Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutph1montereyplacemixeduseproj FROM: Derek Johnson, Community Development Director Prepared By: Brian Leveille, Associate Planner SUBJECT: REVIEW OF THE MONTEREY PLACE MIXED USE PROJECT RECOMMENDATION Adopt the draft resolution which grants final approval to the project based on the Planning Commission’s approval of the use permit, and Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted by the Planning Commission. SITE DATA Applicant Michael Hodge, Shear Edge Development Representative Thom Jess, AIA Zoning C-D-S-H (Downtown-Commercial with Historic District and Special Considerations Overlay) General Plan General Retail Site Area .69 acres (30,033 sq. ft.) Environmental Status A Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted by the Planning Commission on October 23, 2013. REPORT-IN-BRIEF The proposed Monterey Place project is a mixed-use redevelopment with lower level commercial space, a pedestrian paseo, restaurant pad, and rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of the historic Leitcher building into a bed and breakfast. Four separate buildings are proposed to be constructed, each with lower level commercial space and residential units above on floors 2-4. There are a total of 23 residential units proposed and approximately 24,000 square feet of commercial space. When the property was rezoned to Downtown-Commercial (C-D-H) Zoning in 2008, Council adopted conditions that required use permit approval by the Planning Commission and final project approval by the City Council for any proposed new development on the project site. The project has been reviewed and recommended for final approval by the Cultural Heritage Committee and Architectural Review Commission. The Planning Commission has approved a use permit for the project and adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. The proposal is Meeting Date Item Number February 4, 2014 PH1 - 1 Council Agenda Report - Monterey Place mixed-use project (667 & 679 Monterey Place) February 4, 2014 Page 2 consistent with General Plan policy as an infill mixed-use redevelopment project which provides upper floor housing, and includes an important mid-block pedestrian connection in the Downtown Core. The applicants are requesting final project approval by the City Council. DISCUSSION Project Description Summary Description and Statistics The proposed project includes several land use components with upper level residential units, commercial floor space with restaurant pad, and restoration and adaptive reuse of the Leitcher building into a bed and breakfast. There are five buildings proposed for site development (Buildings A-E). Including both phases, there are 23 residential units proposed which average 1,350 square feet in size. Twenty units are 2-bedroom units including one affordable unit, and three units have 1-bedroom configurations. Proposed commercial floor area in the project consists of the bed and breakfast (Leitcher building – Bldg A), restaurant (Bldg C), and the lower level office/retail spaces and basement level spaces of Buildings B, D, & E. Building E at the southeast portion of the site is a mixed use building that would be developed as part of Phase 2 of the project. Total commercial floor area in the project including the bed and breakfast is 23,793 square feet. (Note – a complete breakdown of uses and square footage by phase and building is shown under “project data” on plan sheet AO.3.) Architectural Design The design incorporates components of surrounding building architecture and is designed to be compatible with the Contributing Historic Leitcher building. The bed and breakfast building architecture reflects elements of the Leitcher building with horizontal siding and a steeply pitched roofline. The mixed-use buildings have a variety of exterior finish materials with brick finishes, smooth plaster, wood trellis elements, and horizontal siding. Figure 1. View from Monterey Street PH1 - 2 Council Agenda Report - Monterey Place mixed-use project (667 & 679 Monterey Place) February 4, 2014 Page 3 The project architecture is a blend and includes material elements and architectural features from several styles in use in the vicinity and downtown area with low pitched rooflines, parapet rooflines, and horizontal siding, which is in use in the Leitcher building and the Soda Works building on Nipomo Street. The stucco and brick elements are used commonly in the Downtown area and the arched windows reflect window features of the nearby Carnegie Library at Monterey and Broad Streets, and the JP Andrews building at Osos and Monterey Street. A number of balconies and offsets are provided in the project that together with materials variation and color changes helps to break up the mass of the project. As summarized below, the applicant has made a number of modifications from the initial proposal to respond to direction from the ARC, CHC, and Planning Commission. Site Design The project layout is designed around the paseo (Figure 3, below), which will provide a link through the site between Monterey Street, the creek, and Higuera Street (plan sheet A0.4 & A1.1). The proposed paseo links directly with the pedestrian bridge and the crosswalk at Monterey Street that currently connects with City Parking Lot #14, and is designated as a future location for a parking structure (plan sheet A1.1). The paseo is landscaped (plan sheet L-1, Landscape plan), includes brick inlay paving, and slopes down from Monterey Street to the creek area. The buildings on the site are designed to have a presence on the paseo. The Leitcher building will continue to face Monterey Street and the reconstructed porch will be located along the paseo. The buildings and outdoor spaces are also oriented to face onto the creek area. The restaurant is designed with large windows and an outdoor patio area is designed to orient toward the creek view. The basement level office/retail spaces open to the creek with outdoor spaces and link into the creek walk area (plan sheet A1.0). Figure 2. Vicinity Plan PH1 - 3 Council Agenda Report - Monterey Place mixed-use project (667 & 679 Monterey Place) February 4, 2014 Page 4 Background General Plan Amendment and Rezone In 2008, the City Council approved a General Plan Land Use Element Amendment and Rezone of the property from Office (O) to Downtown-Commercial (C-D). Processing requirements were applied to the site when Council approved the Rezoning through adoption of Ordinance No. 1514 (2008 Series). Ordinance No. 1514 included a provision that Planning Commission use permit approval was required for all new structures or substantial remodels and additions to existing structures. Planning Commission review was to assure the design of structures is compatible and complementary to structures on adjacent properties (Attachment 2, Ordinance No. 1514). Ordinance 1514 also stipulated that final design plans are subject to review and approval by the City Council. As summarized below, the proposed project has been reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission, Cultural Heritage Committee, and Planning Commission. The applicant is now requesting final design approval by the City Council. Conceptual ARC Review On April 16, 2012, the Architectural Review Commission conducted a conceptual review of the project (April 16, 2012, ARC conceptual review staff report, Attachment 4). The purpose of the conceptual review was for the applicant to receive feedback from the ARC prior to finalizing plans and proceeding with the final design review process and submitting plans to the Planning Commission and City Council for final project approval. Public comment focused on concerns with Figure 3. Pedestrian paseo Monterey Street and connection to Parking lot #14 (future Palm/Nipomo parking structure Creekwalk and pedestrian bridge connection PH1 - 4 Council Agenda Report - Monterey Place mixed-use project (667 & 679 Monterey Place) February 4, 2014 Page 5 the overall height of the project and massing adjacent to the creek walk. Commission comments included discussion of the need to create more variety between buildings and that rooftops should be revised to be more consistent with the Downtown. The Commission also discussed the need for more information for final review including architectural details and more information to evaluate the project’s massing, scale, and architecture in comparison with surroundings to include a site model or visual simulation (Attachment 5, ARC follow up letter and minutes). ARC direction also included revisions to the paseo entrance at Monterey Street to enhance its visibility from the public right-of-way and Parking Lot #14 (future designated location of Palm/Nipomo Parking Structure). CHC Review The Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) reviewed the proposed project on July 23, 2012. The CHC evaluated the proposed rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of the historic Leitcher building for conformance with the Secretary of Interior Standards and evaluated the project for conformance with the City’s Historic Preservation Guidelines for new construction in the Downtown- Commercial Historic District. The CHC also reviewed recommended mitigation measures for potential impacts to archaeological resources for consistency with the Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines (Attachment 6, July 23, 2012, CHC Staff Report). The CHC voted unanimously to recommend ARC approval of the project with incorporation of the ARC’s previous direction and project modifications to plans for rehabilitation of the Leitcher building to fully comply with recommendations of the Historic Evaluation prepared by Applied Earthworks (Attachment 7, CHC Minutes & resolution). Final ARC Review On October 1, 2012, the Architectural Review Commission reviewed the revised project for final architectural review approval. The ARC evaluated the applicant’s modified plans for consistency with ARC direction (Attachment 8, October 1, 2012, ARC Report). The majority of the Commission found that the applicant had adequately responded to direction from the April 16, 2012, conceptual review (Attachment 9, meeting minutes and resolution recommending final approval). On a 4-2 vote, the ARC recommended that the City Council approve the revised project design (Commissioners Ehdaie and Curtis voting no). Planning Commission Review (February 13, 2013) The Planning Commission reviewed the project on February 13, 2013 (Attachment 10, 2-13-2013, PC Staff Report). The Planning Commission discussed concerns over potential parking impacts, massing and height, architectural details, bike storage, and potential compatibility issues of the commercial components of the project with both the neighborhood and residential units proposed within the project (Attachment 11, PC Minutes, 2-13-13 & follow up letter). The Commission noted concerns with shading exhibits which were not correctly depicted on plans and that creek setbacks should be accurately dimensioned. The Commission discussed items for staff to address including conditions of approval in the use permit addressing hours of operation for restaurant/bar hours, findings for retail uses over 2,000 square feet, and limitations on delivery times, idling trucks, and amplified music. On a 6:0 vote, the Commission continued the item with a number of directional items to be addressed when the project returned to the Planning Commission. PH1 - 5 Council Agenda Report - Monterey Place mixed-use project (667 & 679 Monterey Place) February 4, 2014 Page 6 Planning Commission Review (October 23, 2013) On October 23, 2013, the Planning Commission reviewed revised project plans and responses to previous direction (Attachment 12, 10-23-2013, PC Staff Report). The applicant made a number of revisions to respond to directional items, most significantly of which was the addition of on-site parking for the residential units with mechanical parking lifts located in the basement level. The proposed mechanical lift parking provides 29 parking spaces, which is enough to provide one space for each residential unit and several spaces for the bed and breakfast. The provision of mechanical parking lifts was consistent with recently adopted regulations and performance standards; that including mechanical lift parking in the project results in superior design and implementation of City goals and policies for infill development 1. The applicant also revised plans to increase setbacks for buildings along the creek and included greater “step backs” on upper floors. The architecture was modified to have a more residential theme with the addition of gable elements and a warmer color scheme. The revised plans included increasing the setback of Building “D” which is adjacent to the Children’s Museum to five feet along Monterey Street and modifying the roof configuration and exterior materials of the bed and breakfast building. Staff also responded to PC direction in the staff report and included more analysis of compatibility with the Monterey Street development pattern and included revisions to findings and conditions of approval in the draft resolution. The Planning Commission discussed the applicant’s responses to previous direction and concerns raised during public comment of the project’s overall height and massing (PC meeting minutes, 10- 23-13, Attachment 13). Commissioner Multari voiced support for the project as an infill project with downtown housing and increased pedestrian access, but raised the issue of potential flooding risk since the lowest level of two of the buildings is below the 100-year flood level. City Public Works Supervising Civil Engineer Hal Hannula provided background information that the project could be approved with the finished floor below the 100-year flood level similar to other Downtown projects with incorporation of FEMA flood proofing measures. Commissioners Riggs, Draze, and Fowler disagreed that the Planning Commission should add conditions regarding the flood zone. On a 4:1 vote (Commr. Multari voting no), the Commission voted to approve the use permit and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact (PC resolution, Attachment 14). The Planning Commission’s action included revisions to conditions of approval and added a condition to lower the height of the northern most section of building “D” to two stories and increase the setback to at least ten feet along Monterey Street. Current plans reflect these Planning Commission directed modifications. EVALUATION General Plan As an infill, mixed-use project in the Downtown, the proposed project implements various General Plan Land Use and Housing Element policies. With housing provided on upper floors above lower level commercial spaces, the project is consistent with General Plan policy to encourage mixed-use projects where housing can be compatible with offices or other businesses 2. Housing Element 1 Zoning Code, 17.16.060.D. Mechanical parking lift required findings and performance standards. 2 Land Use Element Policy 2.2.7 & 4.16.2: Encourage mixed-use projects where compatible and encourage new residential uses above street level. PH1 - 6 Council Agenda Report - Monterey Place mixed-use project (667 & 679 Monterey Place) February 4, 2014 Page 7 policy also encourages upper level residential uses above ground level retail stores and offices to provide housing opportunities close to activity centers and to use land efficiently.3 The pedestrian paseo through the project provides an important mid-block link through the project to the creek crossing leading to the heart of Downtown on Higuera Street. This is consistent with General Plan policy to integrate mid-block walkways into Downtown development that provide safe, exciting places for walking which invite exploration 4. The Downtown Concept Plan calls for increased pedestrian access and new pedestrian access routes as well as mixed uses and reduction of surface parking. The paseo feature will become more important in the future once pedestrian access in the area is increased with the planned parking structure across Monterey Street from the project site. Plans to rehabilitate and convert the historic Leitcher building into a bed and breakfast will preserve a dilapidated historic resource that is vacant and threatened. All proposed changes are consistent with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Buildings and the overall project was found consistent with Historic Preservation Guidelines by the Cultural Heritage Committee.5 Zoning Regulations The project complies with all development standards for the Downtown-Commercial zone in regards to lot coverage, height, density, and setbacks. Zoning Regulation requirements for parking will be satisfied through a combination of the on-site basement level mechanical lift parking for the residential units and payment of in-lieu fees. Creek setbacks at the basement level range from 21 feet from the corner of Building “E’ at the closest point, to 55 feet from building “E”. The required minimum setback is 20 feet. Plan sheets A7.5-A7.9 show setbacks to the creek area for all floor levels in the project. Since the project steps back from the lower floor levels, the setbacks increase on the upper floors. Environmental Review The Planning Commission adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact prepared for the project (ER 43-11). Mitigation measures are included for air quality and cultural resources that reduce potential environmental impacts to less than significant levels. CONCLUSION The proposed project implements various Housing Element and Land Use Element policies of the General Plan by providing a mixed-use infill development in the Downtown core. The project also provides an important mid-block pedestrian link to the creek walk area and pedestrian bridge leading to the heart of Downtown. The pedestrian access will become increasingly important over time when the Parking Lot #14 is developed with the parking structure across Monterey Street from the proposed project. The project has been designed in response to Planning Commission direction, ARC and CHC feedback, and the approved use permit will ensure the project development and ongoing uses will remain compatible with surrounding properties. The project is consistent with the Rezoning of the property in 2008, which Council approved in order to stimulate redevelopment of 3 Housing Element Policy 5.3 & 6.10: Encourage housing above ground–level retail and offices to provide housing opportunities close to activity centers and to use land efficiently. Provide incentives to encourage additional housing in the downtown core (C-D zone). 