Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/20/2001, 4 - APPEAL OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF MODIFICATIONS TO THE MARSH STREET PARKING G council Maalin`Dote ac,8n6a RepoRt lta.Numbs, CITY OF SAN . LUIS O B I S P O FROM: Ron Whisenand,Development Review Manager Prepared By: John Shoals,Associate Planner SUBJECT: APPEAL OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF MODIFICATIONS TO THE MARSH STREET PARKING GARAGE EXPANSION PROJECT AT 860 PACIFIC STREET; ARC 28-99 (MOD). CAO RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Architectural Review Commission's action approving the revised garage design, based on findings and subject to the conditions listed in draft Resolution "A." DISCUSSION Situation In July 2000, the Council rejected all construction bids for the Marsh Street Garage expansion project and directed staff to return with a revised project that more closely matched the approved budget. In September 2000, the City Council approved amending the scope of the Marsh Street Garage expansion project to lower construction costs. The approved project changes included: eliminating the pedestrian bridge and gazebo, eliminating the second floor restrooms, eliminating the mid-span stairwell and relocating the elevator to'Morro Street, adding two public restrooms on the ground level with a Morro Street access, adding a mid-block traffic signal on Marsh Street, eliminating the "blue" light safety system and the television security system conduit, and revising the exterior finish. Attachment 2 is a copy of the revised project plans that incorporate the approved changes. In December 2000, City staff determined the project changes to be significant enough to warrant additional review by the City's Architectural Review Commission (ARC). In February 2001, the ARC considered the project changes and conditionally approved the revised design. That action is being appealed to the City Council. ARC Action The ARC reviewed the revised garage design on February 5, 2001. Commission discussion focused on the project changes including: the shear wall design and its effect on the structure's exterior appearance; relocation of the elevator and stairway from the primary garage entrance to the northeast corner at.Mono Street, and the overall effects of eliminating the pedestrian bridge and gazebo. The Commission also considered the Cultural Heritage Committee's recommendations regarding the building massing, scale and compatibility 'with surrounding historic properties. On a 4-1-1 vote (Commr. Metz voting no, and Commr. Rawson refraining from participation due to a potential conflict of interest), the ARC granted final approval to the proposed changes to the Marsh.Street Parking Garage expansion. The ARC found the revised Council Agenda Report,A_ 28-99 MOD(Appeal) U' Page 2 garage design to be consistent with the original plans in regards to circulation/access, size, shape, height, setbacks, lot coverage, building materials and color scheme.. The Commission also included conditions relating to building articulation, pedestrian access and enhancing natural light within the structure. Attachment 5 is a copy of the ARC approval letter. Minutes from the February 5' hearing are included as Attachment 6. The ARC staff report is included as Attachment 7. Appeal On February 15, 2001, Eugene Jud, Save SLO, Citizens for Ethical Planning and the Old Town Neighborhood Association appealed the ARC decision to the City Council. The appellants contend that the ARC ignored the advice of the Cultural Heritage Committee, and that the project changes adversely affect the pedestrian environment. Specifically, the appellants do not feel that the garage is appropriate at the planned location because it is incompatible with the surrounding land uses and will generate additional traffic into the area. They believe that the garage expansion should be stopped in its current form and other alternatives pursued. Those alternative measures include: implementing parking demand reduction measures (PDR), buying land for a transportation center east of Santa Rosa Street, and making the Marsh Street Garage Expansion project an alternative or "last resort" for downtown parking. Attachment 8 is a copy of the appeal form and letter. Many of the appellants concerns fall outside the purview of the Architectural Review Commission and are not germane to the ARC's action. The ARC reviewed proposed changes to the previously approved garage design. Traffic, circulation, cultural resources and project alternatives were analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and the FEIR Supplement adopted by the City Council in August 1999. Project location, building height, setbacks and lot coverage were approved by the City Council, and are not,being modified with the revised garage design. Four issues were determined to be relevant to revised garage design and the ARC action. Those issues are: the Cultural Heritage Commission recommendations, pedestrian environment, aesthetics and safety. The following paragraphs briefly summarize the issues and how the Commission addressed those concerns. 1. Cultural Heritage Commission The Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) reviewed the revised garage design on January 22, 2001. The CHC determined that the proposed garage addition is not architecturally compatible with the surrounding historic properties or consistent with the City's Historic Preservation Guidelines, based on the following findings: A. The massing and scale of the proposed addition is too large for the adjacent historic buildings, specifically the historic U.S. Post Office (893 Marsh Street), the historic First Presbyterian Church (951 Marsh Street), the historic Regan House (1306 Chorro Street), and the historic Zion Lutheran Church (863 Pacific Street). �7 Council Agenda Report,A_ 28-99 MOD(Appeal) �) Page 3 B. The proposed project is inconsistent with the architectural style and materials of historic structures noted above. C. The project will preclude the development of other, more historically compatible structures at this location. D. Increased traffic and densification resulting from the project will have a significant adverse, cumulative effect on the longevity of historic properties in the Downtown Historic District. E. The project is inconsistent with City Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Properties because it would adversely affect the setting of adjacent historic properties. The ARC considered the CRC's recommendations in their deliberations over the revised garage design. The Commission determined that that the revised garage design is compatible with all surrounding buildings not just the resident-scaled structures in the immediate area. In addition to the buildings identified by the CHC, the ARC considered the Masonic Lodge, the Parable Bookstore, the existing Parking Structure and the Downtown Center. The ARC felt that the revised garage design uses many of the same materials and colors as the surrounding historic structures. The ARC added a condition requiring the windows facing Morro Street to be vertically oriented to be more consistent with the architectural character of the surrounding structures, including the Post Office. The following information is provided for clarification to the CHC's findings C, D and E. Traffic and circulation were adequately addressed in the environmental documents that were approved by the Council in August 1999. The environmental documents found project-related and cumulative traffic impacts to be less than significant with mitigation. The project site is not within or adjacent to an-historic preservation district. The Downtown Historic District is on the north side of Marsh Street and separated by the street and existing buildings. While the project includes a small sliver of the post office, it does not involve rehabilitation of any historic structure for which the Secretary of Interior's Standards are intended. The Historical Preservation Guidelines do not require the reservation of vacant properties with the assumption that they may be developed with more historically compatible structures. 2. Pedestrian Environment The appellants believe that the ARC did not adequately address the pedestrian environment when considering the revised garage design. In their opinion, the new garage design is worse than the previous design in regards to direct pedestrian access to the Downtown Center through the mid- block crosswalk for the following reasons: 1) the new design does not provide a ground level pedestrian connection in the center of the garage between Pacific and Marsh Street; 2) the new design eliminates the elevator and stairway in the middle of the garage between Pacific and Marsh Street; and 3) the planned pedestrian traffic light at the mid-block crosswalk is dangerous for both pedestrians and drivers. According to the appellants, these project changes will force individuals into dangerous detours before reaching the Downtown Center from the garage. They 'T Council Agenda Report,A_ .:28-99 MOD(Appeal) Page 4 believe that the Marsh Street entrance should be closed to vehicles and the mid-block traffic signal eliminated. The ARC was concerned about the potential problems with eliminating the elevator and stairway at the primary garage entrance. Two conditions to improve pedestrian access and circulation were imposed by the Commission. The first condition requires the delineation of a pedestrian way from the Pacific Street exit to the Marsh Street alley to the Downtown Center. The second condition requires the installation of sidewalk bulb-outs at the southern and western corners of the Morro and Marsh Street intersection. Closure of the Marsh Street entrance was not addressed because the revised garage design does not involve changes to vehicular circulation. Traffic, circulation and parking were addressed in the certified environmental documents. It should, however, be noted that closing the Marsh Street entrance would require a new design and additional environmental review. 3. Aesthetics The appellants believe the new shear walls change the visual impact upon observers on Marsh and Pacific Streets. While the shear walls change the exterior appearance of the structure, the ARC felt that the changes were acceptable with some modifications. The ARC did not feel that the shear wall design would have a significant effect on the Pacific Street elevation given the overall length of the structure and the remaining openings on this side of the building. Similarly,the Commission did not feel that the new structural design would have a significant impact on the Marsh Street elevation because this side of the building is located behind several existing buildings that will screen most of the shear panels from the street. The ARC felt that the Morro Street elevation was the most critical, and they imposed several conditions to enhance this side of the building. Those conditions include: incorporating architectural embellishments such as scoring and other decorative treatments to the shear panel, modifying the windows to be vertically-oriented consistent with surrounding structures, enlarging the lobby windows facing the post office, redesigning the Morro Street entrance and the Pacific Street exit with a slight arch, and incorporating an ornamental arched form above the sheer panel, if the budget allows. 4. Security The appellants contend that the new shear walls limit visibility into the structure and conceal criminals. In September 2000, the Council approved elimination of the "blue" light safety system and television security system conduit as a cost-saving measure. However, given the revised design and budget, these items will be included as a bid alternate in the revised plans and specifications. Based on comments from the Public Works Department, it is staffs understanding that the garage will have security lighting and cameras. In addition, the presence of the offices should help with security to some extent. Council Agenda Report,A. �28-99 MOD(Appeal) � Page 5 CONCURRENCES The revised garage design was presented to City departments to determine if their previously recommended conditions and code requirements were still applicable or needed to be modified. No additional comments or conditions were received. FISCAL IMPACTS While the Council approved a $7.9 million project budget (including contingencies), it was the Council's direction to lower construction costs through redesign. The revised garage design reflects those Council directed changes, including elimination of the pedestrian bridge/gazebo, relocation of the elevator and stairway, use of a shear wall structural design, and less expensive applications of the exterior finish. If the revised design is denied, the original or a modified design would have to be constructed and the project costs would be much higher. The lowest construction bid for the original garage design was $8.1 million. The revised garage design is estimated to cost about $6.3 million to construct(including contingencies). ALTERNATIVES 1. The Council could uphold the appeal and deny the revised garage design with findings. Under this alternative, the Council approved changes would not be made and the original design would be followed, or the project dropped altogether. If the Council chooses to drop the project from consideration, it is recommended that draft resolution "B" be modified to reflect that decision. 2. The Council could deny the appeal, but make additional changes to the project and modify the conditions of approval. Under this alternative, the Council could keep most of the changes approved in September 2000. For example, the appellants argue that a centrally located elevator and stairwell are important to pedestrian access; the Council could require that the elevator/stairway be kept in its original location. 3. The Council may continue action on the project. Direction should be given to the applicant and staff. