other Save Our Downtown (SOD) members who would not be speaking. He stated concerns with the relationship of the new building with the sidewalk and its proposed colors and materials. Sara McEre, expressed that she had concerns regarding the project elements and what was presented at the last hearing. ARC Minutes September 19, 2011 Page 3 Judy Lang, requested changes to make the project more warm and inviting in relation to pedestrians and also wanted to eliminate the use of grey colors in the project. Mike McNamara, San Luis Obispo, called attention to a project wall proposed at the rear of their adjoining property at 742 Marsh that will block their access to the pedestrian walkway. Jon Seitz, San Luis Obispo, stated there is a wall separating his building at 742 Marsh from the alleyway and has concerns about access to the rear of the building and parking. Sandra Lakeman maintained that changes to building color treatments are not satisfactory as they are still dark grey and white. She noted that the General Plan has principles that require a transitional building and wanted the project to relate more to the architecture of historic buildings. Diane Duenow, San Luis Obispo, appreciated the model of the project. She would like the design to respect the architecture of historic buildings, especially the Mission. Jim Duenow, San Luis Obispo, opposed the project, and stated that it is insensitive to the history of Downtown. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Duffy was still concerned with colors and details. He would like to hear more positive comments from the public. Commr. Wynn supported the project as designed finding that it provided a strong statement and included architecture of the current time and place. He did not have any objections to the colors or materials. Commr. McCovey-Good agreed with Commr. Wynn's statements regarding colors and materials, but agrees with the idea of using different colors for the central part of the Marsh Street elevation to differentiate it from adjacent storefronts and maintain a regular downtown rhythm. She also noted that the changes made to eliminate some of the grey brick and lighten up the project's appearance were an improvement. Commr. Hopkins supported the project. Commr. Ehdaie supported the project with the added condition about modifying the color of the central portion of the Marsh Street elevation. Commr. Wynn stated that the proposed variety of colors and materials in the project adds excitement and diversity, and is a benefit. ARC Minutes September 19, 2011 Page 4 On motion by Commr. Wynn, seconded by Commr. Ehdaie to recommend that the revised project design be approved, based on findings and subject to conditions included in the draft resolution with one added condition which read: "The central portion of the Marsh Street elevation of the new structure shall be finished in a compatible color to differentiate it from adjacent storefronts." AYES: Commrs. Ehdaie, Hopkins, McCovey-Good, Wynn, and Palazzo NOES: Commr. Duffy RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commr. Curtis The motion passed on a 5:1 vote. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 2. Staff: a. Agenda Forecast - Pam Ricci provided a forecast for upcoming agendas. b. Awning Discussion — Staff discussed with the ARC that metal as an awning material was cited in the Community Design Guidelines as not being appropriate in the downtown. Based on the review of recent proposals for metal awnings in the downtown by the ARC including Item #1 on tonight's agenda, the Commission suggested that staff could make decisions to allow metal awnings that were compatible with the architectural style of the building and respected the locations of windows and other details. Staff mentioned that metal awning designs found not to be compatible with a building's architectural style would continue to be forwarded to the Commission for their review. Staff also noted that modifications to the language in the guidelines regarding downtown awnings would be drafted and reviewed by the ARC at a later date for consideration when the guidelines are updated. 3. Commission Commr. Wynn brought up the concern with the barriers for outdoor dining being left in place within the sidewalk area after restaurants are closed. Staff pointed out the reasons for this including keeping the area properly demarcated, having a more refined and attractive barrier design, and convenience to the business owners. Staff suggested that a Public Works representative could attend an upcoming meeting and provide some insights into how these types of projects are reviewed. Vice -Chair Duffy mentioned the recent remodel of the Applebee's Restaurant on Madonna Road. He noted that the style, material, and color of the awnings were very bright and did not relate to building features. ARC Minutes September 19, 2011 Page 5 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Pam Ricci Recording Secretary Approved by the Architectural Review Commission on October 3, 2011. Ryan Betz Supervising Administrative Assistant attention was paid to the air gaps between two- inch supply and maximum water levels, as well as installation of maintenance ports. Care was taken to preserve the root zones of the large existing oaks during construction, and no new trees were planted over rain tank locations, mitigating future tree root involvement. Red yucca, artemisia and daylilies thrive on Sabine Hall's second -floor vegetated roof. Plantings are semi -extensive, and soil depth does not exceed 5.5 inches to save water and ease any infrastructure concerns. Ample seating and a shade trellis project from the building, where students can take a grand staircase to reach the roof terrace in addition to access provided by the building's second floor. Large cast concrete planters with ornamental Attachment 8 psi grasses march up the staircase, delineating the 1, Above & Top walkway. Chad Sichello of GSky Plant Systems,_" ' Beneath the glass Inc., Vancouver, B.C., designed the green wall on ` curtain wall on Sabine the second floor. Installation required three separate Science Hall's north phases: one for the frames, one for the irrigation facade, rushes and system and a third for the panels. Construction other hardy plantings was interrupted when winter weather arrived early, frame benches and sculptures of molecules which prevented the panel installation until the (top right) near the following spring. building's doorway. 