4 Land Use Element Policy 4.5: Walking Environment 5 Conservation and Open Space Element Policies 3.3.1, 3.3.4, 3.6.3 PH1 - 7 Council Agenda Report - Monterey Place mixed-use project (667 & 679 Monterey Place) February 4, 2014 Page 8 underutilized properties in the Downtown core. FISCAL IMPACT When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. Accordingly, since the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, it has a neutral fiscal impact. ALTERNATIVES 1. Continue the item. An action to continue the item should include a detailed list of additional information or project modifications required. 2. Deny the project. Action denying the application should include the basis for denial. This is not recommended because the project implements numerous General Plan policies including mixed- use development, housing in the downtown, historic preservation, and pedestrian access. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Draft Council Resolution Attachment 2: Vicinity Map Attachment 3: Reduced scale project plans Attachment 4: Ordinance No. 1514 Attachment 5: ARC conceptual review staff report, 4-16-12 (without attachments) Attachment 6: ARC follow up letter and meeting minutes, 4-16-12 Attachment 7: CHC Staff Report, 7-23-12 (without attachments) Attachment 8: CHC Resolution No. CHC-1004-12, and meeting minutes, 7-23-12 Attachment 9: ARC staff report, 10-1-12 (without attachments) Attachment 10: ARC Resolution No. ARC-1007-12, and meeting minutes, 10-1-12 Attachment 11: Planning Commission staff report, 2-13-13 (without attachments) Attachment 12: Planning Commission follow up letter and meeting minutes, 2-13-13 Attachment 13: Planning Commission staff report, 10-23-13 (without attachments) Attachment 14: Planning Commission meeting minutes, 10-23-13 Attachment 15: Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-5590-13 AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFICE Architectural Review Commission Staff Report, April 16, 2012 (with all attachments) Cultural Heritage Committee Staff Report, July 23, 2012 (with all attachments) Architectural Review Commission Staff Report, October 1, 2012 (with all attachments) Planning Commission Staff Report, February 13, 2013 (with all attachments) Planning Commission Staff Report, October 23, 2013 (with all attachments) T:\Council Agenda Reports\2014\2014-02-04\Monterey Place (Leitcher House) (Johnson-Leveille) PH1 - 8 Attachment 1 RESOLUTION NO. (2014 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL GRANTING FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL FOR THE MONTEREY PLACE MIXED USE PROJECT LOCATED AT 667 AND 679 MONTEREY STREET (#U, ER 43-11) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo approved the rezoning of the subject property from Office to Downtown-Commercial Zoning on May 20, 2008, with the requirement that subsequent development requires Planning Commission use permit review and final design approval by the City Council to ensure compatibility with existing development in the vicinity; and, WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conceptually reviewed the project on April 16, 2012, and granted final design review with a recommendation for City Council approval on October 1, 2012, based on recommendations of the Cultural Heritage Committee and upon findings revised plans adequately responded to direction for project modifications provided at the conceptual review hearing; and, WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo reviewed the project on July 23, 2012, and found the project in compliance with Historic Preservation Guidelines and Secretary of Interior Standards; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo reviewed the project in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on February 13, 2013, and continued the item with direction to a date uncertain; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo reviewed the project to consider applicant responses to directional items in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on October 23, 2013 and approved the use permit based on findings of neighborhood compatibility and required findings for mixed-use projects; 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 February 4, 2014, for the purpose of reviewing the project for final approval; and WHEREAS, the Council has duly considered all evidence, including the record of the Planning Commission, Architectural Review Commission, and Cultural Heritage Committee hearings and actions, testimony of 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. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following findings: PH1 - 9 Resolution No. _______________ (2014 Series) Attachment 1 Page 2 1. The proposed mixed-use development is consistent with the intent of the 2008 City Council rezone of the property to Downtown-Commercial Zoning to stimulate redevelopment of underutilized properties in the Downtown Core. 2. The project is consistent with Housing Element and Land Use Element Policies of the General Plan by providing a mixed-use infill development project in the downtown core. 3. The project’s mixed uses are compatible with surroundings, neighboring uses, and with each other since the use permit approved for the project includes conditions of approval and prohibits uses and hours of operation that would not be compatible with nearby residential uses and residential units within the project. Future proposed commercial uses within commercial floor area in the project will also be subject to conformance with underlying zoning and use permit requirements to ensure ongoing compatibility. 4. The project’s design protects the public health, safety, and welfare since the project has been reviewed and, with inclusion of conditions of approval, found in conformance with related health and safety code regulations by City Departments such as the Building Division, Public Works Department, Fire Department and Utilities Department. The design of the project provides adequate separation and privacy between commercial uses in the project and the residential component. 5. The mixed uses in the project provide greater public benefits than single use development of the site since they implement various goals and policies of the General Plan to provide housing in the downtown core, residential dwellings above ground level commercial uses, provision of housing close to activity centers, and efficient use of land as an infill development project. 6. The project’s proposed mechanical parking lifts have been found consistent with required findings of the Municipal Code when the project was reviewed by the Planning Commission on October 23, 2013. 7. Land uses which may be established within the project will be compatible with surroundings since the project’s Downtown-Commercial Zoning will not allow land uses which are incompatible with surrounding residential and commercial uses, and additional restrictions have been included in the use permit approval which further restrict potentially incompatible uses consistent with the Council requirements of Ordinance No. 1514 (2008 Series) when the rezone of the property was approved, and through use permit conditions approved in the Planning Commission’s review of the project. 8. The design of the project is compatible and complementary to structures on adjacent properties since the materials, style, character and form of the new structures promote the architectural character, style, form, and materials of the existing Downtown Historic District and complement the architectural character of the surrounding buildings and are consistent with the City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. PH1 - 10 Resolution No. _______________ (2014 Series) Attachment 1 Page 3 9. The project has previously been found consistent with Secretary of Interior Standards, Historic Preservation Guidelines, and Archaeological Preservation Guidelines by the Cultural Heritage Committee. 10. The project has previously been found consistent with Community Design Guidelines since 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 the architectural character of the surrounding buildings and are consistent with the City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. 11. 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. Section 2. Environmental Review. The Planning Commission adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project on October 23, 2013. The Mitigated Negative Declaration found that with incorporation of mitigation measures, potential impacts to the environment will be less than significant. Section 3. Action. The City Council hereby grants final approval to the project based on the Planning Commission approved use permit, Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted by the Planning Commission, and with incorporation of the following conditions: Architectural Review Commission approval: The project shall comply with all conditions contained in Architectural Review Commission approval ARC 43-11 (Resolution No. ARC 1007-12). Conditions 1. Final project design and construction drawings shall be in substantial compliance with the project plans reviewed by the CHC & 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 Community Development Director or Architectural Review Commission, as allowed under the City’s Municipal Code. 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 by the Planning Commission for a use permit. Any phasing of the overall project which is not consistent with the phasing plan depicted in approved project plans, shall be subject to Community Development and Public Works Department review and Director approval. PH1 - 11 Resolution No. _______________ (2014 Series) Attachment 1 Page 4 Cultural Resources 4. For the historic Leitcher Building, all historic materials including decorative brackets, porch supports, and any other original materials that can be reused shall be integrated into the rebuilt porch in its original configuration consistent with all recommendations from the April 2012, Applied Earthworks Report. 5. The rear deck and west side porch steps of the historic Leitcher Building shall include sufficient differentiation to distinguish the new additions from the original porch configuration consistent with the April 2012, Applied Earthworks Report. 6. Prior to issuance of construction plans, all recommendations from the July 15, 2011, Subsurface Archaeological Resources Evaluation (SARE) shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. The Phase III mitigation plan shall be in full conformance with Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines. Prior to occupancy of any structures, a report shall be provided to the Cultural Heritage Committee which summarizes the results of the Archaeological Data Recovery Excavation (ADRE). 7. If public art is provided on site, it should reflect the history of the site and relationship to the creek. Building Design 8. 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. 9. Plans submitted for a building permit for all project components shall clearly show details for all railings, balconies, decorative architectural features, and storefronts. 10. The plaster finish for buildings shall be smooth-troweled as noted on plans. Planning 11. 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 as part of plans. A note shall be included on plans that PH1 - 12 Resolution No. _______________ (2014 Series) Attachment 1 Page 5 “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.” 12. A separate sign program for the project consistent with plans approved by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) shall be submitted for final approval by the Community Development Director. The sign program shall include information on the sizes, locations, colors, materials, and types of signage proposed for various buildings and project directional signs. Once approved, 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 Community Development Director may refer signage proposals to the ARC if there are concerns that a particular design is out of character with the sign program. 13. 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. 14. 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 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. 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 #8130 where determined feasible by the City Arborist. PH1 - 13 Resolution No. _______________ (2014 Series) Attachment 1 Page 6 Public Works 18. The building plan submittal shall include a final drainage report for this project. The floodzone section of the report and final plans shall show compliance with the Floodplain Management Regulations. The plans shall be revised to show compliance with the NAVD88 map and creek profiles within the Flood Insurance Study with the effective date of November 16, 2012. In some cases the FEMA conversion from the NGVD29 datum and NAVD88 datum is more conservative than the conversion previously established by the City of San Luis Obispo. 19. All public improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City Engineering Standards in effect at the time of submittal of the working drawings. 20. Pedestrian level street lights shall be installed per City Engineering Standards and the approved conceptual Downtown Lighting Plan. The final details of how the historic granite curb will be incorporated into the new curb, gutter, and sidewalk shall be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of Public Works Director. 21. A pre-construction meeting and/or pre-demolition meeting shall be coordinated by the contractor or developer and shall include the appropriate representation from the Community Development Department and Public Works Department. The meeting shall include but is not limited to the scope of work, construction staging, pedestrian protection, tree protection, inventory of the historic granite curb to be salvaged, existing building protections, public art protection/relocation, and erosion control/site drainage provisions. 22. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. Individual service connections shall be perpendicular to the street. On-site services shall not be located within and parallel to the sidewalk unless specifically approved by the Public Works Director. 23. A separate public improvement plan and/or excerpt from the civil plans included with the building plan submittal will be required to document the proposed and constructed improvements within the public right-of-way. A separate public improvement plan review will be required in conjunction with the review of the public improvements. The improvement plans shall include the Monterey Street improvements but will also need to include the improvements related to the connection and alterations at the city owned Creek Walk parcel. 24. Any conditions of approval related to the Use Permit and/or Mitigation Measures related to the Initial Study shall be incorporated into the building plan submittal and public improvement plans. PH1 - 14 Resolution No. _______________ (2014 Series) Attachment 1 Page 7 Planning Commission Use Permit Approval. The project shall comply with all conditions and maintain consistency with the approved use list for Planning Commission approval U 43-11 (Resolution No. PC-5590-13). 1. The following land uses shall be prohibited unless approved as an accessory use to a hotel or restaurant and with approval of an administrative use permit: Night Club Fitness/Health Facility Bar/Tavern 2. Due to traffic, noise generation, and development character along the street, the following land uses shall be prohibited facing Monterey Street between Broad and Nipomo Streets: Medical Services Fitness/Health facility (when allowed as an accessory use) Night club (when allowed as an accessory use) Bar/Tavern (when allowed as an accessory use) Banks and financial services (ATM’s are not included in prohibition) 3. Hours of operation: Consistent with Zoning Regulations for mixed use projects, all commercial uses are limited to hours of operation between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. unless approved for expanded hours by Community Development Director’s action. The bed and breakfast reviewed by the Planning Commission is approved for 24-hour operation, and the restaurant use reviewed by the Planning Commission may operate from 8:00 a.m. to 11 p.m. 4. Deliveries are prohibited outside the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. No commercial delivery vehicles or trucks may be left idling, and no amplified music or entertainment which exceeds the “ambient” level is permitted unless approved in accordance with Condition #1. 5. Public Art: Prior to final occupancy, public art shall be installed in the location shown on project plans. The applicant should consider the Cultural Heritage Committee recommendation that the public art reflect the history of the site. 6. Affordable Housing: A two-bedroom, two-bath unit shall be dedicated at the “moderate” income affordable level. One on-site parking space in mechanical parking lifts shall be reserved for the dedicated affordable unit. 7. Mechanical Parking Lift Maintenance: The mechanical parking lifts included in project plans shall be safely operated and maintained in continual operation with the exception of limited periods of maintenance. This requirement applies to all 28 vehicle parking spaces included on projects and the required dedicated space for the affordable residential dwelling. PH1 - 15 Resolution No. _______________ (2014 Series) Attachment 1 Page 8 8. Commercial and residential uses of the site and ongoing building maintenance and landscaping shall at all times remain consistent with approved plans and conditions of approval of this use permit. The project shall also remain consistent with plans approved by the Architectural Review Commission and any project modifications that occur through Planning Commission or City Council review. Any change to the approved design or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Community Development Director, Planning Commission, and/or Architectural Review Commission, consistent with the City’s Municipal Code. 9. Plans submitted for construction approvals shall include modifications from ARC approved plans to include relocation of the wash area of the restaurant to a location further away from the Children’s Museum outdoor area in the vicinity of the trash and recycling. Plans shall also include a solid wall (finished CMU or poured concrete consistent with material finishes in existing development) along the west property line between the proposed project and Children’s museum. The wall shall be constructed in the early phases of construction to provide an additional buffer during construction operations. In addition to related air quality mitigation measures, project plans shall contain clear notes and measures to ensure dust, odors, or any other debris does not cross property lines. 