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1-Vicinity Map Attachment 2-Reduced-scale Plans of the Revised Garage Design Attachment 3-Draft Resolution"A"- Deny Appeal Attachment 4-Draft Resolution"137-Uphold Appeal Attachment 5-ARC approval letter dated February 8, 2001 Attachment 6-Minutes from the February 5, 2001 meeting. Attachment 7-ARC staff report dated February 5, 2001 Attachment 8- Appeal Letter and Form received February 15, 2001 JShoals/CC/ARC28-99(Appeal) N II/F HMW C C-C ' \" in" CJI 1�' / j •• �� FSG �•, i > / \ Vicinity Map 860 PACI FI C 80 0 8° Feet ARC 28-99 N — w c � = C O A A O A A O C- Z vii O `•i'_•a!i!i!i!a!litili/i i i i OW,Wi i t- •�j•'�U�•,_U�`�►t]�U�U�U�����U�U�� �U�U�U���U�U���U�•�U���U�U�O�U�U� '`11`11,ry,ply . II. Y •�. •,� - V a� ,rG Ipp SNNII i..,.n•. AM II�• ._�.'� �'�`��'LL� � ►,i , `- `. men JIMIN "� �o,•�, pit �IIMIwomm III I US ' u ... ��,T.. ISA ��I. li,•1``�1E . ��` • � L\I i. IN MEN Is' L.y .q j :f�;';' i .0 is r �, �► `n.►�..�, MAN \ ►�� ;\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\������������������\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\�\\\\\\\\\\\\\\��`,:Q\ Z ATTACHMENT_, 2 I v' 1 1 I I 1 r W I I 1 r I 1 W I I I 1 I 1 ,1 ly I 1 1" �• 1 1 1• • I I I V � I a I I �-ncs4'✓ W N w I 1 I I 11 I ' • Vl VI I }� 1 1 I 1 U I 1 I 1 I r I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I iI I 1 I 14 1 I I I I I I S I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 I I ,rl I I I II1 I I I 1 ^I I I n I 1 I I I 1 1 ♦ I I I I I 1 I 1 I F I I +Z 1 1 I I I•\ I I ' 1 Ipp 1 Y( 1 1 If I 1 1 I I I I II I I I _ 11 1 1 O 1 1 1 I I Q N w.. < o �\\ 7 Z W � J N w u.II o w r z i �U ATTACHMENT, 2 Z 0 1 � � z X W _ W I ' Q 1 I • 1- oQ.- W N W O J Q ,^ I U L V _ � I I I 1 r I -1- I• I I I { f I '.LI I L.. • I Q N W Z � C7 !JJ LUN _ � �- �' > o wq K (S) ATTACHMENT, 2 w I Q � w Lnw m � J J Q w 3 ( I r. s r o N r � J w w V � o 0 K w t 7 /V ATTACHMENT Draft Resolution "A" RESOLUTION NO. (2001 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S ACTION AND APPROVING CHANGES TO THE MARSH STREET GARAGE EXPANSION PROJECT AT 860 PACIFIC STREET, (ARC28-99MOD) WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo's Architectural Review Commission held a regular meeting on February 5, 2001 to consider changes to the Marsh Street Parking Garage Expansion project at 860 Pacific Street; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission on February 5, 2001 approved the project changes based on findings and subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, Eugene Judd, Save SLO, Citizens for Ethical Planning and the Old Town Neighborhood Association filed an appeal of that action on February 15, 2001, asking the City Council to consider denying the project; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on, March 20, 2001, for the purpose of considering the appeal to the Architectural Review Commission action on the project; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered testimony of the applicant, appellants, interested parties, the records of the Architectural Review Commission hearings and actions, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff. Resolution No. (200, .--ries) Page 2 ATTACHMENT v BE IT RESOLVED; by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of architectural review permit application ARC28-99 (MOD), the appeal, the Commission's decision, staff recommendation, public testimony, and reports thereof, makes the following findings: 1. The modified garage design (with the project changes) is in substantial compliance with the previous design that was approved by the ARC in October 1999. 2. The multi-level parking garage is consistent with the General Plan and the Downtown Physical Concept Plan, which shows the site developed with a parking structure. 3. The proposed use is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with surrounding uses with implementation of the conditions of approval and the mitigation measures contained in the FEIR and EIRS. SECTION2. Appeal Denied. The appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's action conditionally approving the project is hereby denied, and the ARC's action is upheld subject to the following conditions: 1. All applicable City Council approved mitigation measures contained in the Final EIR and EIRS shall be included as conditions of approval, and are incorporated herein by reference. 2. Final project design and construction drawings shall be in substantial compliance with the project plans as amended and approved by the ARC. 3. All applicable conditions from the previous approval shall apply to the revised garage design. 4. Architectural embellishments such as scoring and other decorative treatments shall be incorporated into the Morro Street Elevation. 5. Sidewalk bulb-outs shall be provided at the southern and western corners of the Morro Street and Marsh Street intersection. 6. A pedestrian way shall be delineated from the Pacific Street entrance of the structure leading pedestrians to the Marsh Street alley and the Downtown Center. '7 /o Resolution No. (200_ ..tries) Page 3 ATTACHMENT; v 7. The lobby windows on Morro Street, facing the Post Office shall be enlarged to allow for more natural light penetration. 8. Windows facing Morro Street should be vertically oriented to be more consistent with the architectural character of surrounding structures. 9. If the budget allows, an ornamental arched form above the sheer panel shall be incorporated into the Morro Street elevations. 10. The automobile entrance/exit on the Morro Street and Pacific Street elevations shall be designed with a slight arch, as shown on the original project plans. On motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 20h day of March 2001. Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: Lee Price, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: tyrn Je ey Jorgensen JShoals/CC/ARC28-99(Reso IutionA)_ 413 ATTACHMENT 4 Draft Resolution `B" RESOLUTION NO. (2001 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S ACTION AND DENYING CHANGES TO THE MARSH STREET GARAGE EXPANSION PROJECT AT 860 PACIFIC STREET,(ARC28-99MOD) WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo's Architectural Review Commission held a regular meeting on. February 5, 2001 to consider changes to the Marsh Street Parking Garage Expansion project at 860 Pacific Street; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission on February 5,. 2001 approved the project changes based on findings and subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, Eugene Judd, Save SLO, Citizens for Ethical Planning and the Old Town Neighborhood Association filed an appeal of that action on February 15, 2001, asking the City Council to consider denying the project; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on, March 20, 2001, for the purpose of considering the appeal to the Architectural Review Commission action on the project; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered testimony of the applicant, appellants, interested parties, the records of the Architectural Review Commission hearings and actions, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff. Resolution No. (206 .cries) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 2 BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of architectural review permit application ARC28-99 (MOD), the appeal, the Commission's decision, staff recommendation, public testimony, and reports thereof, makes the following findings: Council specifies findings SECTION2. Appeal Upheld. The appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's action is upheld, and the project changes denied. On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 20h day of March 2001. Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: Lee Price, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Jeffrey G. Jorgensen JShoals/CC/ARC28-99(ResolutionB)_ ATTACHMENT, 5 ��inu�lQlllll811111111l����� �I��IIIIIIIII� � Of S�►n WIS OBISPO clty 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 February 8, 2001 City of San Luis Obispo Keith Opalewski 1260 Chorro Street, Suite B San Luis Obispo, CA SUBJECT: ARC 28-99: 860 Pacific Street Review of changes to expansion plans for the Marsh Street Parking Structure Dear Keith: The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of February 5, 2001, granted final approval to the revised garage design based on the following findings, and subject to the following conditions, with project signage to return to the ARC for review at a later date: Findings 1. The revised garage design is in substantial compliance with the previously original design that was approved by the ARC in October 1999. 2. The multi-level parking garage is consistent with the General Plan and the Downtown Physical Concept Plan, which shows the site developed with a parking structure. 3. The proposed use is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with surrounding uses with implementation of the conditions of approval and the mitigation measures contained in the FEIR and EIRS. Conditions 1. All applicable City Council approved mitigation measures contained in the Final EIR and EIRS shall be included as conditions of approval, and are incorporated herein by reference. 2. Final .project design and construction drawings shall be in substantial compliance with the project plans as amended and approved by the ARC. OThe Giry San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. �� Telecommuofriications Device for the Deaf.(805) 781-7410. /� ARC 28-99 ATTACHMENT Page 2 --.__.-- 3. All applicable conditions from the previous approval shall apply to the revised garage design. 4. Architectural embellishments such as scoring and other decorative treatments shall be incorporated into the Morro Street Elevation. 5. Sidewalk bulb-outs shall be provided at the southern and western corners of the Morro Street and Marsh Street intersection. 6. A pedestrian way shall be delineated from the Pacific Street entrance of the structure leading pedestrians to the Marsh Street alley and the Downtown Center. 7. The lobby windows on Morro Street, facing the Post Office shall be enlarged to allow for more natural light penetration. 8. Windows facing Morro Street should be vertically oriented to be more consistent with the architectural character of surrounding structures. 9. If the budget allows, an ornamental arched form above the sheer panel shall be incorporated into the Morro Street elevations. 10. The automobile entrance/exit on the,Morro Street and Pacific Street elevations shall be designed with a slight arch, as shown on the original project plans. The ARC also granted final approval to the public art proposed over pedestrian entries at Pacific Street and Morro Street, based on the following finding and subject to the following condition. Finding 1. The proposed . public art is consistent with the criteria established by the City's Public Art Policy. Condition 1. The background for the artwork shall be a complimentary color, consistent with the approved colors for the parking structure, and shall not be black. The decision of the Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council within 10 days of the action. While the City's water allocation regulations are in effect, the Architectural Review Commission's approval expires after three years if construction has not started, unless the Commission designated a, different time period. On request, the Community Development Director may grant a single one-year extension. ARC 28-99 ATTACH *. 5 Page 3 ATTACHMENT If you have questions, please contact John Shoals at (805) 781-7166. Sincerely, ona Whisen d Development eview Manager cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office Fred Sweeney, AIA 935 Riverside Avenue, Suite 20 Paso Robles, CA 93446 Draft ARC Minutes February 5, 2001 . Page 2 6 AtTACHM�': The public hearing was closed. On motion by Commr. Lopes, seconded by Commr. Boudreau, the ARC granted the project final approval with conditions, as outlined in the meeting follow-up letter. AYES: Commrs. Lopes, Schultz, Boudreau, Metz, Stevenson NOES: None ABSENT: Commr. Rawson �� The motion passed. D "AFT 2. 860 Pacific Street. ARC 28-99; Review of changes to expansion plans for the Marsh Street Parking Structure; 0 zone; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. John Shoals Commr. Rawson left the hearing due to a potential conflict of interest with this item. Michael Codron, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending the Commission approve the proposed modifications, based on findings and find that the artwork proposed meets the City of San Luisetlispo Public Art Guidelines. The public hearing was opened. Fred Sweeney, project architect, deeteribed changes to the garage design, including elimination of the pedestrian bridge and changes to the overall structural system. He further described the impact of the changes relative to each elevation of the structure. The changes include relocation and reorientation of the elevators and solid face,.rather than a screen element, for the shear wall. Eugene Judd, 665 Leff Street, a member of the Institute of Transportation Engineers and a member of SAVE SLO said that he had significant concerns about the garage design. He stated that the massing and pedestrian orientation of the structure does not fit the town. He urged the ARC to follow the recommendation of the Cultural Heritage Committee. Mr. Judd testified that the revised garage design is unsafe. He described how pedestrians would move around the garage in the revised design. With the elimination of the bridge, he said that more pedestrians will be on the street and the design brings pedestrians to wrong place. He stated that traffic light mid-block is not warranted. He felt that the Marsh Street garage entrance should be closed completely and described the operational changes necessary to the surrounding streets to do this. Jane Shey, 544 Pacific #2.10, stated that as a pedestrian and cyclist she finds the Marsh Street entrance to be very daunting, and said that she has to be very careful in Draft ARC Minutes Page 3ry 5, 2001 ®RT pTTACHM �' this area. Stan Ryan said that the scale of the building doesn't match the scale of the surrounding streets. He said that with the existing garage, the addition will add to the massing of the structure. He felt that alternative locations for the garage were better. The public hearing was closed. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commr. Lopes asked for clarification from the Project Architect on several areas of the revised design. He stated that he would like to see a walkway defined through the bottom level of the garage that would take pedestrians to the sidewalk area that runs along the Marsh Street entrance. Commr. Lopes stated that he would prefer that the Morro Street entrance to the structure face Morro Street. He stated that the windows in the elevator could face San Luis Mountain. He went on to discuss signing, and felt that visibility of the entrance to users is important. He stated that the entries and exits would work better if the arch on previous drawings of the structure is repeated. Commr. Chandler stated that he was troubled by the massing of the structure and felt that additional setback for the upper lev S)of the structure could be helpful. Commr. Boudreau questionedwt�er or not the City had abandoned the bridge concept over Marsh Street. felt that given the constraints, the design of the structure was commendable. g'noted that he liked the current configuration of the Morro Street entrance and suggested that natural light in lobby spaces should be enhanced as much as possible. Commr. Schultz stated that the proposed changes do not change the overall project or prior approval. He stated that he supports bulb-outs at the Marsh and Morro Street intersection. Commr. Stevenson asked if the CHC had reviewed the initial project and if so would they have had a different recommendation. He asked for clarification of design elements on the Morro Street Elevation. He felt that a vertical orientation for the windows on Pacific Street would help the structure relate better to the adjacent structures. Commr. Stevenson questioned the font style for-the signing and suggested that the signage should return to the ARC for final approval. Prior to a motion the public hearing was briefly reopened to allow Eugene Judd to further describe how access to the structure could be redesigned to eliminate the Marsh Street entrance with operational changes to adjacent streets. On a motion by Commr. Boudreau, seconded by Commr. Schultz, the ARC approved the modifications to the design of the Marsh Street Parking Garage expansion, with Draft ARC Minutes February 5, 2001 Page 4 ATTACHMENT G project signage to return to the ARC .for review at a later date, based on findings and subject to conditions of approval as follows: Findings: 1. The revised garage design is in substantial compliance with the previously original design that was approved by the ARC in October 1999. 2. The multi-level parking garage is consistent with the General Plan and the Downtown Physical Concept Plan, which shows the site developed with a parking structure. 3. The proposed use is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with surrounding uses with implementation of the conditions of approval and the mitigation measures contained in the FEIR and EIRS. Conditions: 1. All applicable City Council approved mitigation measures contained in the Final EIR and FIRS shall be included as conditions of approval, and are incorporated herein by reference. 2. Final project design and construction vfrigs shall be in substantial compliance with the project plans as amended a. approved by the ARC. 3. All applicable conditions from th64previous approval shall apply to the revised garage design. 4. Architectural embellishments such as scoring and other decorative treatments shall be incorporated into the Morro Street Elevation. 5. Sidewalk bulb-outs shall be provided at the southern and western corners of the Morro Street and Marsh Street intersection. 6. A pedestrian way shall be delineated from the Pacific Street entrance of the structure leading pedestrians to the Marsh Street alley and the Downtown Center. 7. The lobby windows on Morro Street, facing the Post Office shall be enlarged to allow for more natural light penetration. 8. Windows facing Morro Street should be vertically oriented to be more consistent with the architectural character of surrounding structures. 9. If the budget allows, an ornamental arched form above the sheer panel shall be incorporated into the Morro Street elevations. Draft ARC Minutes February 5, 2001 A, � Page 5 -' " •N' T ATTACHMENT, 6 10. The automobile entrance/exit on the Morro Street and Pacific Street elevations shall be designed with a slight arch, as shown on the original project plans. AYES: Commrs. Chandler, Boudreau, Stevenson, Schultz, and Lopes NOES: Metz ABSENT: Commr. Rawson The motion passed. The Commission went on to discuss the proposed public art for the garage. Alan Riggles, the artist, presented a mock-up of the artwork and discussed the concept for three medallions that would be located over pedestrian entrances to the structure on Pacific Street and on Morro Street. He discussed how the medallions would be mounted and maintenance of the artwork. Ann Riem spoke and urged the Commission to approve the proposed artwork. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commr. Lopes expressed concerns over Pe;proposed artwork. He felt that the existing ceramic medallions on the parking would be more appropriate. He stated that the materials did not seem compatistr Ge with the materials used in the structure. Commr. Stevenson agreed with Commr. Lopes and stated that the artwork is not compatible with the building design and that it appeared_ somewhat medieval. He stated that the artwork would contrast with the more pastoral mural that was previously approved for the project. He felt that the medalfons were not integrated well with the building. Commr. Schultz asked about the selection criteria for the artwork and stated that he had problems with the process. Commr. Lopes offered a motion stating that the proposed public art is not consistent with evaluation criteria #3, the proposal is radically different from the context of the approved artwork, the site, and structures in the vicinity of the project. The motion was seconded by Commr. Stevenson, but failed on a 3-3 vote (Commrs. Metz, Boudreau, and Chandler voting no). Discussion continued and Commr. Lopes questioned whether or not the background color for the artwork could be changed to be more compatible with the proposed building colors. The artist addressed the issue and stated that the background color could be changed DRAFT �-ate Draft ARC Minutes - n February 5, 2001 Page 6 ATTACHMENT] E to whatever color the ARC desired. Commr. Boudreau stated that he supported the proposed artwork, and discussed the spacing between each layer of the components of the medallion. He felt that the spacing would provide for an added effect when light shines on the medallions. On a motion by Commr. Boudreau, seconded by Commr. Chandler, the ARC approved the proposed public art with direction to pursue softening of the background color. AYES: Commrs. Chandler, Boudreau, Lopes, Metz NOES: Commrs. Stevenson, Schultz ABSENT: Commr. Rawson 3. 9611231 Bonetti Drive. ARC 160-00; Review of a new 33,000 squar ice/technology building; ,C-S-SP zone; Fibercoast, LLC, applicant hn s Michael Codron, ciate Planner; presented the staff report mending the Commission grant pproval to the project, based on fi , and subject to conditions, as noted. The public hearing was open Mike Peachey said he is not to for s exceptions, may lose 1/300. But tenants may uses so not concerned about reduction with tenants ddresses can be provided west to Sueldo. Wouldn' on for hallway so all future tenants can access level chec The public hearing was clos Commr. Lopes asked oading dock size. The applican ded — different than City's II standards. would obstr aisle. Asks about outdoor use and applicant responded Commr. Ch asked about.ARC on parking exception requ ikes project, f ck is extensive, likes different block types on front elevation. Co oudreau 10% parking reduction, wants outdoor spaces next S I. Decks should be used by multiple tenants. ommr. Schultz agreed with staff recommendation. ATTACHMM IN 7 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM #�_ BY: John Shoals, Associate Planner MEETING DATE: February 5, 2001 FROM: Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manager f/1 FILE NUMBER: ARC 28-99 PROJECT ADDRESS: 860 Pacific Street SUBJECT: Modifications to the ARC-approved design and a determination on public art proposed for the Marsh Street Parking Garage Expansion Project at the northerly corner of Pacific and Morro Streets RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission takes the following actions: 1. Grant final approval to the revised parking garage design based on findings and subject to conditions; and 2. Find that the artwork proposed for the Marsh Street Parking Garage expansion meets the City of San Luis Obispo Public Art Guidelines. BACKGROUND: Situation The proposed project consists of two components—a request for modifications to the previously approved Marsh Street Parking Garage Expansion project and a determination on public art proposed for the structure. The first component is a request to modify the parking garage design that was approved by the Architectural Review Commission in October 1999. Because the construction bids for the original garage design exceeded the estimated construction costs, the City Council directed City staff and the project architect, Phillip Metsch Sweeney Moore (PMSM) to revise the garage design to lower costs. PMSM has revised the design and submitted the new design to City staff for review. While the structure's size and shape are generally the same, there are some significant changes that would affect the structure's appearance. The most notable revisions include: replacement of portions of the open style screening(on the upper levels) with solid shear walls; elimination of the pedestrian bridge and gazebo; and relocation of the elevator and second floor restrooms. A complete description of the revisions is contained in the evaluation section of this report. Staff felt that the proposed revisions were significant enough to require ARC approval. The ARC is being asked to approve the revised garage design. ��y ARC 28-99, Marsh Street I :;king Garage Expansion —' MIACHMENTj • .4 6 Page 2 The second component is a request for a determination on three art pieces to be mounted over the Pacific Street exit and over the pedestrian entrance on Morro Street. This public art is in addition to the artwork approved at the concaved wall at the southeasterly comer of the structure. It was added by the City Council when they approved the construction budget increase and it satisfies the City requirement for incorporating public art with capital improvement projects. The City's Arts in Public Places Policy requires the ARC to determine if a proposed public art project meets the established criteria for public art. Project Data Summary Address: 860 Pacific Street Applicant: City of San Luis Obispo Representative: Phillips, Metsch, Sweeney, Moore Architects Zoning: O (Office) and C-C (Central Commercial) General Plan: Office and General Retail Environmental status: City Council certified the Final Environmental. Impact Report in November of 1997 and EIR Supplement on August 17, 1999. Project action deadline: March 1, 2001 A. PARKING GARAGE MODIFICATIONS Previous Review and Actions In August of 1999, the City Council approved a use permit, with exceptions to building height,. building setbacks and lot coverage, to allow the construction of a multi-level parking structure on the subject property. The City Council's action allowed the applicant to move forward with the project design and construction of the parking structure expansion. The ARC initially reviewed the original garage design in May 1999 and granted final approval to the project in October 1999. The original design consisted of a four-level parking structure, ground level offices, a pedestrian bridge and gazebo (see Attachment 2). Attachment 3 is a copy of the ARC approval letter and Attachment 4 is a copy of the minutes from the October 2000 meeting. Construction documents (drawings and specifications) were completed and sent out for bids in May 2000. In July 2000, construction bids were presented to the City Council. Because they exceeded the construction cost estimates, the Council rejected all of the bids and directed that the garage be redesigned to reduce construction costs. Over the past six months, City staff and the project architect have been working to modify the garage design to lower construction costs, as directed by the Council. Several design changes were directed by City Council, including: eliminating the pedestrian bridge and gazebo, removing the ground level offices, changing the structural design from a "moment" to "shear wall" system, relocating and redesigning the elevator tower and staircase. The .Council also asked the architect to look at cheaper forms of exterior finish such as different application for the aMs ARC 28-99, Marsh Street�-.. icing Garage Expansion - ! Page 3 ATTACHMEM� 7 c exterior plaster. City Council also inquired about the possibility of providing secondary access from Morro Street. The current design provides for this access through the post office customer entrance off Morro Street. This secondary access will be defined with signage and additional striping, if necessary. The revised garage design was completed in December 2000. The Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) reviewed the revised garage design on January 22, 2001. The revised design was sent to the CHC because some City Council members expressed an interest in getting CHC advice on the project since it includes a small portion of the post office property, which is on the City's Master List of Historic Properties. The CHC's recommendation is discussed in the analysis section of this report. It should be noted that the original project design was not formally reviewed by the CHC for the following reasons: 1) Cultural resources were analyzed in the certified environmental documents (the Final EIR and Final EIR Supplement) and found to be less than significant with mitigation