'Hameln' dwarf fountain The green wall plant -growing medium is 60 grass runs along and percent organic material, coated with a synthetic beneath the aluminum stabilizer to expand the life of the organic shade trellis structure. composition. The remaining 40 percent of the growing medium is a synthetic mesh that holds the organic material. The plants, euonymus Japonicus and Microphyllus, were grown by Ponto Nursery and installed by the contractor, ValleyCrest Landscape Development, Dallas, October 2013 63 Above Left & Right Team List The G-Sky living wall, Richland College Leadership Janet James, Executive Assistant to the President designed by Chad Eddie Hueston, Emeritus Director of Facilities Sichello and Installed by Landscape Architects Linda Tycher & Associates, Inc. ValleyCrest Landscape Linda Tycher, RLA, ASLA Development, features Architects Perkins + will euonymus daponicus and Richard Miller, AIA, LEED AP BD rC Vicrophylla'. The wall has Artist Larry Kirkland an automated winterization Civil & Structural Engineer Jaster Quintanilla program that senses Construction Gilbane when the temperature Green Wall System GSky Plant Systems, Inc. dips close to freezing and Landscape Contractor Valleycrest shuts down the watering MEP Engineers Shah Smith & Associates system. Red yucca, 'Silver Photographer Charles Smith Mound' artemisia and Rain Tank System Construction Ecoservices 'Stella D'Oro' daylilies (left to right) unspool outward from the green wall in a curvilinear planting bed beside the seating area. The wall has an automated winterization system with sensors that detects when temperatures are close to freezing, which shuts down the watering program_ Drains located below the watering valves allow all water to gravity drain out of the lines, preventing frozen pipes. The system detects when the weather has warmed up enough to automatically open the watering to the drip lines. This smart irrigation is vital to the survival of the wall plants. This project uses myriad opportunities to teach students, faculty and visitors the value of sustainability, emphasizing Richland College's strong commitment to the sciences and the future viability of the environment. ---- 64 Landscape Architect and Specifier News DRAFT SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES November 4, 2013 ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Ken Curtis, Suzan Ehdaie, Steven Hopkins, Greg Wynn, and Vice -Chair Michelle McCovey-Good. Absent: Chairperson Duffy and Commissioner Palazzo Staff: Senior Planner Pam Ricci, Planning Technician Rachel Cohen, and Recording Secretary Shelly Mattocks ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented. MINUTES: The minutes of October 21, 2013, were approved as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS: There were no further comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 1423 Calle Joaquin. ARC-S 153-12; Review of sign program for Alfano Motors; C-S zone; Charles Alfano, Mercedes Benz, applicant. (Rachel Cohen) Planning Technician Rachel Cohen presented the staff report, recommending that the Commission adopt the draft resolution approving modifications to the proposed sign program, based on findings and subject to conditions which she outlined. Timothy Ball, project representative from Santa Maria Neon, expressed that they supported the removal of the roof sign from the project. He explained that the monument sign faces had already been purchased and thus could not be changed, but the bases that supported the signs could be modified and made to be lower. Larry Desario, from Santa Maria Neon, disputed the fact that the roof sign was actually a roof sign since it was attached to what he described was an architectural element and not a roof. Pam Ricci clarified that the location of the proposed roof sign was indeed situated onto what has been defined previously as a roof. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments made from the public. Draft ARC Minutes November 4, 2013 Page 2 COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commissioner Wynn was supportive of removing the roof sign. He also commented that he was not opposed to keeping all the wall signs as proposed by the applicant and moving the two on the north side of the building closer together. Commissioner Wynn brought up his concerns with the proportion of the base with the proposed sign face. He proposed that modifications be made to the bases to more aptly fit the large sign faces. Commissioner Wynn also supported staff's recommendation to reduce the height of the directional signs. Commissioner Curtis supported all the comments made by Commissioner Wynn but voiced specific concern about the proportion of monument signs to their bases. He commented that the bases of the monument signs should be lowered and made to be compatible and in proportion with the existing sign faces. Additionally, he supported staff's recommendation to reduce the illumination of the monument signs. Commissioner Hopkins asked staff to clarify the total number of signs to be installed. On motion by Commr. Ehdaie, seconded by Commr Wynn to adopt the draft resolution approving the modification of the proposed sin program, with the following changes L!5 0 1. Delete Condition No. 2. 2. Modify Condition No. 3 to read, "The applicant shall submit plans for new freestanding signage to the approval of the Community Development Director, which have a coordinated base design, include proportional elements, and are reduced in height." 3. Modify Condition No. 4 to read "Freestanding signs shall be designed to restrict full face illumination to the approval of the Community Development Director." AYES: Commrs. Curtis, Ehdaie, Hopkins, Wynn, and McCovey-Good. NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commissioners Duffy and Palazzo The motion passed on a 5:0 vote. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 2. Staff: a. Agenda Forecast Pam Ricci provided an agenda forecast for upcoming agendas. She mentioned the status of several projects currently being processed. Draft ARC Minutes November 4, 2013 Page 3 3. Commission: The Commission had a general discussion about projects under construction including Pad A at the Village at Broad and Marsh Street Commons. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Shelly Mattocks Recording Secretary