10. Project tenants and owners within the project along the west property line shall be notified of intermittent outdoor noise levels which can occur at the San Luis Obispo Children’s Museum during open hours and special events. Final notification form and language shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and consistent with the intent to prevent any future noise complaints. 11. The property owner shall be responsible for maintaining and updating the current parking calculation for the commercial component of the project upon the submittal of Business license applications and planning and building permits for tenant changes or improvements. This requirement is to ensure the project site remains in conformance with Zoning Code Regulations for payment of parking in-lieu fees per SLOMC Chapter 4.30. 12. The access driveway off of Monterey Street shall be widened to 16’ – 20’ to accommodate two-way traffic into and out of the parking garage. The two-way width shall be extended as far as practical into the garage but shall not be less than one car length beyond the Monterey Street right-of-way. 13. The applicant or parking lift vendor shall provide a list of common vehicles, including make and model that can utilize the proposed lift as submitted. The lift shall be shown to accommodate a reasonable number of vehicles to the satisfaction of city. The list shall be presented to the city for acceptance prior to commencing with working drawings. If the list of vehicles is determined to be unacceptable, the applicant shall research other lift options and/or may be required to extend the parking space lengths, depths, and/or heights to accommodate a larger number of vehicles. PH1 - 16 Resolution No. _______________ (2014 Series) Attachment 1 Page 9 14. The project design shall provide adequate sight distance at the parking structure exit onto Monterey Street for motorists to see and yield to pedestrians. To accomplish this, the parking structure exit shall provide a minimum of ten feet clear visibility to the sidewalk on both sides of the exit, unobstructed by building corners, columns, or any other visual impediments. This distance is measured from eight feet behind the stop bar and two feet to the right of the centerline where a driver would be located in a stopped vehicle. 15. To minimize off-site parking impacts, prospective tenants and employees shall be notified in writing of the project’s on-site vehicle and bicycle parking, off-site parking options, and transit schedules for accessing the site via transit. 16. If off-site parking is provided in a manner consistent with City Regulations and subject to Community Development Director’s approval, the number of on-site parking spaces may be reduced accordingly. 17. Construction and grading plans submitted for review and approval by the Building Division shall incorporate applicable recommendations of the Earth Systems Pacific Soils Engineering Report dated October 23, 2008. The report shall be updated to evaluate and provide recommendations based on recent project revisions to include subterranean parking where the mechanical lifts are shown. 18. The building plan submittal shall include a final drainage report for this project. The floodzone section of the report and final plans shall show compliance with the Floodplain Management Regulations. The plans shall be revised to show compliance with the NAVD88 map and creek profiles within the Flood Insurance Study with the effective date of November 16, 2012. In some cases the FEMA conversion from the NGVD29 datum and NAVD88 datum is more conservative than the conversion previously established by the City of San Luis Obispo. 19. All public improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City Engineering Standards in effect at the time of submittal of the working drawings. The current 2010 City Engineering Standards are expected to be updated and adopted by the City Council in early 2013. 20. Pedestrian level street lights shall be installed per City Engineering Standards and the approved conceptual Downtown Lighting Plan. The final details of how the historic granite curb will be incorporated into the new curb, gutter, and sidewalk shall be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of Public Works Director. 21. A pre-construction meeting and/or pre-demolition meeting shall be coordinated by the contractor or developer and shall include the appropriate representation from the Community Development Department and Public Works Department. The meeting shall include but is not limited to the scope of work, construction staging, pedestrian protection, tree protection, inventory of the historic granite curb to be salvaged, existing building protections, public art protection/relocation, and erosion control/site drainage provisions. PH1 - 17 Resolution No. _______________ (2014 Series) Attachment 1 Page 10 22. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. Individual service connections shall be perpendicular to the street. On-site services shall not be located within and parallel to the sidewalk unless specifically approved by the Public Works Director. The building plan submittal shall include all dry utilities, meters, poc’s, and transformers for reference. 23. A separate public improvement plan and/or excerpt from the civil plans included with the building plan submittal will be required to document the proposed and constructed improvements within the public right-of-way. A separate public improvement plan will be required in conjunction with the review of the public improvements. The improvement plans shall include the Monterey Street improvements but will also need to include the improvements related to the connection and alterations at the city owned Creek Walk parcel. 24. Tree preservation measures shall be shown and noted on the building plan submittal per City Engineering Standards and shall be approved to the satisfaction of City Arborist. Offsite trees in the areas of underground or overhead work shall be included for reference. Tree protection measures may be applicable to some these offsite trees. 25. Any conditions of approval related to the Use Permit and/or Mitigation Measures related to the Initial Study shall be incorporated into the building plan submittal and public improvement plans. 26. The pedestrian paseo connecting the public sidewalk on Monterey Street to the creekwalk and bridge shall maintain a clear width of 8’. The paseo shall be open to the general public at a minimum between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. Any temporary closures of the crosswalk, the Paseo, and/or access to the creekwalk and bridge after occupancy shall be properly noticed to the satisfaction of the City Public Works and Community Development Directors. 27. The northernmost section of Building “D” shall be shall be a maximum of two stories and set back at least ten feet. 28. The use permit is contingent upon the City Council’s design approval pursuant to Ordinance No. 1514. 29. Building plans shall identify bicycle parking required for each phase, the path of travel to these spaces and how these spaces will be easily accessed for use by residents, employees and customers (ie. directional signage and lighting). Bicycle parking shall be installed at highly visible locations that are as close to the main entrance of the destination as possible. The final bicycle parking plan shall be provided with Building plans and configured to the satisfaction of the Public Works Transportation Division. 30. Peak Racks (Peakracks.com) or inverted “U” racks may be used for short-term bicycle parking (ribbon racks are not permitted). Building plans shall include details including PH1 - 18 Resolution No. _______________ (2014 Series) Attachment 1 Page 11 rack design and location, area bikes will be take up when parked in the racks, clearances from walls, etc. and circulation for users in compliance with the manufacturer’s standards. The general dimension of a bicycle is two-feet in width and six-feet in length. 31. Bike lockers shall be labeled and reserved for bike storage. 32. Project approvals include a loss of two on-street parking spaces to install a mid-block crossing of Monterey Street. Any further requests to remove on-street parking to facilitate the project shall follow the City’s Downtown Parking Space Conversion procedures (Resolution No. 10139). 33. Through the encroachment permit process, the applicant shall be responsible for making any physical changes (including striping and signage) to on-street parking resulting from the project. 34. The project’s parking requirement shall be met prior to the issuance of a building permit. This project approval does not include any City commitments for off-site parking, valet parking, or retaining Monterey Street in its current configuration. 35. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit and receive approval of a construction activity management plan addressing construction traffic, temporary wayfaring signs and outreach to area businesses and residents to minimize construction impacts. 36. The applicant shall ensure that information on public transit, bicycle parking, carpooling and local transportation management organizations, shall be provided to prospective residents employees, and hotel guests to encourage a reduction in personal vehicle use. 37. If the following circulation improvements have not been undertaken by others prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a cost estimate for these improvements and pay their fair share for their design and installation: a. Extend Nipomo Street left turn lane at Higuera to provide 65 feet of vehicle storage. b. Extend Nipomo Street left turn lane at Marsh to provide 45 feet of vehicle storage. c. Install crosswalks at Marsh/Nipomo intersection. d. Install pedestrian countdown heads at Broad/Higuera intersection. 38. More than one solid waste enclosure may be necessary based on the types of proposed commercial and residential uses on the site. Confirm in writing with San Luis Garbage Company the capacity needs of the proposed uses and the location and access of the proposed solid waste enclosure. 39. The applicant must submit utility plans during the building permit review process that clearly detail the size and location of underground grease interceptor to allow for convenient access by service vehicles, including grease interceptor pumping trucks. The PH1 - 19 Resolution No. _______________ (2014 Series) Attachment 1 Page 12 City’s Environmental Compliance Manager, Aaron Floyd, (781-7425) can assist in planning for proper facilities. 40. The applicant must submit utility plans during the building permit review process that clearly details the covered restaurant equipment washing area. This area must be connected to the sanitary sewer and not be allowed to discharge to the storm drain system or surrounding environment. The City’s Environmental Compliance Manager, Aaron Floyd, (781-7425) can assist in planning for proper facilities. 41. The applicant shall submit utility plans during the building permit review process that clearly identify both private and public sewer system details and the point of connection at the City main. This includes private injector pumps and force mains located within the building and their connection to a lateral. If an existing sewer lateral at the site is to be reused a CCTV inspection will be required and shall be submitted to the Building Division during the building permit review process. All unused sewer laterals shall be identified and abandoned at the City main. 42. The applicant shall submit utility plans during the building permit review process that clearly identify existing water service(s) and show proposed water service to any proposed buildings. Based on the limited information provided on sheet C5.0, sub- metering of the proposed buildings may be required. Backflow devices on the fire line and landscape water services shall be located within ten feet of the water meters. For multiple meter installations, please use City Standard 6260 to the maximum extent possible to reduce the number of water service lines in the street and the number of connections to the existing water line. 43. Fire Department Access: Access shall be in accordance with Chapter 5 and Appendix D of the California Fire Code (CFC). Access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of 13’ 6”. Access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of a 60,000 pound fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. Fifteen feet on either side of the fire hydrant and FDC on Monterey Street shall be designated as “No Parking-Fire Lane”. 44. 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. 45. Water Supplies: Water Supplies shall be in accordance with Sections 508 of the CFC. An approved water supply capable of providing the required fire flow for fire protection is required. The fire flow shall be determined using Appendix B of the CFC. At least one fire hydrant capable of delivering a needed fire flow of 4500 gpm shall be located at mid-block on Monterey. If at least 50% of the NFF cannot be provided, an increase in fire sprinkler density will be required. PH1 - 20 Resolution No. _______________ (2014 Series) Attachment 1 Page 13 46. 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 Sprinkler Riser” and “Fire Alarm Control Panel”. Fire sprinkler risers shall be located in a room with exterior door access. 47. Knox Box: A Knox Box shall be provided on the outside of the Fire Sprinkler Riser Room with a key to the room. 48. 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 mixed-use project. Shop Drawings and Specifications shall be submitted for review and approval prior to installation. 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 within 40 feet of Monterey Street. 49. Fire Safety During Construction: Buildings undergoing construction, alteration or demolition shall be in accordance with Chapter 14 of the CFC. Mitigated Negative Declaration. All mitigation measures shall be carried out consistent with the Planning Commission adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (ER 43-11). REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS AIR QUALITY MITIGATION Mitigation Measure No. 1: Temporary impacts from the project, including but not limited to excavation and construction activities and vehicle emissions from heavy duty equipment have the potential to create dust and emissions that exceed air quality standards for temporary and intermediate periods unless the following mitigation measures are incorporated: a. Construction vehicle speed at the work site must be limited to fifteen (15) miles per hour or less; b. Prior to any ground disturbance, sufficient water must be applied to the area to be disturbed to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line; c. Areas to be graded or excavated must be kept adequately wetted to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line; d. Storage piles must be kept adequately wetted, treated with a chemical dust suppressant, or covered when material is not being added to or removed from the pile; e. Equipment must be washed down before moving from the property onto a paved public road; and f. Visible track-out on the paved public road must be cleaned using wet sweeping or a HEPA filter equipped vacuum device within twenty-four (24) hours. Monitoring Program: Community Development Department staff will insure that project plans incorporate the mitigation measures. City engineering staff will inspect the construction operations to verify conformance with specifications and mitigations. CULTURAL RESOURCES MITIGATION PH1 - 21 Resolution No. _______________ (2014 Series) Attachment 1 Page 14 To ensure that work is carried out consistent with recommendations of the Historic Evaluation and Secretary of Interior Standards, the following mitigation measure is required: Mitigation Measure No. 2: Plans submitted for relocation and rehabilitation work on the Leitcher Building, shall include all details and information required to verify compliance with all recommendations contained in the Applied Earthworks Report prepared by Ms. Victoria Smith, dated April 2012. Plans submitted for construction and relocation shall be fully consistent with amended plans reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission on October 1, 2012, which reflect revisions needed for consistency with recommendations of the report. Monitoring Program: Plans submitted for construction approval will be reviewed by Community Development Department staff to verify conformance with the above mitigation measure and ongoing inspections will be conducted during the construction phases to guarantee work carried out is consistent with approved plans. Inspecting staff will include Planning Staff, Building inspectors, and Public Works inspectors. Mitigation Measure No. 3: Prior to issuance of construction plans all recommendations from the July 15, 2011, Subsurface Archaeological Resources Evaluation (SARE) prepared by Singer Associates, shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. The Phase III mitigation plan shall be in full conformance with Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines. Prior to occupancy of any structures a report shall be provided to the Cultural Heritage Committee which summarizes the results of the Archaeological Data Recovery Excavation (ADRE). Monitoring Program: Planning Staff will “flag” building permit submittals to guarantee permit issuance does not occur until the above mitigation measure has been completed. Mitigation Measure No. 4: If excavations encounter significant paleontological resources, archaeological resources or cultural materials, then construction activities that may affect them shall