requiring the filing of a plan with the State Historic Preservation Office and possibly on-site monitoring during construction; 2) the garage expansion project would not change the architectural style and historic character of the Post Office building because it would only affect the loading dock and customer parking lot; 3) a past CHC reviewed the removal of the former office and residence at 860 Pacific Street, and determined that it was not significant; 4) CHC review was not required by the City's regulations or by the requirements of other agencies: the garage expansion is to be built over the customer parking lot, which is a separate parcel (owned by the City) that was not in or adjacent to a historical preservation district; and 5) the final environmental documents analyzed potential visual impacts to the surrounding area, including buildings acknowledged to have some cultural significance (the Post Office, the Presbyterian Church, the Masonic Lodge, the Zion Lutheran Church and the Regan House) and concluded that the impacts would be less than significant because the project would not remove or change any of these buildings, or place the structure between a public street and these buildings. Original Garage Design The original design included a four-level parking structure, ground level offices, a pedestrian bridge and gazebo. Under the original design, the approximate 42-foot tall structure was set back 15 feet from the street with the 18-foot tall offices located at the rear of the sidewalk (a 0-foot setback). The original design also included a 52-foot tall elevator at the primary entrance to the structure. Building materials consisted of exterior plaster, ceramic tile, brick, vinyl clad chain link fencing, clay tile roofing, metal railing and aluminum storefront glazing. Building colors included creme, tan, brown, and brick red for the walls, and green for the vinyl clad fencing, metal railings and pedestrian bridge. The original plans are included.as Attachment 2. Revised Garage Design The revised garage design consists of a four-level parking structure with ground level offices along the streets. Although the revised design contains many of the same elements and treatments, there are some noticeable changes, which affect the structure's appearance. Those revisions are described in the following paragraphs and shown in Attachment 5. ARC 28-99, Marsh Street ! .-_-king Garage Expansion ATTACHMENT] t� t Page 4 1. The pedestrian bridge and gazebo was eliminated. With this change, the existing entry arch at Marsh Street would remain. The right-hand tum lane and stoplights at the mid-block of Marsh Street (at the existing street crossing) would be installed as required by the final environmental documents. 2. The elevator tower was relocated and the staircase (at the parking entrance) eliminated. With removal of the pedestrian bridge, there is no need to have an elevator or stairway at parking garage entrance. PMSM designed a new elevator enclosure, which incorporates the elevator with the stair tower, at the northeast corner of the structure (near Morro Street). 3. The second floor public restrooms were removed and placed on the ground floor along Morro Street. With elimination of the bridge, there is no need to have restrooms at that location. 4. The structural design was changed from a "moment" to a"shear wall" system to significantly reduce costs. 5. The application of the exterior plaster was changed from a hand-applied finish to a sprayed finish to match the existing Marsh Street Garage. Analysis Staff finds the revised garage design to be consistent with the original plans in regards to circulation/access, size, shape, height, setbacks, lot coverage, building materials and color scheme. The primary concern with the revised project is the change in the structural design and its potential effect on the structure's appearance. The original project used a moment design system that allowed for long continuous openings on the upper levels of the structure. These openings, which were screened with green vinyl clad chain link fencing, allowed light and air into the structure and to broke up the massive appearance of the building. The revised project uses a shear wall design that requires portions of these openings to be replaced with solid wall. The concern is that the new structural design includes large solid walls that may affect the scale, massing and appearance of the building. The new shear walls are illustrated in the revised building elevations (Attachment 5). While the shear wall design will alter the structures appearance, it will have varying impacts on the different portions of the building. The shear wall design would not have a significant effect on the south building elevation (the Pacific Street elevation) given the overall length of the structure and the remaining openings on this side of the building. Similarly, the new structural design would not have a significant impact on the north building elevation (the Marsh Street elevation) because this side of the building is located behind several existing buildings (i.e., the Masonic Lodge, the Parable Book Store and the U.S. Post Office) that will screen it from the street. In staff's opinion, the shear wall design would have the greatest effect on the east building elevation (the Morro Street elevation) because it would replace the continuous opening (at the center of this facade) with solid wall panels. The project architect has tried to provide visual ,c,!—°?� ARC 28-99, Marsh Street'f-�"ring Garage Expansion ATTACHMENT; 7 Page 5 relief through landscaping and architectural detailing such as an integrated column and cornice treatment. The ARC should decide if this section of the wall needs additional treatments such as scoring, artwork or other embellishment. CHC Recommendation As previously mentioned, the CHC reviewed the revised garage design on January 22, 2001. The Committee members determined that the garage design is not architecturally compatible with the historic post office or other historic structures in the surrounding area. They felt.that the size and scale of the structure was not compatible with these historic resources or the adjacent Downtown Historical District (on the north side of Marsh Street). The CHC meeting update is included as Attachment 6. It should be noted that the CHC's action is advisory to the ARC, and that purpose of this report is to analyze the proposed changes to the previously approved design. B. PUBLIC ART As previously mentioned, the revised garage design now includes an added public art component. The original design included a mural (at the southeast.building corner), which is still part of the proposal. This added public art consists of three art pieces to be mounted over the Pacific Street exit and over the pedestrian entrance on Morro Street. The art pieces are comprised of six layers of one-quarter inch aluminum plate (approximately 48 inches in diameter) cut out in a contemporary design and mounted within a square frame. The artist, Alan Riggle; and the City's Public Arts representative will be at the hearing to present the artwork to the Commission and to answer any questions. Attachment 7 is a photograph of the artwork. The City's Arts in Public Places Policy requires the ARC to determine if a proposed public art project meets the established criteria, including: location; visibility; accessibility; compatibility with the site and neighborhood; the appropriateness of amenities (i.e., landscaping, lighting and interpretative information); artistic expression; and potential environmental effects. These criteria are discussed in the evaluation section of this report. The applicant is asking the ARC to find that the artwork meets the City's public arts guidelines. Analysis The City's Public Art Policy designates the ARC to evaluate the proposal for the following: 1. Public art shall be located within public right-of-way, or shall otherwise be easily visible or accessible from a public right-of-way. The Public Art will be located at the Pacific Street exist and the pedestrian access on Morro Street. Both of these locations are very visible from the public right-of-way. 2. The design and placement of public art shall not impede pedestrian or vehicle traffic, or conflict with public or private easements. The Public Art is out of the way ARC 28-99, Marsh Street i`:King Garage Expansion ATTACHMENT Page 6 of pedestrian and vehicle travel. Therefore, it will not conflict with any private or public easements.. 3. Public art shall be compatible with the immediate site and neighborhood in terms of architectural scale, materials, land use and the site's historical and environmental context. The public art will be compatible with the site in terms of scale and materials. However, the ARC will need to determine if it compatible with the neighbor and representative of the site's historical and environmental context. 4. Public art shall be integrated with the site, and include landscaping; lighting, interpretive information, and other amenities where appropriate. The Public Art will be mounted onto the building. No lighting details have been provided. 5. Permanent. public art shall be constructed of durable, high-quality materials and require minimal or no maintenance. Temporary public art shall be constructed of materials appropriate to its duration of public display. The Public Art is to be constructed of aluminum plate that will be powder coated and painted. 6. A wide variety of artistic expression is encouraged. Expressions of profanity, vulgarity, or obvious poor taste are inappropriate. The proposal does not appear to be profane, vulgar or in poor taste. 7. Artwork shall reflect a high level or artistic excellence and shall be installed by persons with the necessary technical experience and knowledge. The artist, Alan Riggle, has completed other projects in the City of and County of San Luis Obispo. 8. Public art shall not directly or indirectly cause adverse environmental effects, or otherwise jeopardize public health, safety or welfare. There is no indication that the Public Art will have any adverse effects on the public or environment. OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS The Public Works Department is the official project applicant. No other departments were asked for comments on the revised garage design. ALTERNATIVES 1. Grant final approval without items to return to staff or the Commission. 2. Continue review of the project. Direction should be given to the applicant regarding desired information or needed revisions to plans. 3. Deny the project. Action denying the application should include the basis for denial. ARC 28-99, Marsh Street r:_King Garage Expansion ATTACHMENT; 6 Page 7 RECOMMENDATION A. Grant final approval to the revised garage design based on the findings, and subject to the conditions. Findings L. The revised garage design is in substantial compliance with the previously original design that was approved by the ARC in October 1999. 2. The multi-level parking garage is consistent with the General Plan and the Downtown Physical Concept Plan, which shows the site developed with a parking structure. 3. The proposed use is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with surrounding uses with implementation of the conditions of approval and the mitigation measures contained in the FEIR and FIRS. Conditions 4. All applicable City Council approved mitigation measures contained in the Final EIR and FIRS shall be included as conditions of approval, and are incorporated herein by reference. 5. Final project design and construction drawings shall be in substantial compliance with the project plans as amended and approved by the ARC. 6. All applicable conditions from the previous approval shall apply to the revised garage design. 7. Architectural embellishments such as scoring and other decorative treatments shall be incorporated into the Morro Street Elevation. B. Find that the public art for the Marsh Street Garage Expansion project meets the criteria for public art and recommend City Council approval of the project. ATTACHMENTS 1. Viesiftivy Map- -27 Original Project Plans -3- ARC Approval Letter dated October 7, 1999. n Minutes from tl,e n Dr .,,00riAg Of n,.., ber-n 1999 —5. Revised PLCjCCt PiMM fr. Action Update from the CHC January 22, 2001 meeting Colored Drawings of the original and revised garage design were distributed in the ARC packets. "3D ATTACHMENT] • 6 u ORIGINAL DESIGN J.'.-11H.S OZIHOW v �•o F f. u�l o n 1 4 S • I U ���l r��• IS' L .. JJI •: ••a�.x. wu uw•w,r. ....... ...... 1: r r 13 v. v. © p 0 4 r N O O Y w a i UU� ll)AN .G•Ifl21.l.ti 021L01 L� O cyi m Q W6- .!/-r31 n 5u � i ATTACHMENT] 6' W - = ORIGINAL DESIGN -i - Rio a� J c J 'i _ LO r J � W is i � W U N •• ir W J N �l-3� ATTACHMENT; r-' s' ORIGINAL DESIGN dfig 1 ' h a c � = "e e f _ ^ .E z LLO r J W r r W W o _T L U) .2 0 r N N ` �33 ATTACHMENT; ORIGINAL DESIGN T c-rc- - -I'll �� 0 w F- w 0 U) 0 u iL w U u CL U) Ll-3 ATTACHMENT: a city of IUIS opo Bis 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 October 7, 1999 City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department Attn Keith Opalewski 1260 Chorro Street, Suite B San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: ARC 28-99 - 860 Pacific Street Review of an addition to the Marsh Street Parking Structure Dear Keith: The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of October 4, 1999, granted final approval to your project, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions and code requirements: Findings 1. The multi-level parking garage is consistent with the General Plan and the Downtown Physical Concept Plan which show the site developed with a parking structure. 2. The proposed use is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with surrounding uses with implementation of the conditions of approval and the mitigation measures contained in the FEIR and EIRS. Conditions 1. All City Council approved mitigation measures contained in the Final EIR and EIRS shall be included as conditions of approval, and are incorporated herein by reference. 