cease until the extent of the resource is determined and the Community Development Director approves appropriate protective measures. The Community Development Director shall be notified of the extent and location of discovered materials so that a qualified archaeologist may record them. If pre-historic Native American artifacts are encountered, a Native American monitor should be called in to work with the archaeologist to document and remove the items. Disposition of artifacts shall comply with state and federal laws. A note concerning this requirement shall be included on the grading and construction plans submitted for the project. Monitoring Program: Requirements for cultural resource mitigation shall be clearly noted on all plans for project grading and construction. PH1 - 22 Resolution No. _______________ (2014 Series) Attachment 1 Page 15 Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________, and on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing Resolution was adopted this _______________________, 2014. Mayor Jan Marx ATTEST: ____________________________ Anthony J. Mejia, CMC City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _/s/ J.Christine Dietrick_____________________ Christine Dietrick, City Attorney T:\Council Agenda Reports\2014\2014-02-04\Monterey Place (Leitcher House) (Johnson-Leveille)\Attachments PH1 - 23 Attachment 2 PH1 - 24 Attachment 3 PH1 - 25 Attachment 3 PH1 - 26 Attachment 3 PH1 - 27 Attachment 3 PH1 - 28 Attachment 3 PH1 - 29 Attachment 3 PH1 - 30 Attachment 3 PH1 - 31 Attachment 3 PH1 - 32 Attachment 3 PH1 - 33 Attachment 3 PH1 - 34 Attachment 3 PH1 - 35 Attachment 3 PH1 - 36 Attachment 3 PH1 - 37 Attachment 3 PH1 - 38 Attachment 3 PH1 - 39 Attachment 3 PH1 - 40 Attachment 3 PH1 - 41 Attachment 3 PH1 - 42 Attachment 3 PH1 - 43 Attachment 3 PH1 - 44 Attachment 3 PH1 - 45 Attachment 3 PH1 - 46 Attachment 3 PH1 - 47 Attachment 3 PH1 - 48 Attachment 3 PH1 - 49 Attachment 3 PH1 - 50 Attachment 3 PH1 - 51 Attachment 3 PH1 - 52 Attachment 3 PH1 - 53 Attachment 3 PH1 - 54 Attachment 3 PH1 - 55 Attachment 3 PH1 - 56 Attachment 4 PH1 - 57 Attachment 4 PH1 - 58 Attachment 4 PH1 - 59 Attachment 4 PH1 - 60 Attachment 5 PH1 - 61 Attachment 5 PH1 - 62 Attachment 5 PH1 - 63 Attachment 5 PH1 - 64 Attachment 5 PH1 - 65 Attachment 5 PH1 - 66 Attachment 5 PH1 - 67 Attachment 5 PH1 - 68 Attachment 5 PH1 - 69 Attachment 5 PH1 - 70 Attachment 5 PH1 - 71 Attachment 6 PH1 - 72 Attachment 6 PH1 - 73 Attachment 6 PH1 - 74 Attachment 6 PH1 - 75 Attachment 6 PH1 - 76 Attachment 6 PH1 - 77 Attachment 6 PH1 - 78 Attachment 6 PH1 - 79 Attachment 6 PH1 - 80 Attachment 7 PH1 - 81 Attachment 7 PH1 - 82 Attachment 7 PH1 - 83 Attachment 7 PH1 - 84 Attachment 7 PH1 - 85 Attachment 7 PH1 - 86 Attachment 7 PH1 - 87 Attachment 7 PH1 - 88 Attachment 7 PH1 - 89 Attachment 7 PH1 - 90 Attachment 7 PH1 - 91 Attachment 8 PH1 - 92 Attachment 8 PH1 - 93 Attachment 8 PH1 - 94 Attachment 8 PH1 - 95 Attachment 8 PH1 - 96 Attachment 8 PH1 - 97 Attachment 8 PH1 - 98 Attachment 8 PH1 - 99 Attachment 8 PH1 - 100 Attachment 8 PH1 - 101 Attachment 8 PH1 - 102 Attachment 8 PH1 - 103 Attachment 9 PH1 - 104 Attachment 9 PH1 - 105 Attachment 9 PH1 - 106 Attachment 9 PH1 - 107 Attachment 9 PH1 - 108 Attachment 9 PH1 - 109 Attachment 10 PH1 - 110 Attachment 10 PH1 - 111 Attachment 10 PH1 - 112 Attachment 10 PH1 - 113 Attachment 10 PH1 - 114 Attachment 10 PH1 - 115 Attachment 10 PH1 - 116 Attachment 10 PH1 - 117 Attachment 10 PH1 - 118 Attachment 11 PH1 - 119 Attachment 11 PH1 - 120 Attachment 11 PH1 - 121 Attachment 11 PH1 - 122 Attachment 11 PH1 - 123 Attachment 11 PH1 - 124 Attachment 11 PH1 - 125 Attachment 11 PH1 - 126 Attachment 11 PH1 - 127 Attachment 11 PH1 - 128 Attachment 11 PH1 - 129 Attachment 12 PH1 - 130 Attachment 12 PH1 - 131 Attachment 12 PH1 - 132 Attachment 12 PH1 - 133 Attachment 12 PH1 - 134 Attachment 12 PH1 - 135 Attachment 12 PH1 - 136 Attachment 13 PH1 - 137 Attachment 13 PH1 - 138 Attachment 13 PH1 - 139 Attachment 13 PH1 - 140 Attachment 13 PH1 - 141 Attachment 13 PH1 - 142 Attachment 13 PH1 - 143 Attachment 13 PH1 - 144 Attachment 13 PH1 - 145 Attachment 13 PH1 - 146 Attachment 14 PH1 - 147 Attachment 14 PH1 - 148 Attachment 14 PH1 - 149 Attachment 14 PH1 - 150 Attachment 14 PH1 - 151 Attachment 14 PH1 - 152 Attachment 14 PH1 - 153 Attachment 14 PH1 - 154 Attachment 15 PH1 - 155 Attachment 15 PH1 - 156 Attachment 15 PH1 - 157 Attachment 15 PH1 - 158 Attachment 15 PH1 - 159 Attachment 15 PH1 - 160 Attachment 15 PH1 - 161 Attachment 15 PH1 - 162 Attachment 15 PH1 - 163 Attachment 15 PH1 - 164 Goodwin, Heather EIVE FEB 06 2 _ Subject: FW: The moot City Council SLO CITY "'1_i=�-�j< - From: Sandra Lakeman [sandralakeman @gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 11:30 PM To: Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Carpenter, Dan; Ashbaugh, John; Christianson, Carlyn; Allan Cooper; James Lopes; Diane Duenow Subject: The moot City Council To the Mayor and City Council Members: I commend Kathy Smith for using her intelligence and listening to those of us that know Architecture and what would be right for our SLO downtown. The mere fact that the other four of you have chosen to vote outrightly for the Monterey Place to move forward as it now stands has been a very short- sighted move on your parts. The heights are wrong and you should have listened to those of us that know more about these matters than any of you do. You could easily have had the project go through another revamping where the top two floors could have been removed. The fact that you have chosen to allow the Commissioners to make decisions that are entirely opposed to rules, regulations and Guidelines that the City has developed tediously overtime makes those Gudelines moot now. It appears that you are for doing away with all rules and allowing developers to put up whatever they wish to erect. These City Guidelines should be as important as the UBC, Uniform Building Code that architects MUST follow, unless here is SLO, you are not even expecting these to be adhered to. I have completely lost respect for the entire City Council including the Mayor. Your recent decision tonight and also having to do with changing the zoning for the Catholic Church School thrusting itself into a completely residential downtown block is a travesty. I understand that three of you are members to the Catholic Church and you should all three have stepped off the Council when this was brought before you. I understand that you changed the zoning in that area in order to allow for this. To me, this is downright corruption. You want housing downtown and this would have been the perfect place for it,,, instead you are ruining this residential block and you are acting as if SLO is a'company town' run by the Church and Cal Poly. That block will eventually be another ALL CHURCH block and having all these institutional total blocks downtown will not make SLO what we as citizens want it to be. I look forward to when none of you will be the representatives for our CITY!!! except for Kathy!!! I believe that the four of you will regret these decisions. Sandra Davis Lakeman Emeritus Professor of Architecture California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, CA p3407 mailing address: 1677 Foreman Court AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Date, /i I 1 Item# San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 805 541 3223 www.sandralakeman.com - 1 / AGENDA FEB 12 2014 CORRESPONDENCE (D CT_FV CLERK Feb. 6, 2014 Mayor Marx and Members of the City Council, Why doesn't the Council take residents concerns into considerat,an? The height-of the Monterey Place develonement was a huge issue for the many residents who spoke at the 1*eb 4 council meeting. It appeared that most council members had already made up their minds on how they would vote and the residents pleas were ignored. -vow the 22 condos can be purchased by millionair parents of Cal Poly students and these students will have the million dollar views of our mountains that our residents and tourists should have had,as -well. it- is believed that this complex could become an unauthorized frat-arn;ity The complex is ideal for students since it is close ro all of the bars ,,%nd downtown activities!. many projects have been touted as work force housing and head of household housing and it always turns out to become student housing. atop touting these projects as anything but student housing! we get itl Vaoma Wright San Luis Obispo Goodwin, Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk city of san Luis onispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 tel 805.781.7102 FEB 0 4 2014 C11-0 CITY Mejia, Anthony Monday, February 03, 2014 5:11 PM Goodwin, Heather FW: Comments re Monterey Place for 2/4 City Council Meeting Letter to City Council re Monterey Place for Feb 4 Meeting.docx AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Date 2 Item# P/-Yl From: Ursula Bishop [mailto:ub_slo @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, February 03, 2014 3:21 PM To: Carpenter, Dan; Ashbaugh, John; Christianson, Carlyn; Codron, Michael; Dietrick, Christine; Lichtig, Katie; Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Mejia, Anthony Subject: Comments re Monterey Place for 2/4 City Council Meeting To members of the City Council: I have attended all of the committee and commission meetings that has been held regarding the Monterey Place project. I think the project idea is a good one. I like the idea of downtown housing over businesses. I love the idea of the historic Leitcher building being restored and put to such an nice use. But, there are elements of the project that concern me. Please read the following. I have also attached my comments in a separate document. There is much to like about this project. It will bring a beautiful old building back to life. It will provide downtown living space. It will provide jobs. But in order for it to work with the existing neighborhoods it will most impact, please consider if it is compatible with the neighborhoods as it is currently planned. For example: Is it too large for this area? How will the safety and well -being of residents in the streets near the project be affected? Is parking adequately addressed? As this project has moved through the committee and commission process, it has been pointed out that change is hard, and that previous projects in the downtown area that were initially protested, turned out to be quite successful, like the Downtown Center. This is true for previous projects, but this one is different. This project is being built on San Luis Creek, and more importantly, this one is being built directly adjacent to long standing residences and neighborhoods. The issues that I am asking you to review in the following letter, and the issues that groups like Save Our Downtown have presented to you are not made out of fear of change. They are presented by residents of San Luis who care and want to see a project that is compatible and will blend in as a good neighbor with a special corner of our downtown: a residential area that is not just about business, retail, bars and parking. The following comments refer to Attachment 15, in regards to the resolution approving the Monterey Place Project. Condition #1: Please edit it as it is currently written because: It is not appropriate for a nightclub, bar or tavern to be located this close to residential housing. Either to the currently existing neighborhoods or the new housing that will be provided by this project Currently, we can hear music from bars just one block away, up till closing time, on many nights of the week. To have a similar business immediately adjacent to the neighborhood will be a constant noise issue. (It does not make any difference that the location will not be facing Monterey Street.) It concerns me that a restaurant area is included in the current plan because is a strong likelihood that at some point in time a business in that site will file a request to include one of these accessory uses. As nightclubs, bars and taverns cannot be prohibited without an ordinance modification, please consider the ordinance modification so that we do not have to deal with this issue repeatedly over and over anytime a nightclub, bar or tavern makes an application to open in this space. Condition #4: Please edit two parts of this condition. I believe they were written specifically to address needs we have brought up at all the previous meetings, but the writing is not specific to what we requested and what was agreed to by previous meetings. • We had requested 'no idling trucks in the neighborhoods' but as written it is not specific at all. It could be read to just be 'no idling trucks in the loading ramp next to the children's museum.' At every previous meeting we have been very specific that we are concerned there would be idling trucks waiting to use the loading area, and that we wanted to be certain they would not affect Dana Street or other streets with housing. • Is it possible the 'no deliveries before a certain time in the a.m.' include the grease collection truck and garbage trucks? There are often trucks at the Creamery before 5:30 a.m. and when you have been kept up by music, sidewalk noise and wine bottles being dumped up until /after 2:30 a.m., 5:30 is too early. • We asked that there be no trucks allowed to turn into the neighborhoods, including using Dana as a turn - around area. And that trucks can only turn right from Monterey towards Higuera, not left, into what is a residential area /school zone. • We had also requested that there be no amplified music at all - any time of day or night. Ending at 11 p.m. is no consolation if the entire day has been affected. The outdoor dining area is not large and music provided there should not need amplification. There is also a concern that given the creek surface and the large buildings across from this project, noise from this project will be amplified regardless. Noise intrusion is at odds with the peaceful creek -side setting that this project seems to be promoting. And project residents above and near the restaurant need to be protected. Compatibility between the project and surrounding neighborhoods and existing businesses, including the children's museum will be greatly increased by a no amplified music stipulation. Parking: This has been an issue since the project first began to be presented at the various commissions and committees. It still has not been addressed. There is not enough parking being provided for the amount of residents and B &B patrons and the 'solution' of parking lot #14 is not a definite one. And, if the lot is built, the likelihood is that residents of the project will use the nearby residential streets for parking. Please verify: Where is the loading zone for the B &B and disabled parking for customers of the businesses? Are people going to double park on Monterey while checking in? Low Income Housing: It is wonderful that the unit will be one of the large 2 bedroom /2 bath units. Is there any way to make certain that it is included in phase one of the building in order tomake absolutely sure that it is completed? (In case phase two is not developed.) I encourage you not to make a decision on this project in one night, but to take more time to consider how to scale the project down, to make sure that it cannot become a loud, invasive presence in the future, and to protect the neighbors who will embrace a more compatible project. Thank You. Ursula Bishop There is much to like about this project. It will bring a beautiful old building back to life. It will provide downtown living space. It will provide jobs. But in order for it to work with the existing neighborhoods it will most impact, please consider if it is compatible with the neighborhoods as it is currently planned. For example: Is it too large for this area? How will the safety and well -being of residents in the streets near the project be affected? Is parking adequately addressed? As this project has moved through the committee and commission process, it has been pointed out that change is hard, and that previous projects in the downtown area that were initially protested, turned out to be quite successful, like the Downtown Center. This is true for previous projects, but this one is different. This project is being built on San Luis Creek, and more importantly, this one is being built directly adjacent to long standing residences and neighborhoods. The issues that I am asking you to review in the following letter, and the issues that groups like Save Our Downtown have presented to you are not made out of fear of change. They are presented by residents of San Luis who care and want to see a project that is compatible and will blend in as a good neighbor with a special corner of our downtown: a residential area that is not just about business, retail, bars and parking. The following comments refer to Attachment 15, in regards to the resolution approving the Monterey Place Project. Condition #1: Please edit it as it is currently written because: It is not appropriate for a nightclub, bar or tavern to be located this close to residential housing. Either to the currently existing neighborhoods or the new housing that will be provided by this project Currently, we can hear music from bars just one block away, up till closing time, on many nights of the week. To have a similar business immediately adjacent to the neighborhood will be a constant noise issue. (It does not make any difference that the location will not be facing Monterey Street.) It concerns me that a restaurant area is included in the current plan because is a strong likelihood that at some point in time a business in that site will file a request to include one of these accessory uses. As nightclubs, bars and taverns cannot be prohibited without an ordinance modification, please consider the ordinance modification so that we do not have to deal with this issue repeatedly over and over anytime a inightclub, bar or tavern makes an application to open in this space. Condition #4: Please edit two parts of this condition. I believe they were written specifically to address needs we have brought up at all the previous meetings, but the writing is not specific to what we requested and what was agreed to by previous meetings. • We had requested 'no idling trucks in the neighborhoods' but as written it is not specific at all. It could be read to just be 'no idling trucks in the loading ramp next to the children's museum.' At every previous meeting we have been very specific that we are concerned there would be idling trucks waiting to use the loading area, and that we wanted to be certain they would not affect Dana Street or other streets with housing. • Is it possible the 'no deliveries before a certain time in the a.m.' include the grease collection truck and garbage trucks? There are often trucks at the Creamery before 5:30 a.m. and when you have been kept up by music, sidewalk noise and wine bottles being dumped up until /after 2:30 a.m., 5:30 is too early. • We asked that there be no trucks allowed to turn into the neighborhoods, including using Dana as a turn - around area. And that trucks can only turn right from Monterey towards Higuera, not left, into what is a residential area /school zone. • We had also requested that there be no amplified music at all - any time of day or night. Ending at 11 p.m. is no consolation if the entire day has been affected. The outdoor dining area is not large and music provided there should not need amplification. There is also a concern that given the creek surface and the large buildings across from this project, noise from this project will be amplified regardless. Noise intrusion is at odds with the peaceful creek -side setting that this project seems to be promoting. And project residents above and near the restaurant need to be protected. Compatibility between the project and surrounding neighborhoods and existing businesses, including the children's museum will be greatly increased by a no amplified music stipulation. Parking: This has been an issue since the project first began to be presented at the various commissions and committees. It still has not been addressed. There is not enough parking being provided for the amount of residents and B &B patrons and the 'solution' of parking lot #14 is not a definite one. And, if the lot is built, the likelihood is that residents of the project will use the nearby residential streets for parking. • Please verify: Where is the loading zone for the B &B and disabled parking for customers of the businesses? Are people going to double park on Monterey while checking in? Low Income Housing: It is wonderful that the unit will be one of the large 2 bedroom /2 bath units. Is there any way to make certain that it is included in phase one of the building in order tomake absolutely sure that it is completed? (In case phase two is not developed.) I encourage you not to make a decision on this project in one night, but to take more time to consider how to scale the project down, to make sure that it cannot become a loud, invasive presence in the future, and to protect the neighbors who will embrace a more compatible project. Thank You. Ursula Bishop Goodwin, Heather From: Mejia, Anthony Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 12:59 PM To: Goodwin, Heather; Kremke, Kate Subject: Fwd: Feb. 4 meeting Attachments: Dear Mayor Marx and Council Members.n:f; ATT00001.htm Begin forwarded message: From: "Marx, Jan" <jmarx(c -�slo! it or > Date: January 31, 2014 at 11:30:15 AM PST To: "Mejia, Anthony" <am6ia rzslocit i�org> Subject: Fwd: Feb. 4 meeting Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone -- - - - - -- Original message -- - - - - -- From: Dixie Cliff Date:01 /31 /2014 11:06 AM (GMT- 08:00) To: "Marx, Jan" Subject: Feb. 4 meeting 1 FEB 0 3 2014 AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Dated 14 H Item #_ms`s — Dear Mayor Marx and Council Members, The developer, Mike Hodge, is pressuring this architect to design a project completely out of scale with the surrounding context. Most architects are trained to design projects that complement, rather than compete with adjacent landmarks and that fit comfortably into their natural surroundings. Of course, in this instance„ we see that the developer is focused more on his profit margin than on esthetics and scale (especially along the Creek Walk). The City's Architectural Review Commission should have addressed these project deficiencies but did not as we had to wait for the Planning Commission's review before any major redesign was discussed. It is clear that architects who serve on these advisory bodies, i.e. the CHC ARC, are hesitant to critically review these projects for fear that they will alienate potential clients - especially in this sluggish economy! • I am urging you to recognize that this project is 2 stories too high allowing it to loom over our precious Creek Walk Extension. That more step backs are needed That some parts of the Monterey Street height exceeds our nearby landmark public buildings: the Children's Museum, the proposed San Luis Obispo Art Museum and the County History Center. Thank you for considering this matter. Dixie Cliff Dana St. SLO Goodwin, Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Agenda Correspondence. Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk MY Of san Luis oBispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 tel 18o5.781.7102 Mejia, Anthony 7r:n Monday, February 03, 2014 8:09 AM Goodwin, Heather 2014 FW: Save Our Creek Walk! 01 31_14 ... saveourcreek.docx; 02_01_14 ... saveourcreekwalk.docx From: Ashbaugh, John Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 12:44 PM To: Mejia, Anthony Cc: Allan Cooper Subject: FW: Save Our Creek Walk! Please include this as agenda correspondence. Thanks! JA From: allancoope@ mal.com [mailto:allancool2e @ gmail.com] On Behalf Of Allan Cooper Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 9:13 AM To: Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Christianson, Carlyn; Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan Subject: Save Our Creek Walk! Dear Mayor Jan Marx and Council Members - AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Dated ± 1 Item# —P41— Those of us who want to preserve the bucolic nature of the Mission Plaza Creek Walk Extension located between Broad following development directly abutting our pristine creek walk: (see the two attachments below) prevent the will be attending next Tuesday's Council meeting and speaking in support of 4.13 in the SLO General Plan: "New buildings nearby publicly -owned gathering spaces such as Mission Plaza ... shall respect views of the hills, framing rather than obscuring them "; in support of 8.3.2 in the SLO General Plan: "Buffers shall be required... between urban development... and natural habitats such as creeks and wetlands... adjacent buildings shall be designed to allow sunlight to reach these open spaces... "; in support of 4.114.9 in the SLO General Plan: "As properties that have been redeveloped, the City should enforce a reasonable building setback from the riparian zone "; in support of the Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center: Key Concepts Expanded - A City in a Park: "Preserve in general, the existing building height patterns of two and three stories; identify opportunities for higher buildings as architectural accents and define where upper story setbacks should be required "; and in support of Public Projects in Area 3 of the CPPCC: "A low scale parking structure should be located as shown on the map. It should not be more than 25 feet tall on the Monterey Street side." The latter statement implies that generally buildings built along this stretch of Monterey Street should not exceed 25 feet in height. However, this project will rise five stories above our creek walk with minimal step backs at the 3rd and 4th floors. Along Monterey Street, it looms (inappropriately) one and two stories above the Children's Museum and the Art Museum. Please consider that the Planning Commission continued this project because it was "too big" and that the project returned a month later with minimal modifications (still five floors high on the creek side with minimal step backs on the 3rd and 4th floors and one whole floor below the 25 year flood plain). We all deserve better than this! - Allan Cooper, Chair Save Our Downtown R3TAURAVT r 1 IH�., '11F P0.tE0 BaR No RARRAI SC RTIC MR! #iAN wme snx:ce .FR`rr . Msr a'Lt'a cLt1 +KxEk ♦ 11 . 1 OFFI IRETAIL flAC. /4fAi oR ncc ; E 1 R-1 RErr .All LA�ILA r —ICE 9PF7lXF .ctUr.�.n MuF, rMxHL rEic+ -+a irn—DR E[T KMI15 F+iSH. IF3. -LN" -IllE -Y c - IY "'.• f—TG 1 Y NEAVY WOOD W NOOW ANCHOFS ACJQ7 {GrAkt CORNFR TOwCR 1$ O I f Y •Lna•n •Y+ffKM MGFSI i0 EW P.a5E0 ELEIENT P� ws SCHEMATIC ELEVATION - VIEW FROM CREEK TV'L� f- J LFIRSPECTIVE 42 - view FROM NIPOMO Staii Flenri"VE a I • view FROM -clim ITO I VIEW LEGEND +p 'I Goodwin, Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: Agenda Correspondence. Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk City of San Luis OBISUo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 tel I 8o5.781.7103 S, ;LJ FEB 0 3 2014 Mejia, Anthony Monday, February 03, 2014 8:08 AM Goodwin, Heather FW: Talking Points Regarding the Monterey Place Mixed Use Project From: Marx, Jan Sent: Monday, February 03, 2014 6:49 AM To: Mejia, Anthony Subject: FW: Talking Points Regarding the Monterey Place Mixed Use Project agenda correspondence Jan Howell Marx Mayor of San Luis Obispo (805) 781 -7120 or (805) 541 -2716 AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Date�/41/j Item# PH I From: allancoope@gmail.com [allancoope @gmail.com] on behalf of Allan Cooper [acooper @calpoly.edu] Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2014 9:40 PM To: Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Christianson, Carlyn; Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan Subject: Talking Points Regarding the Monterey Place Mixed Use Project Dear Honorable Mayor, Council Members and Supporters of Save Our Downtown — The following are "talking points" which 1 would encourage you to address at the February 4th Council Meeting... as these are directly related back to the General Plan, The Downtown Design Guidelines and the Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center. Review of the Monterey Place Mixed Use Project. The Final Project Design And Construction Drawings Which Will be Presented to the SLO Council February 4, 2014 by the Developer Mike Hodges Are NOT in Substantial Compliance With the SLO General Plan, The Downtown Design Guidelines and the Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center. 4.13 in the SLO General Plan: Chapter 1: Land Use: Downtown: New Buildings & Views: "New buildings nearby publicly -owned gathering spaces such as Mission Plaza... shall respect views of the hills, framing rather than obscuring them. Response: The developer separated these three massive buildings with passageways connected by 17 foot and 27 foot wide pedestrian bridges. These narrow openings between the buildings barely offer the public walking along the creek walk views of the surrounding hillsides. 8.3.2 in the SLO General Plats: C"hyRter 6: Conservation & Qgen Space: Open Space Sirf ers: "Buffers associated with new development shall be on the site of the development, rather than on neighboring land containing the open space resource... Buffers shall be required... between urban development... and natural habitats such as creeks and wetlands... adjacent buildings shall be designed to allow sunlight to reach these open spaces. Response: For the most part, the developer brought the project up to the property line. No buffer was provided between the project and the property line. Afternoon solar access along the creek walk will be blocked during most of the summer months. 4.11 in the SLO General Plan: Chapter 1: Land Use: Downtown: The Creek: "As properties that have been redeveloped, the City should enforce a reasonable building setback from the riparian zone. Response: Meeting the minimum setback from the top of bluff (immediately adjoining the Creek) is no assurance that this is a "reasonable" setback. 6.5.1 B in the SLO General Plan: Chanter 1: Land Use: Resource Protection: Creeks and Flooding Programs: Previously Developed Areas: "Require new infill buildings to have greater setbacks than their older neighbors, when necessary to achieve the purposes of this section." Response: The setbacks of the two existing buildings along Monterey Street (the Leitcher Apartment building at 667 Monterey St. and the building at 669 Monterey St.) are significantly further back from the creek than the proposed project. 4.2 B in the Downtown Design Guidelines: "All buildings in the downtown should be at least two stories or 30 feet in height, particularly within the interiors of blocks, and should generally not exceed three stories ". Response: This project exceeds 50 feet in height both on the Creek side and on the Monterey Street side. "Key Concepts Expanded - A City in a Park' : Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center /II: "Preserve in general, the existing building height patterns of two and three stories; identify opportunities for higher buildings as architectural accents and define where upper story setbacks should be required ". Response: This project exceeds 50 feet in height both on the Creek side and on the Monterey Street side. Moreover, the creek side elevation is continuously 50 feet or more in height... there can be no interpretation here that those portions of the building exceeding three stories in height are "architectural accents "! The Court Street Project (which does not adjoin a Creek or a major public open space) has step backs of 8 feet above the first floor (18 feet above grade) and 12 feet above the second floor (32 feet above grade). This project, by contrast, provides a meager 6 foot step back above the second floor and no step back above the third or floor floors. "Public Projects in Area 3' : Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center: "A low scale parking structure should be located as shown on the map. It should not be more than 25 feet tall on the Monterey Street side. " Response: The latter statement implies that generally buildings built along this stretch of Monterey Street should not exceed 25 -30 feet in height. However, this project will rise five stories above our creek walk with minimal step backs above the second floor. Along Monterey Street, it looms (inappropriately) one and two stories above the Children's Museum and the Art Museum — both considered "landmark buildings ". W In February 1993, a group of local architects and designers completed a Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center (commonly known as the Downtown Concept Plan). The City Council has adopted, in concept, the Plan and feels that it should be considered when making plant in rlecisiv_ns that affect the City's center. Goodwin, Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk city of san luis oaispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 tel 18oS.781.7102 Mejia, Anthony Tuesday, February 04, 2014 8:22 AM Goodwin, Heather FW: Monterey Place From: Marx, Jan Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 7:43 AM To: Mejia, Anthony Subject: FW: Monterey Place agenda correspondence Jan Howell Marx Mayor of San Luis Obispo (805) 781 -7120 or (805) 541 -2716 RECEIVIED FEB 0 4 2014 QLO Ca-9 -,@ CL L i �W AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Date � � f Item-9 FH I From: Sandra Lakeman [sandralakeman @gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 03, 2014 4:32 PM To: Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Ashbaugh, John; Christianson, Carlyn; Judy Lang; James Lopes; Allan Cooper; Jennifer Lakeman; Carpenter, Dan; Diane Duenow; Kathleen Ruiz Subject: Monterey Place Dear Mayor and City Council Members: This project should not be approved. It does not follow the criteria according to The SLO General Plan, The Downtown Design Guidelines, nor the Conceptual Physical Plan for the Citys's Center. Notable are the KEY CONCEPTS: "A CITY IN A PARK" - says to preserve the existing building heights of two and three stories. Higher buildings should be architectural ACCENTS with upper story setbacks. These buildings do not do that. THey continuously loom two and three stories above the Children's Museum, the Historic Museum and the Art Museum, all are landmark buildings and are sited near this project. 4.2 B All buildings in downtown should be no taller than 2 stories or 30 feet. these are 50 feet on Monterey in a residential neighborhood and 55 feet right on the Creekwalk. 4.11 Downtown and the CREEK: The City should enforce a reasonable building SETBACK from the riparian zone. 4:13 Shall respect views of the hills, framing rather than obscuring them,,,, these obscure. 6.5.1 B Require new infill buildlings to have GREATER setbacks than their older neighbors.....these do not 8,3,2 BUFFERS shall be on the SITE of the new construction, not on neighboring land or the natural habitats such as creeks and wetlands and also should allow sunlight into those buffer areas. This project blatantly ignores these reasonable guidelines, nor does it carry forward the SPIRIT of the downtown of San LUis Oibpso Why do we have these Guidelines if Architects and their Clients blatantly choose not to follow them and City Officials do not enforce these long held Guidelines ? ?? Many of us over the past several years have tried to advise this group in all of these matters,,,, but to no avail. Mayor and Council, please do not allow this project to proceed. Sandra Davis Lakeman Emeritus Professor of Architecture California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, CA p3407 mailing address: 1677 Foreman Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 805 541 3223 www.sandralakeman.com RL:CfiI\i l:¡,) FEB 0 4 2014 LO CT-T'V [:Lf:([tcounctl memopânÒu DATE: VIA TO February 4,2014 City Council Katie Lichtig, City AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Daâ>JalLftem# PHt vrunue.'