2. Final project design and construction drawing shall be in substantial compliance with the project plans as amended and approved by the ARC. 3. Project lighting shall be designed to comply with the ARC standards for height and illumination levels. The lighting system shall be designed to achieve a maximum illuminance of 10 foot candles at the property line. A photometric survey showing the lighting levels generated at the parking structure and at the property lines shall be prepared by an electrical engineer and submitted to the Community Development Department. © The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. / 2 ARC 28-99 Page 2 ' ATTACHh1ENTA s 4. One additional street tree is required. on Pacific Street unless waived by the City Arborist. 5. The transit stop located on Marsh Street, east of Chorro Street, shall be retained. (Currently, a turning lane is indicated adjacent to the curb from Chorro to the entrance to the parking structure entrance.) Transit vehicles will occupy this turn lane when transit stops are being made. 6. The bicycle lane striping adjoining the proposed turn lane into the parking structure shall be retained as a solid striped line. 7. Remove eight (8) existing on-street parking spaces on Pacific Street at its intersection with Morro Street to improve stopping sight distance and accommodate bulb-outs. The spaces shall be removed as follows: a) All spaces on the northerly side of Pacific, between Morro and the existing parking garage exit. b) All spaces on the southerly side of Pacific, between Morro and the new parking garage exit. c) One space on Pacific at the northeast corner of Morro. d) Two spaces on Pacific at the southeast corner of Morro. e) All spaces on the easterly side of Morro, from Marsh to the Post Office truck entrance. 8. Soften the appearance of the pedestrian bridge by incorporating arches and architectural detailing. 9. Reduce the size of the gazebo/elevator tower and relocate landscaping to maintain adequate access via the existing ramp between the planter and stairs (down to the cinemas). 10. Use a different material (ceramic tile or brick) for the exterior walls of the elevator motor room. Code Requirements 1. Based upon a total parking space count of 341, 8 accessible parking spaces are required. At least 1 space shall be a van accessible space with an 8 foot unloading zone. A minimum clearance of 8'-2" shall be provided along the vehicle access path to and from the accessible parking spaces. 2. Curb ramps affording wheel chair access shall be provided on the ground floor level along pedestrian paths of travel into and within the structure. �3� ARC 28-99 ATTACHMENT, Page 3 - - - - 3. Where the office spaces are sharing a common toilet room, either provide an additional exit to the outside from the common access area or provide individual toilet rooms to each office space. 4. Based on the property line location shown, the openings in the north wall of the structure (opposite the Post Office building) are NOT permitted. As shown, the wall must be of one-hour fire-resistive construction (less than 10 feet from the property line).All driveway ramps must be ADA compliant. Driveway ramps shown on the plans do not reflect the current City Standard Nos. 2110 (Marsh) & 2111 (Morro & Pacific). 5. A water allocation may be required, due to the addition of restroom and office facilities. However, appropriate credit would be given for the old Recreation Department building which has been removed. Currently, a water allocation can only be obtained through the water retrofit program. The City's Water Conservation Division will determine any needed allocation and any necessary retrofits. Water Conservation can be reached by calling 781-7258. 6. Water and Wastewater Impact Fees may be required at the time a building permit is issued. Both the Water and the Wastewater Impact Fees are based on the size of any new water meters that are installed with the project, with appropriate credit being given for the meter that served the old Recreation building. The cost of developing an allocation through retrofit could offset a portion of the required Water Impact Fee according to appropriate City policies. The height of the building may necessitate the use of approved backflow prevention devices on certain connections to the City system. The construction plans shall be reviewed by the County Department of Environmental Health for any backflow prevention requirements. The County cross-connection inspector, Henry Ruiz, can be reached at 781-5567 The decision of the Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council within 10 days of the action. While the City's water allocation regulations are in effect, the Architectural Review Commission's approval expires after three years if construction has not started, unless the Commission designated a different time period. On request, the Community Development Director may grant a single one-year extension. If you have questions, please contact John Shoals at (805) 781-7166. Sincerely, cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office Fred L. Sweeney, AIA ,�� 935 Riverside Avenue, Suite 20 4ald Whis and Paso Robles, CA 93446 opme Review Manager 14-37 1 ATTACHh1ENT, rs MEETING UPDATE Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee City Council Hearing Room (Room 9) 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo January 22, 2001 Monday 5:30 p.m. Call Members to Order: Vice-Chairman Bob Pavlik, Paula Carr, Steve McMasters, Margot Mcdonald, Tom Wheeler and Matt Whittlesey. Chairman Schrage was absent. Staff: Jeff Hook and Michael Codron, Associate Planners. Council Member: Christine Mulholland. Public Comments: Lee Price, City Clerk, presented possible interior changes to the Council Chamber to provide an appropriate backdrop for video taping City Council meetings. She noted that since City Hall is a historic resource, the CHC's suggestions on appropriate design or materials were requested. Committee members liked the idea of curtains to provide a "neutral" background. They suggested that the material selected should meet three criteria: it should be reversible, without damaging the original wood paneling; it should be unobtrusive, and it should be compatible with the room's historic decor. Mr. Hook noted the Committee had received a letter from Caltrans asking for comments on a proposed widening of South Street, near the Village Motel and Trailer Park. Due to the possibility of historic significance, he suggested the Committee schedule the item for its February meeting, to which the Committee unanimously agreed. is Hearing Items: • ARC-M -00; 742 Center Street: Review proposed residential additio r a contributing ric property. Michael Codron presented t aff report. Curt Illingswo rchitect, described the project. Ron and Karen Meade, o s, were also ent. Committee members felt the proposed addition was compatible wi u original architectural character, was small-scale and maintained the house's. on earance from the public street. In response to a question from the o r, Committee m ers asked staff to report back at the February meeting on Jble measures to provide n ' of historic listing to new owners of historic p rhes. On a motion by Committee ember McMasters, seconded by Co ittee member Carr, the Committee determined t the proposed project wou not impact the historic, architectural or aesthetic sign ' nce of the contrib g historic property, and referred the matter back to the munity De opment Director with a recommendation to approve the project as propose . The otion carried 6-0. Jo CHC Meeting Update, January 22, 2001 ATTACHMENT] c Page 3 cussion and on a motion by Committee member Wheeler, seconded by Committee mem cMasters, the Committee recommended that the Architectural w Commission jpprG4w the proposed demolition of the 2-story garage a artment as part of the restoration oJPVxa4RasaButron de Canet de Sim obe, subject to the requirements of the City's Demolition uilding on Code and based on the condition that: 1) the City retain a qualifi aeologLit to assist in the preparation of a demolition plan, and to pre a archaeological resou anagement report describing measures to en to monitor, evaluate and document the ng during demolition, an investigate evaluate artifacts which may lie below the stru pursu the City's Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines. The motion ed, 5-1 (Committee member Carr voted no). 5. ARC 28-99, 860 Pacific Street: Review changes to expansion plans for the Marsh Street Public Parking Structure, located in the Downtown Historic District. Jeff Hook presented the staff report and briefly traced steps leading up to CHC review. Eugene Judd, citizen, spoke against the project and felt it was out of character with the historic downtown and created traffic hazards for pedestrians on Marsh Street due to the expected increase in traffic entering the enlarged parking structure. Cindy Karten, 863 Pacific Street, concemed with the effects of increased traffic on Pacific Street exiting the structure, opposite the historic Zion Lutheran Church. She cited frequent "fender benders"on Pacific Street with existing traffic levels and that would worsen with the project. She hoped that landscaping and architectural detailing for proposed offices along Pacific Street are maintained in the proposed project. Paul Karlen, her husband, agreed with these concerns and suggested that one-way traffic on Pacific Street would be a good idea. Gene Shea, 544 Pacific Street, said she was opposed to having the parking structure's main entrance from Marsh Street due to hazards to pedestrians, and felt this was the wrong location for this project. Keith Opalewski, City Parking Manager, and Fred Sweeney, architect described the project and explained measures taken to integrate the structure with the scale and character of surrounding buildings. Lengthy discussion followed. Committee members unanimously felt the proposed parking structure addition was not compatible with the scale and character of adjacent historic resources and would adversely affect the historic character of Downtown due to "densification" of the site. Committee members noted that being involved at a late stage in the development review process made it difficult to provide meaningful input. They noted the scale contrast between the parking structure and U.S. Post Office and Presbyterian Church from Morro Street. On a motion by Vice-Chairman Pavlik, seconded by Committee member McMasters, the Committee determined that the proposed garage addition is not architecturally compatible with the surrounding historic properties or consistent with the City's Historic Preservation Guidelines, based on the following findings: • The massing and scale of the proposed addition is too large for the adjacent historic buildings, specifically the historic U.S. Post Office (693 Marsh Street), the historic First Presbyterian Church (951 Marsh Street), the historic Regan House (1306 Chorro Street), and the historic Zion Lutheran Church (863 Pacific Street). 11-39 n CHC Meeting Update, January 22, 2001 Page a ATTACHMENT; The proposed project is inconsistent with the architectural style and materials of historic structures noted above. The project will preclude the development of other, more historically compatible structures at this location. • Increased traffic and densification resulting from the project will have a significant adverse, cumulative effect on the longevity of historic properties in the Downtown Historic District. • The project is inconsistent with City Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Properties because it would adversely affect the setting of adjacent historic properties. SCUSSION ITEMS: • onsideration of rescheduling the. February 26, 2001 CHC eeting to T sday, February 27, 2001. On a motion Committee member McMasters, seconded b Committee member Wheeler, the Co ittee voted 6-0 to reschedule the Februa 6, 2001 meeting to the following day, Febru 27, 2001, due to a time conflict w' the City Council's special meeting on the CHC's r lar meeting date. • Review and possibl revision of a Historic Photo-documentation Standards. On a motion by Committee membe heeler, seconded by Committee member McMasters, this item was continued the F ary meeting on a 6-0 vote. INFORMATION ITEM: • Recent gradin and fire at the historic Long- onetti Ranch, 3897 So. Higuera Str t. Staff reporte the City Fire Marshall's findings that a recent fire at historic Long- Bonetti R ch was accidentally caused, and described damage caused b cent illegal grading t the site. ITEMS FOR THE FEBRUARY 2001 CHC MEETING: • Property owner notice of historic property listing. • South Street Widening • Photo-documentation standards 4V ATTACHMENT] 8 !MAW city Of SAn LUSS Obispo maze APPEAL, TO THE CITY COUNCIL In accordance with the appeals procedures as authorized by Title, 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals.from the decision of "14R rendered on 1 W. S, Z oo( , Qk, 21 which consisted of the following (i.e., explain what you are appealing and the grounds for submitting the appeal. Appeal Re: Marsh Street Parking Garage Expansion Summary: On January 22, 2001, the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC)unanimously decided that the "garage design is not architecturally compatible"with the surroundings. In their meeting of February 5 the Architectural Review Commission(ARC) totally ignored this advice and decided to continue to review the project. Save SLO, Citizens for Ethical Planning and the Old Town Neighborhood Association appeal to the City Council to please stop the project in its current form while continuing to promote the Copeland's "Chinatown Project", combined with fast and inexpensive Parking Reduction Measures (PDR). The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed wi ,'cC ae( �v�GfinH Cvu... . drve/. on 1=e/. 7, .2eD/ Name/Department // (Date) Appellant: 3 o�fcc�,.'