@ 4 FROM: Derek Johnson, Community Development Director BY: Brian Leveille, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Public Hearing Item No. 1; Review of the Monterey Place Mixed Use Project. This memo responds to questions raised in advance of this item. I. Do we høve any vßuøls showing whøt the project would look likefrom the creek wølk? llould the project, combined with development øcross the street, creøte a cønyon effect? Pleøse provide council wilh the INS (øttøchment not included in our report). Staff Response: Perspective views are provided on Plan sheet 42.0 which show a view from the creek. During the presentation, staff will include elevations and a "fly through" visual simulation of the project which provides a realistic visualization from various points of view within and around the project. In response to direction from the Planning Commission's initial review of the project, Attachment 13, (10-23-13 PC Staff Report) provides an evaluation of the project's compatibility with the Monterey Street development pattern. In summary, the Planning Commission report and staff analysis concluded that there will not be detrimental impacts to Monterey Street due to the setbacks of buildings in the proposed project from Monterey Street, separation from surrounding development, and significant articulation that is provided on building "D", which is closest to Monterey Street and adjacent to the Children's Museum. The building is setback 10-feet, includes "stepbacks" to upper floors, and the fourth floor is approximately 1,770 square feet in size. Significant articulation is provided on this building with a covered arcade, balcony, building offsets, and varying architectural details and finishes. The "fly- through" visual simulation also provides views of the project from the Monterey Street perspective. Conceptual plans of the PalmÀ{ipomo parking structure show the parking structure set back considerably from Monterey Street (approx. 1O0-feet). The proposed project's buildings "8" and "C" ate approximately 55 feet from the Monterey Street property line and Building "E" is approximately 90 feet from Monterey Street and approximately 160 feet from the nearest residence on Monterey Street (Hays/Lattimer Adobe property). The Initial Study is included in the 10-23-13 Planning Commission Staff Report (see Attachment l0) which is available for review in the Council Office. The Initial Study can also be viewed on the City webpage at the following web address Agenda Correspondence - Monterey Place Page 2 2. How does Monterey Pløce Jit ínto our culturøl corrídor plan?Our pedestriøn circuløtíon plan? Traffic with our Nipomo/Palm parking slructure right across the street from the entry to the underground parkingT What ølterøtions to the creek walk are proposed? Are commercíal entrønces plønned along the creek walk? Staff Response: Conceptual plans for the parking structure show the main vehicular access along Palm Street, with a secondary entry/exit on Nipomo Street. The main pedestrian connection would lead to Monterey Street in front of the Monterey Place project. This affords an opportunity to continue this pedestrian link through the paseo provided in the project which leads to the creekwalk and bridge crossing. The pedestrian paseo through the project is consistent with existing General Plan policy and the draft Downtown Pedestrian Plan by providing pedestrian amenities, and expanded pedestrian access to San Luis Creek and the downtown with a mid-block crossing, Although grant funding for developing a cultural corridor plan as an implementation of the Downtown Concept Plan was not received, the proposed project fits into the concept because it maintains and increases pedestrian access, which is consistent with goals of the Downtown Concept Plan to increase pedestrian access routes. No alterations to the creek walk are proposed. The basement levels of Buildings "8" and "E" have access to the creek walk area (plan sheet A 1.0). Please contact Derek Johnson at78I-7187 if you have any questions. Goodwin, Heather I FEB 0 4 2014 From: Mejia, Anthony Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 12:46 PM To: Goodwin, Heather Subject: FW: Monterey Place comments - PHI Attachments: Monterey Place Images 2 -4 -14 City Council.pdf; MontereyPlace_PC_Lopes.pdf AGENDA CORRESPONDENC��yyE�� Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk Date_ &� / P!7 Item #_ I city of san Luis o131spo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 tel I 8o5.781.7102 From: James Lopes [mailtoJameslopes@)charter.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 12:25 PM To: Mejia, Anthony Cc: Allan Cooper Subject: Monterey Place comments - PHI February 4, 2014 TO: San Luis Obispo City Council FROM: Jamie Lopes SUBJECT: Monterey Place project: Recommended Changes This project is before you as the elected representatives of the community. You are the last resort for a competent decision that will respect adopted City policies. The Hodge /Monterey Place project will over- shadow and dominate the creek, the museums and Monterey Street, contrary to City policies. I support Allan Cooper's research and comments on these policies. Please approve the following recommended changes to the Monterey Place project: 1. Reduced building heights to those recommended in the City General Plan, the Community Design Guidelines and the Downtown Concept Plan. These documents clearly encourage heights of 30 to 35 feet, with a two- to three -story building. See my letter to the Planning Commission, and Images, attached. 2. A minimum 10 -foot third floor setback on the Monterey and San Luis Obispo Creek frontages 3. Enforced creek setback standards, which prohibit paving and structures (see Zoning Ordinance Section 17.16.025F). 4. A rear landscaped Mission Plaza Extension "buffer" setback of 10 to 20 feet from the rear property line, in which no paving or structures occur. The following excerpt from my letter to the Planning Commission speaks to building heights: Monterey Street in this block is a quiet, quaint area that should retain its character. An excellent example of the appropriate scale is the the Leitcher development, at the corner of Dana and Nipomo Streets. Urban design speaks to the creation of compatible scale and massing within a built environment. Good urban design guidelines for downtown are adopted in the San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines starting on page 45. The unique character of the Monterey Street residential environment is exactly on point with these guidelines, due to its low heights and scale: • The guidelines suggest that "generally" all buildings should "not exceed three stories ... to `enclose' the street..." And, "different height and scale of new structures should complement existing adjacent buildings and provide human scale and proportion." This guidance seems particularly important in the Monterey Street environment, yet it was not followed by the ARC or CHC. The guidelines suggest that "New structures should not be significantly taller or shorter than adjacent structures unless the proposed structure can provide a visual transition from the height of adjacent structures to its higher portions." The term "significantly" should mean that more than minor differences would not be advisable; usually significance is detected if more than a 10 to 15 percent difference is present. • Most importantly, the guidelines on page 46 state that "New buildings should fit in with the existing vertical scale." And, "where necessary to protect... street character, new buildings should be limited to two stories and a maximum height of 35 feet." This guideline is for the entire downtown; where else than Monterey Street would it be more fitting? • The Museum of Art and the Children's Museum book -end this block of Monterey Street. These are "landmark" buildings as important civic structures, which in urban design practice should be taller and more unique than surrounding ones. However, they will ultimately be at a three -story scale. Their uniqueness should be respected by scaling the proposed project at or below this scale. The project is not a landmark building, but the developer assumes that the project deserves the full 50 -foot height limit. It would be beneficial to view the height limit as just that, and follow the guidelines and rational thinking to scale the project height at a lower level at this location. Thank you for considering my suggestions. James Lopes Attached: Monterey Place Images Lopes letter to Planning Commission James Lopes 1336 Sweet Bay Lane San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Ph. 805 - 781 -8960 V /�V /® VJ v +J O t o Ln .v of N N L N LJ dA O Z Y U cv 4-J of O r-I of -O N Z -a CL U H v fC R Y U L fv a 4-J 3 of C v +J O t Ln .v of : N L M -0 4+ O N 4- = L N t O O s ; L 4-J L m m O �� V) 0 J Lq cu E C6 E E 0 u r-I O f>l L fII v LL a) V C� L i 0 tt a--+ U V) r-I Q E� O 4-j � N � O L cu -0 m L aj U cr- i U W T.3 N cn i a-J U U Ln V) r-I ai E� i L E U- E U 1336 Sweetbay Lane San Luis Obispo, California 93401 March 13, 2013 Planning Commission City of San Luis Obispo Re: Continued Hearing: U43 -11 Monterey Place Your Commission's review of this project on February 13, 2013 gave the impression that design, not land use, was the central concern; yet everyone seemed to be hampered by a lack of adequate visualization tools to understand the project's potential impacts. Commissioners also seemed to be hesitant to even discuss design, perhaps due to the previous design approval by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). It would be extremely helpful for all concerned to review a 3 -D model and a simulated walk- through prior to the next public hearing. Public comments should then be allowed from the advantage of this new information. Central to staff and the Commission should be the following concerns: Monterey Street is an old residential environment in this project's location. It has little to do with the intense commercial character of Higuera or Marsh Streets downtown, and a project here should be presented in scale with this historic neighborhood. Pedestrian views of the project from both sides of Monterey should be presented in models, which can depict the height and scale of the project with respect to adjacent buildings and nearby residences. Urban design speaks to the creation of compatible scale and massing within a built environment. Good urban design guidelines for downtown are adopted in the San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines starting on page 45. The unique character of the Monterey Street residential environment is exactly on point with these guidelines, due to its low heights and scale: • The guidelines suggest that "generally" all buildings should "not exceed three stories ... to `enclose' the street..." And, "different height and scale of new structures should complement existing adjacent buildings and provide human scale and proportion." This guidance seems particularly important in the Monterey Street environment, yet it was not followed by the ARC or CHC. • The guidelines speak to scale by suggesting that "New structures should not be significantly taller or shorter than adjacent structures unless the proposed structure can provide a visual transition from the height of adjacent structures to its higher portions." The term "significantly" should mean that more than minor differences would not be advisable; usually significance is detected if more than a 10 to 15 percent difference is present. • Most importantly, the guidelines on page 46 state that "New buildings should fit in with the existing vertical scale." And, "where necessary to protect... street character, new buildings should be limited to two stories and a maximum height of 35 feet." This guideline is for the entire downtown; where else than Monterey Street would it be more fitting? The Museum of Art and the Children's Museum book -end this block of Monterey Street. These are "landmark" buildings as important civic structures, which in urban design practice should be taller and more unique than surrounding ones. However, they will ultimately be at a three -story scale. Their uniqueness should be respected by scaling the proposed project at or below this scale. The project is not a landmark building, but the developer assumes that the project deserves the full 50 -foot height limit. It would be beneficial to view the height limit as just that, and follow the guidelines and rational thinking to scale the project height at a lower level at this location. If staff and the Commission do not want to view a scale model or 3 -D tour, the City should err on the side of caution and follow the guidelines as closely as possible, as suggested in the following comments about the project as it was illustrated in the February 13, 2013 staff report. 1. Building D, next to the Leitcher Apartments building on Monterey Street, is too tall and massive. It also over - shadows the Children's Museum. This is a classic case where the project should be no more than two stories at 30 feet in height in accordance with the City guidelines. Low -pitch mansard roofs should be tried instead of parapet walls. 2. Building B, C and E should be no more than three stories (with the basement added), at 35 — 40 feet, to reduce their scale over the creekwalk and to be in perspective scale with the Leitcher Apartment building and other existing buildings. Views of the project from across Monterey Street should also be respected and kept in perspective scale. These modifications would probably reduce the heights of rooflines within this perspective. 3. Other design issues are a concern, in particular, the modernist approach with the new buildings. Every effort should be made to blend with the existing built environment, and let the civic buildings carry the modernist standard. If not, at least do not have the "metal awnings" be the signature feature of the facades. These are dated and quite kitschy. 4. Restaurant and Bar uses create huge parking demand and will disrupt all other uses in the vicinity. Parking should be obtained before this project is built, and a garage is not a sure thing at this time and cannot be relied on. 5. Noise from these proposed uses will also create continuing headaches to contain, mitigate and reduce conflicts with the creek environment, upstairs residents and the existing neighborhood. The best approach is to avoid these impacts and prohibit any "bar," but allowing drinks to be served with meals in restaurants. Or, require any bar to operate as part of a restaurant and have it close at the same time for the sake of nearby residents. 6. A creek bank setback should be established before Commission approval, with any necessary adjustments to the site design completed before approval. It is remarkable that the Concept Plan, City staff and the commissions did not anticipate a broader public way along the creek in this setting, which could have been obtained through a plan line and project dedication. The public is really going to be squeezed in what will be a built canyon. 2 It has been unnoticed that the Leitcher project at Nipomo and Dana Streets provides the example of successful urban design. It successfully converted a residence property to offices with buildings in keeping with the historic creekside Livery building. The scale, roofs and materials of these buildings should be the touchstone for this project. Time and again, City guidelines are being set aside or misinterpreted in favor of a project applicant. Perhaps the staff, Commission members and City Council would like to consider how to strengthen the guidelines and rule out more permissive allowances except in the most compelling situations. Thank you for considering my comments and suggestions. Sincerely, Jamie Lopes 3 Goodwin, Heather From: Mejia, Anthony Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 1:03 PM To: Goodwin, Heather Subject: FW: Monterey Place - Minutes of 04/15/2008 Attachments: 04 -15 -2008 Minutes.pdf Agenda Correspondence. Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk City of san Luis OBISpo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 tel 805.781.7102 From: Mejia, Anthony Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 11:51 AM To: Council—ALL; Johnson, Derek Subject: Monterey Place - Minutes of 04/15/2008 Mayor and Council: a FEB 0 4 2014 AGENDA CO R SPONDENCE Date ` Remo A Council Member requested a copy of the minutes of April 15, 2008 as it relates to tonight's agenda item PH -1 (Monterey Place) which may be of interest to other Council Members as well. Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk city or san Luis OBISPO 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 tel I 8oS.781.7102 MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TUESDAY, APRIL 15, 2008 - 4:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBER, 990 PALM STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA ROLL CALL: Council Members Present: Council Members Christine Mulholland, Allen Settle, Vice Mayor Paul Brown, and Mayor Dave Romero were seated at Roll Call. Council Member Carter was seated immediately after. City Staff: Present: Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer; Jonathan Lowell, City Attorney; Audrey Hooper, City Clerk; Shelly Stanwyck, Assistant City Administrative Officer; John Mandeville, Community Development Director; Jay Walter, Public Works Director; Brigitte Elke, Principal Administrative Analyst; Tim Bochum, Deputy Director of Public Works; Dave Hix, Wastewater Division Manager; Kim Murry, Deputy Community Development Director — Long Range Planning; Michael Codron, Associate Planner CONSENT AGENDA Council agreed to reorder the Agenda to consider Consent Agenda items at this time. In response to Council Member Mulholland regarding item C9, Public Works Director Walter said that staff will provide additional information as to why solar panels were not included in the specifications. Council Member Mulholland referred to item C11 and asked staff to take into consideration placing more emphasis on addressing emissions from construction and making a stronger effort related to sustainable energy reuse. Mayor Romero raised concerns regarding the width of the turn lane for northbound trucks coming off the freeway onto Monterey and turning onto Buena Vista. A brief discussion followed during which Deputy Public Works Director Bochum displayed a map depicting the truck turning system and responded to questions. City Council Meeting Tuesday, April 15, 2008 Page 2 Council Members concurred with Mayor Romero's concerns and directed staff to review and modify the design of the road from Monterey onto Buena Vista to widen the turn lane for northbound trucks: Staff will pursue this direction during the bid process and come back to Council if further direction is necessary. Council Member Carter referred to item C4 and said that while he supports the Little Theater, he will oppose the new lease since it doesn't include the cost of long -term repairs and maintenance. ACTION: Moved by Mulholland /Settle to approve the Consent Agenda as indicated below. C1. MINUTES OF MARCH 18, 2008. ACTION: Moved by Mulholland /Settle to waive oral reading and approve as presented; motion carried 5:0. C2. RESOLUTION TO JOIN INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL FOR LOCAL ENVIRONMENT INITIATIVES - LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FOR SUSTAINABILITY ( ICLEI) IN ORDER TO CONDUCT A GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO. ACTION: Moved by Mulholland /Settle to: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 9971 (2008 Series) to join ICLEI (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives — Local Governments for Sustainability. 2. Authorize staff to work with an intern to use the ICLEI program to conduct a greenhouse gas emissions inventory for the City of San Luis Obispo. 3. Identify Council Member Mulholland to act as the "Elected Official Liaison "; motion carried 5:0. C3. STREET RECONSTRUCTION 2007 -08 PROJECT. SPECIFICATION NO. 90729. ACTION: Moved by Mulholland /Settle to: 1. Approve plans and Specifications for the Street Reconstruction 2007 -08 Project, Specification No. 90729. 2. Authorize staff to advertise for bids and authorize the CAO to award the contract if the lowest responsible bid is less than or equal to the Engineer's Estimate of $627,000 ($572,000 General Fund, $34,000 Water System Improvements and $21,000 Collection System Improvements); motion carried 5:0. C4. NEW AGREEMENT WITH SAN LUIS OBISPO LITTLE THEATER FOR LEASE OF PROPERTY AT 888 MORRO STREET. ACTION: Moved by Mulholland /Settle to: 1. Rescind the current lease agreement with the San Luis Obispo Little Theater (SLOLT) for 888 Morro Street. 2. Approve a new 10 -year lease agreement between the City of San Luis Obispo and the San Luis Obispo Little Theatre (SLOLT) for lease of property at 888 City Council Meeting Tuesday, April 15, 2008 Page 3 Morro Street and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement; motion carried 4:1 (Carter opposed). C5. ANDREWS CREEK BYPASS. SPECIFICATION NO. 90562. ACTION: Moved by Mulholland /Settle to: 1. Approve a purchase order in the amount of $55,113 with the Wallace Group for alternatives analysis for the Andrews Creek Bypass, Specification No. 90562. 2. Approve a transfer of $60,625 ($58,783 from construction and $1,842 from study) to the design account for this project; motion carried 5:0. C6. RAILROAD SAFETY TRAIL BRIDGE: HIGHWAY 101 CROSSING; SPECIFICATION NO. 90741. ACTION: Moved by Mulholland /Settle to: 1. Approve a contract in the amount of $143,500 with Quincy Engineering Inc. for preliminary study and design services for Railroad Safety Trail Bridge: Highway 101 Crossing, Specification No. 90741. 2. Approve the transfer of $88,500 from the construction account to the design account for these services; motion carried 5:0. C7. CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES, SPECIFICATION NO. 50410.7227.2007. ACTION: Moved by Mulholland /Settle to: 1. Authorize the Mayor to execute agreements with the selected on -call consulting firms: Wallace Group, Penfield & Smith, MNS Engineers, Advantage Technical Services and MarWal Construction. 2. Authorize the Finance Director to execute purchase orders for individual projects to consultants under agreement; motion carried 5.0. C8. BUENA VISTA & GARFIELD AT MONTEREY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS, SPECIFICATION NO. 90676. ACTION: Moved by Mulholland /Settle to: 1. Approve plans and specifications for Buena Vista & Garfield Intersection Improvements, Specification No. 90792. 2. Authorize staff to advertise for bids and authorize the CAO to award the contract if the lowest responsible bid is within the Engineer's Estimate of $232,147.50. 3. Approve the transfer of $24,000 from the completed projects account to fund additional design and construction costs. 4. Approve the transfer of $35,000 from CIP reserve to fund construction management. The motion included direction to staff to review and modify the design of the road from Monterey onto Buena Vista to widen the turn lane for northbound trucks. Staff will pursue this direction during the bid process and come back to Council of further direction is necessary; motion carried 5:0. City Council Meeting Page 4 Tuesday, April 15, 2008 C9. CORPORATION YARD ROOF REPAIRS, SPECIFICATION NO. 90441. ACTION: Moved by Mulholland /Settle to: 1. Approve plans and specifications for Corporation Yard Roof Repairs, Specification No. 90441. 2. Authorize staff to advertise for bids and authorize the City Administrative Officer to award the contract if the lowest responsible bid is within the Engineer's Estimate of $235,000. 3. Approve the transfer funds in the amount of $30,250 from the capital improvement plans (CIP) reserve account to fund additional construction management costs; motion carried 5:0. C10 INTER - AGENCY AGREEMENT FOR NARCOTIC TASK FORCE. ACTION: Moved by Mulholland /Settle to authorize the Mayor to execute an inter- agency Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for continued participation in the San Luis Obispo County Narcotic Task Force from July 1, 2007, until the MOU is either terminated or until participation in the Task Force is no longer desired; motion carried 5:0. C11. WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY MASTER PLAN UPDATE. ACTION: Moved by Mulholland /Settle to approve agreement with Brown and Caldwell Engineers for Updating the Master Plan for the Water Reclamation facility in an amount not to exceed $231,100 and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement; motion carried 5:0. C12. LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD /US 101 INTERCHANGE PROJECT— DESIGN FUNDING AMENDMENT. ACTION: Moved by Mulholland /Settle to approve a contract services agreement amendment in an amount of $40,000 with Dokken Engineering to perform Caltrans value analysis for the Los Osos Valley Road /US 101 Interchange project; motion carried 5:0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. FORMATION OF A CITYWIDE TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT (BID DISTRICT. Principal Administrative Analyst Elke made the staff presentation and responded to Council's questions. Mayor Romero opened the public hearing. John Conner, Chair, Promotional Coordinating Committee (PCC's), spoke in support of the recommendation. He said he believed the PCC would support having one individual on the PCC serve as a member of the BID Advisory Board. City Council Meeting Tuesday, April 15, 2008 The following people spoke in support of the proposed BID: Tim Billing, San Luis Obispo Pierre Rademaker San Luis Obispo Dave Garth, San Luis Obispo Jamie Wallace, Courtyard by Marriott Pragna Patel, San Luis Obispo Mayor Romero closed the public hearing. Page 5 Council Member Settle, Vice Mayor Brown, Council Member Carter, and Mayor Romero commented in support of the recommendation. RECOMMENDATION: Moved by Brown /Mulholland to adopt Resolution No. 9972 (2008 Series), a Resolution of Intention to form a citywide tourism business improvement district (TBID) for the purpose of increasing industry investment in tourism marketing in San Luis Obispo; motion carried 5:0. BUSINESS ITEMS 2. 2007 GENERAL PLAN ANNUAL REPORT. Community Development Director Mandeville introduced this item, following which Associate Planner Codron made the staff presentation. They responded to Council's questions. Public Comments Jeannie Helphenstine, representing the Righetti property, asked Council to consider modifying the City's growth ordinance to create greater flexibilty. She explained that property owners in the Margarita Area are not moving forward with permits at this time although they have approval to do so. As a result, the City's building permit phasing plan is not proceeding as intended. She indicated that this could create a problem in the future if Orcutt Road property owners proceed with building permits. Andrew Merriam, Wallace Group, Coordinating Planner for the Orcutt Area Specific Plan, concurred with Ms. Helphenstine and the staff presentation. He suggested that a study session or other type of review, including landowners from all specific plan areas, should be held to address concerns before the completion of the Orcutt Area Specific Plan. Phil Gray, property owner in the Orcutt Area Specific Plan, concurred with the prior speakers and asked Council to modify the Growth Management Ordinance to enable enough units to be developed to pay for infrastructure. He suggested the ordinance should allow for an eight -year moving average of building permits. City Council Meeting Page 6 Tuesday, April 15, 2008 David Gray also concurred with the prior speakers. He referenced the large capital costs that will be needed to build the homes and suggested that a committee be formed to address these issues. Ermina Karim, Chamber of Commerce, noted that workforce housing availability consistently tops the list of critical issues. In addition, developers are facing significant up -front costs before building. For these reasons, the Chamber urged Council to consider implementing something similar to an eight -year growth management cycle. - - -end of public comments-- - Community Development Director addressed some of the public comments and referenced the concerns raised in the Agenda Report related to growth management phasing. He concurred that it would be beneficial for staff to receive public input on this matter prior to returning to Council with recommendations for amendments to the City's Growth Management Ordinance. Council Member Settle; Vice Mayor Brown, Council Member Carter and Mayor Romero spoke in support of possible amendments to the current Growth Management Ordinance Phasing Schedule, with staff developing and investigating options and reporting back to Council. Council Member Mulholland disagreed. She suggested that infrastructure costs are down at this time, making it feasible to start development. She did not believe the Growth Management Ordinance Phasing Schedule needs to be amended. However, she expressed concern that household numbers are decreasing while the sizes of houses are increasing. She said she would rather see higher densities and an increase in smaller houses. Council Member Mulholland referred to Charter section 909, and asked Council to take the water above and beyond the safe annual yield for build -out of 1556 acre feet and put that into the reliability reserve. A brief discussion followed, after which it was agreed that staff will include a report on this matter in its Annual Water Progress Report to Council. Council Member Carter explained why he thinks the City should begin to consider restricting commercial growth by instituting a commercial growth cap. He was particularly concerned with commercial development on Tank Farm and at the Airport and how it will impact the downtown. Council Member Mulholland concurred. City Council Meeting Page 7 Tuesday, April 15, 2008 Vice Mayor Brown and Mayor Romero were not in support of pursuing a cap on commercial development. Council Member Settle recommended that it would be more feasible to consider this matter in a broader context with the next update of the General Plan. ACTION: Council received the report and provided comments as indicated. No further action was taken. COUNCIL LIAISON_ REPORTS Mayor Romero reported on the April 2, 2008, SLO Council of Governments (SLOCOG) meeting. (His written report is on file in City Clerk's office.) Council Member Mulholland reported on her attendance at the April 2nd County Water Resources Committee meeting. Council Member Settle and Mayor Romero noted their attendance at the Mayor's Quarterly meeting last week. COMMUNICATIONS Council Member Carter raised his prior concerns regarding the need for a rental inspection ordinance for all properties, particularly in light of the recent fire on Branch Street in an illegal garage conversion. Following discussion during which staff responded to questions, Council concurred with CAO Hampian's suggestion to return to Council with a report from the Fire Chief and Fire Marshall within the next few months on what is being done related to fire prevention. The Special Meeting adjourned at 6:05 to a Regular Meeting held in the Council Chamber at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TUESDAY, APRIL 15, 2008 - 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBER, 990 PALM STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA ROLL CALL: Council Members Present: Council Members Andrew Carter, Christine Mulholland, Allen Settle, Vice Mayor Paul Brown and Mayor Dave Romero City Council Meeting Tuesday, April 15, 2008 City Staff: Page 8 Present: Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer; Jonathan Lowell, City Attorney; Audrey Hooper, City Clerk; Shelly Stanwyck, Assistant City Administrative Officer; John Mandeville, Community Development Director; Bill Statler, Finance and Information Technology Director; Deborah Linden, Police Chief; John Moss, Utilities Director; Jay Walter, Public Works Director; Tim Bochum, Deputy Director of Public Works; Tyler Corey, Associate Planner; Brian Leveille, Associate Planner; Ryan Betz; Supervising Administrative Assistant ANNOUNCEMENT Mavor Romero announced vacancies on various City Advisory Bodies. PRESENTATIONS BIKE MONTH PROCLAMATION. Mayor Romero presented Jamie Hill with a proclamation proclaiming May 2008 as Bike Month and May 19 -23 as Bike -to- School Week. ARBOR DAY PROCLAMATION. Mayor Romero presented City Arborist Ron Combs, Urban Forest - Contract Services Supervisor Keith Pellemeier, and "Annie Oak Leaf' with a proclamation proclaiming April 26, 2008, as Arbor Day. RECOGNITION OF NATIONAL CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS WEEK AND TRACY NIX, CHILD FORENSIC INTERVIEW SPECIALIST. Chief Linden and Mayor Romero recognized and presented Tracy Nix, Child Forensic Interview Specialist for SLO County District Attorney's Office, with a Certificate of Appreciation and the work she does on behalf of crime victims. District Attorney Jerry Shea, Assistant District Attorney Dan Hilford, and family members were also present to acknowledge Ms. Nix. PUBLIC COMMENT David Brodie, San Luis Obispo, referred to comments he made at the last Council meeting regarding the need for a program to assist residents in visualizing downtown building heights. He suggested Council and staff proceed with such a program. City Council Meeting Tuesday, April 15, 2008 Page 9 Joseph Abrahams, San Luis Obispo, expressed concern regarding Council Member Settle's residency in light of comments made by Gary Fowler at the last Council meeting. He also questioned whether Council Member Brown had a conflict of interest relative to the Garden Street project which abuts his business. Council Brown explained that he had recused himself from making a decision on the Garden Street project so there was no conflict of interest. Council Member Settle confirmed his residence in the City. Gary Fowler, San Luis Obispo, suggested that the Westpac /Garden Street Project should be on the November ballot given residents' objections to the height, as well as a raised parking structure on Nipomo and Palm. He suggested that the Copeland and Garden Street Project include solar panels. He objected to the location of the memorial flags on the Community Development/Public Works building. The following people expressed their ongoing concern regarding the operations of SLO County Public Access: Anthonv Bolin, San Luis Obispo Patrick Germany, Paso Robles Ron Bearce, San Luis Obispo Terry Mohan, San Luis Obispo, referenced his unsuccessful attempt to process an initiative related to the City's water and sewer rates, which will be increasing in July. He said he will attempt to initiate a new protest against a water rate increase that will have to be approved in 2009 -10 and 2010 -11. He supported Mr. Fowler's concerns regarding Council Member Settle's residence. Council Member Settle reiterated that his residence is in the City. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. APPEALS OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A MIXED -USE PROJECT AT 399 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD (ARC 55 -07). Associate Planner Core , and Deputy Director of Public Works Bochum made the staff presentation. They and Community Development Director Mandeville responded to Council's questions. Mayor Romero opened the public hearing. Appellant Brett Cross, San Luis Obispo, Chairpersons for Residents for Quality Neighborhoods, summarized his appeal which included concerns related to the City Council Meeting Page 10 Tuesday, April 15, 2008 proposed height, setback and parking for the project. He suggested that the loft spaces be removed and the height reduced to no more than 25 feet, which will help resolve parking concerns. He had concerns that the project does not conform to the character of the neighborhood. He also suggested that the units have a 15- foot street yard setback. Appellant Keith Evans, San Luis Obispo, reiterated concerns and requested the same modifications raised by Mr. Cross. He displayed and distributed an overlay depicting the size of the proposed project as well as photographs depicting existing conditions in the Foothill view corridor. He suggested that both the roofing material and architecture should conform to existing dwelling in the neighborhood. Appellant Steve Hilstein, San Luis Obispo, concurred with comments by Mr. Cross and Mr. Evans. He also opposed the presence of buses in the neighborhood. He said, however, his biggest concern related to commercial loading. He was also concerned about the removal of the euctalyptus trees. Appellant Stefanie Hilstein, San Luis Obispo, also expressed concern regarding a commercial loading zone. Applicant Thom Braikovich, project architect and representative for the applicant, provided an overview of the project. He discussed the efforts that were made to design a project that would work with the constraints of the property and would not require variances. He also discussed the ways in which the project will enhance the neighborhood. He distributed photographs of the proposed project, including solar studies. Mr. Braikovich and staff responded to questions. Dianna Schmiett, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the staff recommendation. She discussed the attempts being made to resolve neighborhood concerns regarding the need to relocate the transit route. Christine Marchant, San Luis Obispo, also spoke in support of the staff recommendation. She was also concerned with the number of buses traveling through the neighborhood. Naoma Wright, San Luis Obispo, did not object to the probject, but concurred with Mr. Cross that issues related to height, as well as other concerns, need to be addressed. She questioned whether the issue of trash receptacles had been adequately addressed. Grant Robbins, San Luis Obispo, said he had purchased one of the commercial /retail spaces and spoke in support of the proposed project. Shawn Reed, San Luis Obispo, also spoke in support of the proposed project. City Council Meeting Page 11 Tuesday, April 15, 2008 Linden Nelson, San Luis Obispo, supported the recommendation that staff continue working with the project applicant to propose improvements to the conmer of Foothill Road and Tassajara. His concerns related to safety issues that result from the number of buses currently traveling down Ramona. Betsy Schwart z, San Luis Obispo, concurred with Mr. Nelson's comments related to the buses traveling down Ramona. Mayor Romero closed the public hearing. Council discussion ensued during which staff responded to questions. Council Members expressed concern regarding the number of buses traveling through the residential area, the proposed project height, potential parking issues, the potential use of lofts as extra bedrooms, the project's non - compliance with the Special Considerations Overlay, and the setback. They concurred that the project should be denied without prejudice and that new application fees will not be required when a revised project is submitted. ACTION: Moved by Mulholland /Settle to: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 9973 (2008 Series), upholding the appeals and denying the project without prejudice. 