�..o('I'. ,)ecrt�n��•' fA'l/� (LD c.o • ✓ea NameTtleMailing Address (& Zip Code) 4Lq 10a e, 4- S1�6-- 9003 ' Fe:x S--54 s— goo s / Home Phone Work Phone Jq sear @ Par 6el1 HeT Representative: �� ems. ✓U� 66S Z eA4 J;41, .CL 0 c4 93 Vol ameMtle Mailing Address (& Zip Code) 7SE - /7Z 9, Fe//o,, IF e,j4,dLD ta/�o%,�ol� For Official Use Only: Calendared for March a010140l Date & Time Received: c: City Attorney City Administrative Officer RECEIVED Copy to the following department(s): (-ion whisena.nd FEB 15 2001 dhn ZhoaIS SLO CITY CLERK Original in City Clerk's Office ATTACHMENT S cY`d SAVE SLO - - - 4 RUV Innal Appeal Re: Marsh Street Parking Garage Expansion �DowrrroW gyp Summary •Y - On January 22, 2001, the Cultural Heritage Committee unanimously decided that the "garage design is not architecturally compatible" with the surroundings. In their meeting of February 5 the Architectural Review Commission totally ignored this advice, decided to continue reviewing the project and proposed slight changes. - Save SLO, Citizens for Ethical Planning and the Old Town Neighborhood Association appeal to the City Council to please stop the project in its current form while continuing to promote the Copeland's "Chinatown Project", combined with fast, inexpensive Parking Management and Parking Reduction Measures (PDR). - ' We deem it appropriate that the garage expansion is not on the Council Goals 2001-03 any more. Purpose of this appeal - The appellants thank both commissions for conducting the above meetings in a friendly and correct manner. However, in the ARC meeting we did not have enough time to refute the misleading statements of the project architect concerning traffic. This is done under point 5. - For the citizens,this "Downtown big parking box" is much more emotional than all the"big boxes" along Los Osos Valley Road taken together. The main purpose of this appeal is to make sure that the Council understands the grave consequences of the current project for the downtown atmosphere and economic vitality. We would like to avoid the renewed.misuse of private industry to make expensive bids for a project which—in our opinion—is.rejected by a majority of the population and contains highly disturbing flaws on all levels: planning, design and construction economy. Based on the laudable Council Goals for 2001-2003 of February 5, 2001, we ask you to consider the following: 1. Cultural heritage and downtown aesthetics 1.1 Meeting of the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) The minutes of the CHC meeting of January 22, 2001, read(in part) as follows: • "The massing and scale of the proposed addition is too large for the adjacent historic buildings, specifically..." • The proposed project is inconsistent with the architectural style and materials of historic structures noted above. • The project will preclude the development of other,more historically compatible structures at this location. • Increased traffic and densification resulting from the project will have a significant adverse, cumulative effect on the longevity of historic properties in the Downtown Historic District. 1 ATTAcHMENn'; s • The project is inconsistent with City Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Properties because it would adversely affect the setting of adjacent historic properties. (Italics by appellants) Note that even Consultant Meyer Mohaddes writes, that the garage does not fit normal "recommended siting criteria"(Progress Report No. 2,top of page 33, 1997). 1.2 Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission(ARC) Massing The ARC did not even discuss the above CHC statement and continued to accept the nonconforming massing of the garage. This enormous massing (heavy overruns in height and footprint, insufficient setbacks) was rejected by the Planning Commission with a 5:2 vote in the summer of 1999, but later accepted by the Council. The ARC never mentioned on which guidelines or federal standards they base their conclusions, which appear to be highly subjective. Pedestrian environment The ARC only vaguely addressed the pedestrian environment which is crucial to any architectural judgment. For example... • The enormous benefits and the feasibility of a closure of the Marsh Street vehicular entrance were discussed only very briefly . • The newest project is worse than the previous one when it comes to direct pedestrian access to the Downtown Center through the mid-block crosswalk on Marsh Street. Counts show, that this crosswalk is the main"pedestrian desire line". Accident statistics prove, that the midblock crosswalk is safer than crossing at the intersection of Chorro and Marsh Street., • In the new plans the highly important stairway and elevator in the middle of the garage between the Parable and the Masonic Temple are eliminated. On the ground floor there is no more pedestrian connection in the center of the garage between Pacific and Marsh Street: Pedestrians, especially disabled persons, are forced into dangerous detours when reaching the Downtown Center from the garage. This flaw can only be overcome by closing the Marsh Street entrance to vehicles. • If the expansion were ever built, an elevator in the center of the garage would be a must. Some ARC members were rightly concerned about some of these weaknesses. • The planned pedestrian traffic light at the mid block crosswalk is not only an unacceptable chicane for the pedestrian and dangerous from the drivers point of view (three traffic lights too close together; liability). It is also an architectural nuisance which was not discussed at the ARC meeting. If this mid block traffic light were built, our whole downtown pedestrian philosophy is under attack.,.'Therefore, if the garage project should continue, we ask the Council to please immediately submit it to the Planning Commission and to create the much needed Parking and Access Commission as promised in the new council goals for the years 2001-03. 2 L/ �_ l3 ATTACHMENT; 8 Aesthetics and security The new shear walls—massive walls without windows at the outside of the building—change the visual impact upon observers in.Marsh and Pacific Streets very negatively.The"biggest big box" in town begins to look like a correctional institution or a bunker. Unfortunately the elevations shown in the ARC staff report create a false impression as the shear walls are hidden behind trees. We ask the council to look at the new facades without trees and to consider the fact, that observers in certain locations.of Pacific Street do not see the whole fagade but only one towering shear wall without windows. These walls are a security risk as one cannot look into the garage from many locations outside. Criminals can hide much easier now. The fact that we have already cut back on other security features of the garage is an additional concern. It would be helpful to hear the opinion of the police chief, because security is a prime factor. 1.3 General interest - The County Historical Society shows new dynamics and a broad interest in the above topic. - The Downtown Association brought in an expert from the National Trust for Historic Preservation in connection with their"Strategic Plan". It would be appropriate to hear his opinion about our downtown"walkability" and how this relates to such a massive garage in the middle of downtown. - The opinion of architect Peter Calthorpe on our"much too narrow sidewalks"has been noted. - Lois Capps, during a recent visit, voiced "concerns about the cultural heritage along Marsh Street". - We therefore urge the Council to reject any statement that the most massive new structure in town (adjacent to our historic district) is architecturally compatible with the surroundings. 2. fast and inexpensive parking demand reduction measures (PDR) 2.1 Cost benefit ratio - The Marsh Street Garage Expansion would bring 232 new parking spaces for$10 million: $40000 per space, without finance costs. For this money we would add a mere 6%'to the existing 3700 parking spaces in downtown. - Many PDR measures, such as the recently discussed"low hanging fruit" are faster than construction of the Marsh Street Garage and 10 to 20 times less expensive when capital and operating costs are considered 3. They have been proven in many locations for years. They could free up to 300 short-term parking spaces for downtown visitors by Christmas 2001 and an additional 400 by Christmas 2002. This would provide an increase of nearly 20%in spaces as compared to the above 6%. - Today the Marsh Street Garage is not used efficiently. 30%of these best spaces in downtown are used by 100 economically unattractive long term parkers per day. 3 ATTACHMENT S 70% are used by 1400 cash-carrying short term parkers (shoppers and visitors). If long term parking is eliminated, 600 additional shoppers, or 43% more, can be accomodated. In this light,constructing a new Marsh Street Garage, with money we do not have, appears to be focally irresponsible. It should be noted that even our existing parking garages are not paid off. Also, a Marsh Street Garage expansion will not really relieve the neighborhoods from today's long term parkers as these parkers are looking for free parking, not to pay for parking in a garage. 2.2 Examples According to Caltrans, trip reduction on the Cuesta Grade through van pools and better bus transportation is highly effective. - Two years ago the Public Works Department (PWD) introduced a trip reduction ordinance with six incentive measures for city employees who switch to alternative transportation.The result was a reduction of 15%in used parking spaces. If all downtown employers introduced such a program, several hundred parking spaces in downtown would be freed for shoppers. - Preliminary talks with leaders of neighborhood associations (RQN, Old Town Neighborhood) indicate a considerable willingness to accept short term parkers for free, and commuters for$3 per day in the neighborhoods, especially if this money goes to the respective neighborhood fund. - In February 2001 thirty students swarmed all over the City of San Luis Obispo and found 54 locations for Park and Ride lots with more than 1000 potential parking spaces. - We urge the Council to immediately ask PWD to produce a parking management and PDR work program with a budget and timeline. - Interested politicians and business people are incouraged to visit the following exemplary towns: -Monterey CA (Neighborhood parking zone south of downtown with free short term parking allowed; all day parking in garages for$ 10 per day) -Aspen CO (Commuter parking in neighborhood parking districts allowed for $ 3 per day; Aspen got an international parking award) -Portland OR, San Francisco and dozens of European towns (effective policies of reducing parking in downtown based on successful PDR). 3. Strong support for a "Chinatown Project" which enhances the pedestrian atmosphere of the entire downtown - Attractions in a downtown are the main antidote against outlying shopping centers. Such developments are positive and were always included in the parking calculations of planners. The Copeland's project is nothing new in this respect and does not necessitate or justify any special sweethart deal for parking. This is especially true, if ample bike facilities and good access to transit and paratransit are provided, as stated as one of the highest goals in the Circulation Element. 4 �-ys ATTACHMENT 8 - In 1976 Wilbur Smith and Associates counted the parking spaces in the Downtown Association district and found 2900 spaces. The City Report "Goals for Downtown" of 1979 claims on page 7, that 2000 more spaces are "needed" by the year 1990. Considering new buildings since 1990 the downtown should probably "need" a total of 7000 spaces today, according to this philosophy. According to the Meyer Mohaddes' Progress Report Nr. 1, in the year 1996 only 3700 parking spaces existed in downtown. Despite the fact, that the number of parking spaces grew much slower than the economic activities, downtown is booming. This is due to successful PDR in the last 24 years,mostly the introduction of SLO Transit and enhanced pedestrian/bike facilities. In this period,parking spaces grew an average of 1.4% per year while the economy grew 5 to 7%. The Council should create a reliable parking database and work with it, instead of listening to questionable parking prophets of doom and gloom. We conclude, that the Copeland's project should go ahead without construction of a Marsh 11 or a Palm 11 garage, if PDR measures are put into place by the County and private employers. We would be happy to explain our optimal phasing plan, which develops the Palm Street lot first and then the Court Street lot. Instead of a Palm H garage we suggest an underground Sears store or a similar attraction. The City should give a financial guarantee to the Copelands in the inprobable case that PDR fails, despite proven efforts by downtown employers. In this case additional physical parking could be built on city or private land. Note, that more "brick and mortar" parking spaces rise rents for shops, businesses and residences considerably. It may be that City politicians and/or the Copelands are not aware of all possible PDR measures and how well they work. This can not be an excuse for any developer to ask that the City build him"his"Marsh Street Garage (corporate welfare?). Could it be that the public was invited to information meetings about "Chinatown" with the hidden agenda of promoting the Marsh Street Garage Expansion? - Given current real estate trends and the amount of city owned land in downtown, our city is in a very strong position to deal with potential developers. Many are willing to adapt to a situation of"zero new physical parking" if they can settle in a prestige location. We are willing to furnish names. The recent dealings of the Presidio Trust in San Francisco with 18 developers illustrates this point. Generally speaking downtown SLO is not"underparked". The Parking Handbook for Small Communities by ITE and The Main Street Center(page 3) compares the number of downtown parking spaces with the total inhabitants of many cities. The resulting ratio for cities our size indicates that downtown SLO would only need 2800 spaces. The same handbook states clearly that parking management and PDR comes before construction (page 101). 5 ' / o ATTACHMENT 4. Make buying land for alternative transportation a priority Buying land for a downtown transportation center east of Santa Rosa Street, as proposed in the Council's Goals, makes sense. The emphasis must be on alternative transportation. 