2) Direct staff to continue working with the project applicant and return to Council as part of the FY 2008009 Financial Plan with City financial participation to improve the corner of Foothill Road/Tassajara. Council also requested that the project be modified to eliminate the lofts, to increase the setback along Foothill Boulevard to 15 feet, and to comply with the 25 -foot height limitation for R -1 districts (5:0). Council concurred that staff should investiate the regulations related to lofts and return with a recommendation particularly related to parking requirements. Council recessed at 9 :25 pm. and the meeting reconvened at 9:35 p.m, with all members present. 4. REVIEW OF USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A FRATERNITY, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF THE PROJECT SITE AND THREE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES FROM MEDIUM - HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R -3) TO HIGH - DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, (R-4).1292 FOOTHILL (ER/GP /R/U 109 -05). Associate Planner Leveille made the staff presentation. Mayor Romero opened the public hearing. City Council Meeting Tuesday, April 15, 2008 Page 12 Kevin Hauber, applicant and Alumni Advisor, said the project will provide an opportunity to create a unique living situation for undergraduate students in a sustainable environment. He recognized the project design firm of RRM. Shane Saltzgiver, a fifth -year Cal Poly student, discussed the design of the fraternity house and explained that this was a learn -by -doing project. Luke Monteleone, President of the Lambda Chi Alpha Fraternity, discussed the unique majors of the students on the project team and the experiences they gained working on this project. Stephan Lamb, Student Advisor, discussed his various roles working with students and how this project will enhance the neighborhood. Danica Jones, House Manager and Director of the adjacent sorority, said the project has her full support. Gary Fowler spoke as an advisor for Phi Kapa Si for over 35 years. He concurred with Mr. Lamb and supported the staff recommendatoin. Mayor Romero closed the public hearing. Council Member Mulholland expressed concern regarding the proposed location of the trash and recycling receptacles. Councilmember Carter, Vice Mayor Brown, Council Member Settle and Mayor Romero spoke in support of the project. ACTION: Moved by Settle /Mulholland to, as recommended by the Planning Commission: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 9974 (2008 Series) amending the General Plan Land Use Element map to change the land use designation for the site from Medium -High Density Residential to High- Density Residential and approving a use permit to allow a fraternity, and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. 2. Introduce Ordinance No. 1513 (2008 Series) changing the zoning from Medium -High Density Residential (R -3) to High- Density Residential (R -4) for the project site and three surrounding properties. 5. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING FOR PROPERTIES ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MONTEREY STREET BETWEEN THE CHILDREN'S MUSEUM AND MISSION PLAZA AT 667,679,69 MONTEREY AND 1019 AND 1045 BROAD STREET. (GP /R/ER 64 -07). Associate Planner Dunsmore made the staff presentation and responded to questions. Mayor Romero opened the public hearing. City Council Meeting Tuesday, April 15, 2008 Page 13 Bruce Frazer, representing the Art Center, volunteered to respond to questions. John Belscher, one of the property owners for the Leitcher House site, spoke in general support of the staff recommendation. He discussed the pedestrian orientation of the project. He expressed concern, however, that it may be premature to eliminate uses. He suggested that instead of denying the uses in Section 3, criteria 3, of the resolution, they be subject to approval of an administrative use permit. In response to Council Member Mulholland, City Attorney Lowell suggested that the ordinance be modified to eliminate the words "within parcels on the ground floor' in Section 3, criteria 3, of the resolution. David Brodie, San Luis Obispo, discussed his concerns regarding the proposed building height and its adverse impact on existing landmark buildings. Karen Kile, representing the Art Center, explained why the zoning change is required and, if approved, this site will become a landmark for the City and the region. City Attorney Lowell clarified that at this time, Council is only considering a General Plan amendment and zone change. Gary Fowler, San Luis Obipso, spoke in opposition to the recommendation. He was particularly concerned with the increased parking demands that would result. Mayor Romero closed the public hearing. Council Member Mulholland expressed concern regarding rezoning the properties from Broad Street to the Children's Center on Monterey Street because the C -D (Downtown Commercial) Zone permits a building height of 75 feet. She noted that she would have supported the zone change for the Art Center because its proposed height would not exceed 50 feet, but will oppose the rezoning since it includes both areas. Council Member Settle concurred with Council Member Mulholland, Council Member Carter expressed concern that the Creek Walk should not become another locale for bars. During the ensuing discussion, Council concurred that bars and taverns should not be permitted facing Monterey Street, that the building height should be limited to 50 feet, and that the final designs for the Art Center and the redevelopment of the Leitcher property should be brought to Council for review. City Council Meeting Page 14 Tuesday, April 15, 2008 ACTION: Moved by Brown /Romero to, as recommended by the Planning Commission, adopt Resolution No. 9975 (2008 Series) and introduce Ordinance No. 1514 (2008 Series). Council's action included the following amendments to Section 3 of the proposed ordinance: 1) Criteria #3 will be amended by deleting "within parcels on the ground floor." 2) Criteria #4 will be amended to delete bars and taverns as allowable uses. 3) A criteria #5 will be added limiting the height to 50 feet. 4) A criteria #6 will be added requiring that the final designs for the Art Center and the redevelopment of the Leitcher property be brought to the Council for review (5:0). Council recessed from 11:08 to 11:15 p. m. and the meeting reconvened with all members present. 6. INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY'S STREET NAME AND ADDRESS REGULATIONS AND ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION SETTING RELATED APPLICATION PROCESSING FEES. Supervising Administrative Assistant Betz made the staff presentation and responded to Council questions. Mayor Romero opened the public hearing. No comments were forthcoming. Mayor Romero closed the public hearing. ACTION: Moved by Settle /Brown to: 1. Introduce Ordinance No. 1515 (2008 Series) amending Chapter 12.32, Street Name and Address Regulations of the Municipal Code to eliminate outdated provisions and to reflect current practices. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 9976 (2008 Series) superseding the City's development review notification requirements, as established by Resolution No. 6779 (1990 Series), consistent with the recommended amendments to Chapter 12.32 of the Municipal Code. 3. Adopt Resolution No. 9977 (2008 Series) setting a fee, as authorized by the Municipal Code section 12.32.070, associated with processing requests to change addresses, as determined by the 2007 -09 Cost Allocation Plan. BUSINESS ITEMS 7. QUAGGA MUSSELS — PROTECTION OF SANTA MARGARITA LAKE. Utilities Director Moss and County Parks Manager Peter Jenny made the staff presentation and responded to Council's questions. City Council Meeting Tuesday, April 15, 2008 Page 15 During the ensuing discussion, Council concurred that the letter which the Mayor will send to the Board of Supervisors also be sent to State legislators, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife agency, and the County of Monterey and Dave Mullinax with the League of California Cities. In addition, the letter should encourage these governmental agencies to work toward an immediate quarantine of any waterways and lakes in which the mussels are present. Public Comments No comments were forthcoming. - - -end of public comments - -- In addition to the direction given previously, Council concurred that because Council Member Mulholland serves on County Water Resources Advisory Committee (CWRAC), she will represent the City at the Board of Supervisors meetings when this matter is discussed. City Biologist Otte displayed a sample habitat recommended by Fish and Game to determine how invested local lakes are by Quagga Mussels. An ad hoc committee has been established to determine how these habitats will be distributed. This will be one of the proactive steps the City will be taking to monitor possible contamination in this area. ACTION: Council provided direction as previously indicated. There being no further business to come before the City Council, Mayor Romero adjourned the meeting at 11 :57 p.m. Audrey Hooper I i City Clerk , APPROVED BY COUNCIL: 6/03/08 AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Date2 `i ' itL'm# LL a Monterey Place February 4, 2014 FEB 0 4 2014 The attached letters of support were submitted to the City from the following City /area residents: Name: Address: 1. Jan Durocher 1415 Morro Street, SLO 2. Judy King 221 Almond St, SLO 3. Tim Tillman (NK Builders, Inc.) 4. Alex Miller 5. Keith Pellemeir 6. Chad Van Til 7. Melodie Beard 697 Higuera St, SLO (work) 1921 Santa Barbara St., SLO 990 Palm St., SLO 735 Tank Farm Road SLO (work) 867 Pacific St Ste 230, SLO (work) 8. Steve Puglisi 583 DANA ST, SLO (work) Brian Leveille, Associate Planner City of San Luis Obispo bleveille2slocity.or� RE: 667 and 679 Monterey Street. U 43 -11 Dear Mr. Leveille, October 23, 2013 I understand that the Monterey Place project is coming before the Planning Commission and I am voicing my support for this project. I believe it will benefit our community in many ways, especially by providing both housing for seniors and an in -town optional for guests. The Monterey Place project provides single level housing addressing the needs of one of the largest demographic groups in San Luis Obispo, those over 50 and /or retired. Currently the only single level units in town are those located at Vista Grande and they are a coop, limited to cash buyers. Providing housing in town is essential considering that the other neighborhoods, (Laguna, Marigold, SoHi, etc.) are not yet complete. They do not have theaters, museums, community centers, library branches, restaurants (with the exception of Upper Crust) and the variety of professional services and retail that we have here in town. Outlying neighborhoods are car dependent; not ideal for retired. The project also provides needed visitor services. Downtown San Luis is conspicuously lacking in hotel space. Currently visitors need to be shuttled to the north end of town, far away from anything except a curious cluster of identical motel services. Travelers who desire a true taste of the community they are visiting are not able to easily do so here. The Monterey Place project will help facilitate this, have a positive visual impact, facilitate walking, and reduce traffic. Furthermore, it will be a joy to see the Leitcher House renovated. As a downtown resident, I strongly support this project. It is the perfect mix. Sincerely, Jan Durocher 1415 Morro John Belsher From: Keith Pellemeier <kpelly13 @gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 10:59 PM To: bleveille @slocity.org Subject: Monterey street project Brian I wanted to express my support for the current project to redevelop this old building. The applicants have made every, effort to make good use of the building and area. I live on Garden Street about 8 blocks from this project and think it will be good for the downtown and the City of SLO! Thank you And keep up the good work! Keith Pellemeier Sent from my Whone NK BUILDERS INCORP0RATID� General Coniraciors 9 Construction tdaoagerneni October 15th, 2013 Mr. Brian Levellle City of San Luis Obispo 919 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: 667 Monterey Street - Development Dear Mr. Leveille, I am writing this letter In support of the proposed development located at 667 Monterey St. As a resident and business owner of the Qty of San Luis Obispo, I feel this project would be a positive asset to our community. The project is a great fit For the proposed location. It will meet many of the City needs and goals, Including housing in the downtown Care, restoration of an existing historical structure, and the infill of what Is now an under- utiltxed vacant lot. Additionally, it will acid a positive element to the creek path, making it more attractive to both residents and visitors. I urge the City of San Luis Obispo to work with, and support this Development. Regards, rum T'Wift .iry Tim Tillman President NK Builders, Incorporated 697 Higuera St Suite G San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 - Phone (805) 544 -4457 Fax (805) 888 -3697 GC License 4 772045 Dear Sir /Madam The proposed project at 667 Monterey should be supported and approved. The project is well designed and would be a great addition to lower Monterey. This site has been In blight in this beautiful part of town for years and I look forward to a vibrant development on this site. I support this project and hope It will be approved. ex M €r 192 Santra Barbara St San Luis Obispo, CA Brian Leveille, AICP Associate Planner Community Development Department City of San Luis Obispo Brian, I am writing to support the Monterey Place project. The project was well conceived and addresses the needs of this stretch of town. With the restoration of the Leitcher House, the developer is preserving an important piece of our history while revitalizing a prominent infill site. The proposed project provides connectivity between Monterey, Higuera and the future panting structure between Monterey and Palm. It provides a mix of residential and commercial uses that integrates well with the neigbborhood and enhances Monterey Street. Developments such as Monterey Place are what the city should encourage I hope to see this approved. Respectfully, Chad Van Til Leveille, Brian From: melodie.lhbassocOgmall.com on behall of Melodle Rivas <melodle®Ihbassoc.com> Sent; Monday, October 14, 2013 2:16 PM To: Leveille, Brian Subject: Monterey Place Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flap Status: Flagged Dear Mr. Leveille, We understand that the Monterey Place project is coming before the Planning Commission, and we wanted to voice our support. We both work in downtown San Luis Obispo, so it is nice to see the revitalization that has been happening to the downtown area. We feel that Monterey Place Is a part of that positive movement. This project would not only bring more life to the downtown area, but It would restore a property that has fallen Into disuse and disrepair. The Witcher House Is disintegroting, It's much better that this historic building be Incorporated and made part of downtown SLO once again. in addition to make the property Itself more beautiful, Monterey Puce would bolster our local economy. Local restaurants, businesses. and museums would be just steps away for residents of this newly created downtown housing. As local buslness owners, we think this Is a goad thing. Thank you, JR & Melodle Beard LIZB & Associates, Ltd Mueller & Mueller, LIP Ileven N11191 eRa�ef Tla T% October 15, 2013 Mr. Brian Leville San Luis Obispo City Planning Department 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: MONTEREY PLACE Dear Mr. Leville, I am writing in support of the Monterey Place project in San Luis Obispo. I am a forty year resident of the Central Coast having spent the first 15 years living and working in San Luis Obispo. My office, on Dana Street off Nipomo is one block from the site. I walk Monterey almost daily on my trips downtown. I have studied the design of this project and find It wall conceived and attractive. A mixed use development in the core of the city and an the creek, including restaurant, shops, office and residences. This is exactly what urban infill is supposed to be. High density .yes it is and just where it should be, close to infrastructure and city services, Urban design at its best. The developer and Architect should be commended for this effort and I urge the Planning Commission to approve this worthy project. Respectfully, Steven Pu011s1 Principal Steven Pugilist ARCHITECTS, Inc. 583 Dana Street San Luis Obispo, G 93401 Phone 805595.1962 tax 805.595.1980