5. Keep alternatives of a Marsh Street Garage Expansion as a fall back position Should an addition to the Marsh Street Garage ever be built, then the following must be considered, as illustrated in the sketches of the appendix: An attractive direct pedestrian connection from the railway station;through the "SLO Monro Street" to the mid block crosswalk on Marsh into the Downtown Center must be offered. This means the elimination of the vehicular entrance to the garage from Marsh Street. Marsh Street could be designed like State Street in Santa Barbara, which excludes a direct garage entrance from Marsh Street. Concentrating all entrances and exits in Morro and Pacific Streets will - eliminate most pedestrian/car conflicts by allowing only 4 locations where cars can cross a sidewalk, as opposed to the currently proposed 5 crossings. - provide more queuing space for entering vehicles - provide smoother traffic flow, especially if Pacific Street were made one-way direction west, which would reduce the number of conflict points - allow the postal truck to unload in the exact same location as today, which eliminates the need to rebuild the post office internally - reduce garage-access traffic through Higuera Street by providing direct access from Santa Rosa Street.: - As this garage might stay with us for. 100 years this redesign would be imperative. The current access routes to the garage from north and south are confusing and lead to many conflicts with pedestrians in dowtowia. A specific downtown transportation plan, as requested by 1000 signatures, is imperative before new projects are approved. The undersigned have such a plan. It contains three phases up to the year 2028 and was done by civil engineer Mike Sallaberry from San Francisco. - A reduced version with only 110 added spaces, as proposed five years ago, should be considered. This version would not touch the post office parking lot and be more economical because of the lowered clearance on the ground floor. - Today's garage version requires a clearance of 14' on the whole ground floor because of the postal truck. This is 6' higher than the normal 8' 2" clearance and adds considerable building volume and costs. It should also be noted that the current project needs a lot of grading(cut volume), because in some locations the post office lot is 4' higher than the lot on 860 Pacific Street. The reduced project would not have to deal with this issue and would keep the existing retaining wall and some trees in place. 6 ATTACHMENT For ticketing, a more economical and ecological pay on foot system must be considered in any case. This necessitates changes to the current project. Should the Council decide to put the project to bid in the coming months, then we would ask permission to see the bidding documents together with an expert in construction management and costing. Before any contract is awarded, the City must have a reasonably strong guarantee, that cost overruns do not fall back on her.. San Luis Obispo, February 14, 2001 Representative: Eugen Jud, Fellow Institute of Transportation Engineers SAVE SLO:Jean Seay, Secretary CITIZENS FOR ETHICAL PLANNING: Brian Christensen,President . d OLD TOWN NEIGHBORHOOD: Leo.Pinard, President - Report PWD by traffic engineer Debra Larson - =Circulation Element pages 6-7 and 15 - 'Meyer Mohaddes, Progress Report Nr. 2, 1997, chapters 2 and 3; multiple literature under Transportation Demand Management(TDM) and www.vtpi.orE Appendix: Sketches traffic flow 7 ATTACNti1ENT Appendix 1: TWO MAIN PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS to the Downtown Center going over the mid block crosswalk must be attractive: - from the new center of the garage - from the Railroad District and the pedestrien oriented "SLO Morro" Street D�wH �w�® C� Hier � o `oruu.�d spec/. O /:Y Ira O Posf � doa a7cewf P L O e/evafor S O � O Pa C,�Ar O ,*V.. 0 � o O 1 v ATTACHMENT C Appendix 2: TRAFFIC FLOW AROUND GARAGE - Current plan creates permanent conflict with pedestrians and inefficient traffic flow due to short queuing space for vehicles entering the garage. Queuing interferes with pedestrians. L a g N d: �c q ,-, queuing vehicles —C:Z=m-, postal truck E, ltlarr4 p Pvr� lL y 3 entrances Cz 2exits 5 conflicts with led. gal Ex I 4 Alternate plan provides smooth traffic flow, ample queuing possibilities and very little pedestrian conflicts. P Ain � 1 entrance t-7 E - boy _ _ I b � r > —• ? X 1 3 exit —. 6 4 p 11t - �xZ 4conflicts with ped pa rkw"jI �5D 9 ATTACHMENT Appendix 3: ACCESS ROUTES FROM NORTH AND SOUTH Current plan draws unnecessary traffic into downtown SLo � Very dangerous route I I A / / r GrouaiN aT u�es.� 3- n � � d � � Alternate plan provides direct access without using Higuera and Marsh Streets SLO � Giow r + I area � /tf.7rr4 I PSG�z n � 0 � ° o firms o ATTACHMENT s' Appendix 4: INFLUENCE OF ALTERNATE PLAN ON TRAFFIC, SMALLER GARAGE VERSION Alternate plan reduces traffic in the highly sensitive areas of Higuera and.Marsh Streets r---) SLO tw' o��r.-I x7lev( - - - Pe a kc n Q in commercial area X11o with 10%residential use 3d UN Pirti.,o Smaller garage version is less expensive and leaves the post office operations untouched. "Pay on foot" ticketing may allow for just one entrance and exit lane (existing). P 0 •« 1y o#w /top 4 a 4-11 1 _ �a� � M"I inu Mullun FATE &--20-0/ REM# �iiiiiiu������►�������� �����►� c o o n a l m E m o Ra n o u m March 14, 2001 NCIL ^ ^t'3 I` TO: City Council GMAO ❑ FROM: Ken Ham ian, CAO Nr� ❑F':. : , P LeRIJORIG ❑FCLi ❑f jktAT Ff;l UTI Dil SUBJECT: Marsh Street Garage Appeal Continuance ""tel O PE DIR g PP �� � � O PERS DIR Our current Council meeting schedule sets the appeal of the ARC's approval of the Marsh Street Garage redesign for March 20, 2001. On April 3, 2001, the City Council is to consider the approval of plans and specifications and authorization to bid the expansion project. My recommendation is that the City Council continues the appeal hearing to the meeting of April 3`d, while retaining the plans/specs/bid item on that same date. By doing so, we can honor the appellants' request to continue the appeal to accommodate a prearranged travel schedule, and we can honor the interest in not delaying the potential bid of the project to a time when the bid climate might be less favorable. I have discussed this approach with Eugene Jud and he is agreeable. There is some added risk associated with this approach if the Council makes substantial changes to the project design on the 3'd. This is because some level of work invested in completing the plans and specifications will have been wasted. On the other hand, if no changes or only minor changes are made, then there is no risk— and we will have avoided the added risk associated with delaying the bid period. Overall, I believe the consolidation of these two actions on April P offers more advantages than disadvantages. It will also have the effect of bringing this long simmering issue to a head at one meeting rather than extending it over the course of two meetings. Given our current schedule, the more efficient we can be with our time,the better. cc: Appellants Eugene Jud Save SLO Citizens for Ethical Planning Old Town Neighborhood Association Downtown Association. RECEIVED MAR 1 4 2001 SLO CITY COUNCIL Retain this doctnnd( r future Courtoil ateetlrog ��P SAVE SLO�A 0 Qaa March 6, 2001 Cate, e zgerdized ° - -- �4DOWNiOV�o ro Advance Info: Marsh Street Garage soon in the Council again Dear Council Members On September 28,2000 the Council decided to reduce the above project and to "rebid the Marsh Street Garage Expansion", specifically to 0. CDUnC/k, 1) "Revise the exterior finish 2) Eliminate the blue light safety system and television security system conduit hj 3) Add amid-block traffic signal on Marsh Street". Several citizen groups are extremely worried about the above three points. (/e � Concerning 1) The new architectural plans are not an innocent revision of the exterior finish. They are a dramatic change in the worst direction and constitute a new project. Parts of the huge facades are now partially closed and contain no windows at all, due to the new cheap shear walls. These shear walls were not mentioned with one word in the staff report of September 28. The staff report was misleading. The garage complex, which looked bad enough in the previous projects, now looks like a bunker. The Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC)analyzed the revised plans in their meeting of January 22, 2001 and concluded that the garage is "inconsistent with City Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Properties". The project is an unacceptable, long term degradation of downtown.The Council should schedule a walk with the public around the garage,with plans at hand to visualize the size of the building. Maybe a scaffolding or balloons could show the height of the building. The garage volume is of the magnitude of the planned Costco on the Froom Ranch. The fapade on Pacific Street is as long as Washington Cathedral is high. Therefore a new EIR(SEIR?) must be done. The comments of the CHC suggest that the massing and the architecture of the garage constitute two class I impacts, namely in the categories "Aesthetics" and "Cultural Resources". Concerning the critical points 2)and 3) we comment in the enclosure. Should the project continue,we conclude that it must pass again through the planning commission,who is responsible for conformity with zoning,pedestrian and vehicular traffic,which have changed considerably since this commission last saw the project in Summer 1999. Therefore, the organizations below decided to appeal a recent and highly questionable ARC decision about the garage (enclosure). Other organizations may join. We hope, that each Council member will look personally at the new situation and especially at the new fagade plans. We also feel,that the public should be fully aware of the long term effects of this garage on the town. We hope that this advance information is helpful to you and we thank you for your consideration. FOR: SAVE SLO-CITIZENS FOR ETHICAL G-OLD TOWN NEIGHBORHOOD Representative: Eugen Jud, Fellow Institute of Transportation Engineers RECEIVED Secretary: Jean Anderson, 545-9003 MAR 0 7 2001 SLO CITY COUNCIL. osSP SAVE SLO Appeal Re: Marsh Street Parking Garage Expansion �DowNrowr,° Summary - On January 22, 2001,the Cultural Heritage Committee unanimously decided that the"garage design is not architecturally compatible"with the surroundings. In their meeting of February 5 the Architectural Review Commission totally ignored this advice, decided to continue reviewing the project and proposed slight changes. - Save SLO, Citizens for Ethical Planning and the Old Town Neighborhood Association appeal to the City Council to please stop the project in its current form while continuing to promote the Copeland's "Chinatown Project", combined with fast, inexpensive Parking Management and Parking Reduction Measures (PDR). - We deem-it appropriate that the garage expansion is not on the Council Goals . 2001-03 anymore. Purpose of this appeal - The appellants thank both commissions for conducting the above meetings in a friendly and correct manner. However, in the ARC meeting we did not.have enough time to refute the misleading statements of the project architect concerning traffic. This is done under point 5. For the citizens, this "Downtown big parking box" is much more emotional than all the"big boxes" along Los Osos Valley Road taken together. The main purpose of this appeal is to make sure that the Council understands the grave consequences of the current project for the downtown atmosphere and economic vitality. We would like to avoid the renewed misuse of private industry to make expensive bids for a project which—in our opinion—is rejected by a majority of the population and contains highly disturbing flaws on all levels: planning, design and construction economy. Based on the laudable Council Goals for 2001-2003 of February 5, 2001, we ask you to consider the following: 1: Cultural heritage and downtown aesthetics 1.1 Meeting of the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) The minutes of the CHC meeting of January 22, 2001, read(in part) as follows: • "The massing and scale of the proposed addition is too large for the adjacent historic buildings, specifically..." • The proposed project is inconsistent with the architectural style and materials of historic structures noted above. •The project will preclude the development of other, more historically compatible structures at this location. • Increased traffic and densification resulting from the project will have a significant. adverse, cumulative effect on the longevity of historic properties in the Downtown Historic District. 1 • The project is inconsistent with City Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Properties because it would adversely affect the setting of adjacent historic properties. (Italics by appellants) Note that even Consultant Meyer Mohaddes writes, that the garage does not fit normal "recommended siting criteria"(Progress Report No. 2, top of page 33, 1997). 1.2 Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission(ARC) Massing The ARC did not even discuss the above CHC statement and continued to accept the nonconforming massing of the garage. This enormous massing (heavy overruns in height and footprint, insufficient setbacks) was rejected by the Planning Commission With a 5:2 vote in the summer of 1999,but later accepted by the Council. The ARC never mentioned on which guidelines or federal standards they base their conclusions, which appear to be highly subjective. Pedestrian environment The ARC only vaguely addressed the pedestrian environment which is crucial to any architectural judgment. For example... • The enormous benefits and the feasibility of a closure of the Marsh Street vehicular entrance were discussed only very briefly . • The newest project is worse than the previous one when it comes to direct pedestrian access to the Downtown Center through the mid-block crosswalk on Marsh Street. Counts show,that this crosswalk is the main "pedestrian desire line". Accident statistics prove, that the midblock crosswalk is safer than crossing at the intersection of Chorro and Marsh Street., • In the new plans the highly important stairway and elevator in the middle of the garage between the Parable and the Masonic Temple are eliminated: On the ground floor there is no more pedestrian connection in the center of the garage between Pacific and Marsh Street. Pedestrians, especially disabled persons, are forced into dangerous detours when reaching the Downtown Center from the garage. This flaw can only be overcome by closing the Marsh Street entrance to vehicles. • If the expansion were ever built, an elevator in the center of the garage would be a must. Some ARC members were rightly concerned about some of these weaknesses. • The planned pedestrian traffic light at the mid block crosswalk is not only an unacceptable chicane for the pedestrian and dangerous from the drivers point of view (three traffic lights too close together, liability). It is also an architectural nuisance which was not discussed at the ARC meeting. If this mid block traffic light were built, our whole downtown pedestrian philosophy . is under attack Z Therefore, if the garage project should continue, we ask the Council to please immediately submit it to the Planning Commission and to create the much needed Parking and Access Commission as promised in the new council goals for the years 2001-03. 2 Aesthetics and security The new shear walls—massive.walls without windows at the outside of the building—change the visual impact upon observers in Marsh and Pacific Streets very negatively. The "biggest big box" in town begins to look like a correctional institution or a bunker. Unfortunately the elevations shown in the ARC staff report create a false impression as the shear walls are hidden behind trees. We ask the council to look at the new facades without trees and to consider the fact, that observers in certain locations.of Pacific Street do not see the whole facade but only one towering shear wall without windows. These walls are a security risk-as one cannot look into the garage from many locations outside. Criminals can hide much easier now. The fact that we have already cut back on other security features of the garage is an additional concern. It would be helpful to hear the opinion of the police chief, because security is a. prime factor. 1.3General interest - The County Historical Society shows new dynamics and a broad interest in the above topic. - The Downtown Association brought in an expert from the National Trust for Historic Preservation in connection with their"Strategic Plan". It would be appropriate to hear his opinion about our downtown "walkability" and how this relates to such a massive garage in the middle of downtown. - The opinion of architect Peter Calthorpe on our"much too narrow sidewalks"has been noted. - Lois Capps, during a recent visit,voiced "concerns about the cultural heritage along Marsh Street". - We therefore urge the Council to reject any statement that the most massive new structure in town (adjacent to our historic district) is architecturally compatible with the surroundings. 2. Fast and inexpensive parking demand reduction measures.(PDR) 2.1 Cost benefit ratio - The Marsh Street Garage Expansion would bring 232 new parking spaces for$10 million: $40000 per space, without finance costs. For this money we would add a mere 6% to the existing 3700 parking spaces in downtown. - Many PDR measures, such as the recently discussed"low hanging fruit" are faster than construction of the Marsh Street Garage and 10 to 20 times less expensive when capital and operating costs are considered 3. They have been proven in many locations for years. They could free up to 300 short-term parking spaces for downtown visitors by Christmas 2001 and an additional 400 by Christmas 2002. This would provide an increase of nearly 20% in spaces as compared to the above 6%. - Today the Marsh Street Garage is not used efficiently. 30% of these best spaces in downtown are used by 100 economically unattractive long term packers per day. 3 o 70% are used by 1400 cash-carrying short term parkers (shoppers and visitors). If longterm parking is eliminated, 600 additional shoppers, or 43% more, can be accomodated. In this light, constructing a new Marsh Street Garage, with money we do not have, appears to be fiscally irresponsible. It should be noted that even our existing parking garages are not paid off. Also, a Marsh Street Garage expansion will not really relieve the neighborhoods from today's long term parkers as these parkers are looking for free parking, not to.pay for parking in a garage. 2.2 Examples - According to Caltrans, trip reduction on the Cuesta Grade through van pools and better bus transportation is highly*effective. - Two years ago the Public Works Department(PWD) introduced a trip reduction ordinance with six incentive measures for city employees who switch to alternative transportation. The result was a reduction of 15% in used.parking spaces. If all downtown employers introduced such a program, several hundred. parking spaces in downtown would be freed for shoppers. Preliminary talks with leaders of neighborhood associations(RQN, Old Town Neighborhood) indicate a considerable willingness to accept short term parkers for free,and commuters for$3 per day in the neighborhoods, especially if this money goes to the respective neighborhood fund. In February 2001 thirty students swarmed all over the City of San Luis Obispo and found 50 locations for Park and Ride lots with more than 1000 potential parking spaces. We urge the Council to immediately ask PWD to produce a parking management and PDR work program with a budget.and timeline. Interested politicians and business people are incouraged to visit the following exemplary towns: -Monterey CA(Neighborhood parking zone south of downtown with free short term parking allowed; all day parking in garages for$ 10 per day) -Aspen CO (Commuter parking in neighborhood parking districts allowed for$ 3 per day; Aspen got an international parking award) -Portland OR, San Francisco and dozens of European towns (effective policies of reducing parking in downtown based on successful PDR). 3. Strong support for a "Chinatown Project" which enhances the pedestrian atmosphere of the entire downtown Attractions in a downtown are the main antidote against outlying shopping centers. Such developments are positive and were always included in the parking calculations of planners. The Copeland's project is nothing new in this respect and does not necessitate or justify any special sweethart deal for parking. This is especially true, if ample bike facilities and good access to transit and paratransit are provided,as stated asoneof the highest goals in the Circulation Element. 4 - In 1976 Wilbur Smith and Associates counted the-parking spaces in the Downtown Association district and found 2900 spaces. The City Report "Goals for Downtown" of 1979 claims on page 7, that 2000 more spaces are "needed" by the year 1990. Considering new,buildings since 1990 the downtown should probably "need" a total of 7000 spaces today, according to this philosophy. According to the Meyer Mohaddes' Progress Report Nr. 1, in the year 1996 only 3700 parking spaces existed in downtown: Despite the fact, that the number of parking spaces grew much slower than the economic activities, downtown is booming. This is due to successful PDR in the last 24 years, mostly the introduction of SLO Transit and enhanced pedestrian/bike facilities. In this period,parking spaces grew an average of 1.4%per year while the economy grew 5 to 7%. The Council should create a reliable parking database and work with it, instead of listening to questionable parking prophets of doom and gloom. We conclude,that the Copeland's project should go ahead without construction of a Marsh H or a Palm II garage, if PDR measures are put into place by the County and private employers. We would be happy to explain our optimal phasing plan,which develops the Palm Street lot first and then the Court Street lot. Instead of a Palm II garage we suggest an underground Sears store or a similar attraction. The City should give a financial guarantee to,the Copelands in the inprobable case that PDR fails, despite proven efforts by downtown employers. In this case additional physical parking could be built on city or private land. Note,that more "brick and mortar" parking spaces rise rents for shops,businesses and residences considerably. It may be that City politicians and/or the Copelands are not aware of all possible PDR measures and how well they work. This can not be an excuse for any developer to ask that the City build him"his"Marsh Street Garage (corporate welfare?). Could it be that the public was invited to information meetings about "Chinatown" with the hidden agenda of promoting the Marsh Street Garage Expansion? Given current real estate trends and the amount of city owned land in downtown, our city is in a very strong position to deal with potential developers. Many are willing to adapt to a situation of"zero.new physical parking" if they can settle in a prestige location. We are willing to furnish names. The recent dealings of the Presidio Trust in San Francisco with 18 developers illustrates this point. Generally speaking downtown SLO is not"underparked"..The Parking Handbook for Small Communities by ITE and The Main Street Center(page 3) compares the number of downtown parking spaces with the total inhabitants of many cities. The resulting ratio for cities oursize indicates that downtown SLO would only need 2800 spaces. The same handbook states clearly that parking management and PDR comes before construction (page 101). 5 • 4. Make buying land for alternative transportation a priority Buying land for a downtown transportation center east of Santa Rosa Street, as proposed in the Council's Goals, makes sense. The emphasis must be on alternative transportation. 5. Keep alternatives of a Marsh Street Garage Expansion as a fall back position Should an addition to the Marsh Street Garage ever be built, then the following must be considered, as illustrated in the sketches of the appendix: An attractive direct pedestrian connection from the railway station through the "SLO Morro Street" to the mid block crosswalk on Marsh into the Downtown Center must be offered. This means the elimination of the vehicular entrance to the garage from Marsh Street. Marsh Street could be designed like State Street in Santa Barbara, which excludes a direct garage entrance from Marsh Street. Concentrating all entrances and exits in Morro and Pacific Streets will eliminate most pedestrian/car conflicts by allowing only 4 locations where cars can cross a sidewalk, as opposed to the currently proposed 5 crossings. - provide more queuing space for entering vehicles - provide smoother traffic flow, especially if Pacific Street were made one-way direction west,which would reduce the number of conflict points - allow the postal truck to unload in the exact same location as today, which eliminates the need to rebuild the post office internally - reduce garage-access traffic through Higuera Street by providing direct access from Santa Rosa Street.: As this garage might stay.with us for 100 years this redesign would be imperative. The current access routes to the garage from north and.south are..confusing and lead to many conflicts with pedestrians in dowtown. A specific downtown transportation plan, as requested by 1000 signatures, is imperative before new projects are approved. The undersigned have such a plan. It contains three phases up to the year 2028 and was done by civil engineer Mike Sallaberry from San Francisco. A reduced version with only 110 added spaces, as proposed five years ago, should be considered. This version would not touch the post office parking lot and be more economical because of the lowered clearance on the ground floor. Today's garage version requires a clearance of 14' on the whole ground floor because of the postal truck. This is 6' higher than the normal 8' 2" clearance and adds considerable building volume and costs. It should also be noted that the current project needs a lot of grading (cut volume), because in some locations the post office lot is 4' higher than the lot on 860 Pacific Street. The reduced project would not have to deal with this issue and would keep the existing retaining wall and some trees in place. 6 � 1 For ticketing, a more economical and ecological pay on foot system must be considered in any case. This necessitates changes to the current project. Should the Council decide to put the project to bid in the coming months, then we would ask permission to see the bidding documents together with an expert in construction management and costing. Before any contract is awarded; the Ciy must have a reasonably strong guarantee, that cost overruns do not fall back on her. San Luis Obispo, February 14; 2001 Representative: Eugen Jud, Fellow Institute of Transportation Engineers SAVE SLO: Jean Seay, Secretary CITIZENS FOR ETHICAL PLANNING: Brian Christensen, President OLD TOWN NEIGHBORHOOD:Leo.Pinard, President - Report PWD by traffic engineer Debra Larson - =Circulation Element pages 6-7 and 15 - 3Meyer Mohaddes, Progress Report Nr. 2, 1997, chapters 2 and 3;multiple literature under Transportation Demand Management(TDM) and www.yvi.ore Appendix: Sketches traffic flow 7 Appendix 1: TWO MAIN PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS to the Downtown Center going over the mid block crosswalk must be attractive: -from the new center of the garage - from the Railroad District and the pedestrien oriented "SLO Morro" Street UOturnYow� C.Q Le7Q1' 1 `Dlaiaaed� �ptd. A P O Z O e/evai-vr rrtw ce.,f� O � O y 3�A i i Appendix 2: TRAFFIC FLOW AROUND GARAGE Current plan creates permanent conflict with pedestrians and inefficient traffic flow due to short queuing space for vehicles entering the,garage. Queuing interferes with pedestrians. L e.g e-o d: E u queuing vehicles postal truck r Afaer4 �� CfJNFL ICT� 0. y 3 entrances J Q 2 exits t, 5 conflicts with ped s Alternate plan provides smooth traffic flow, ample queuing possibilities and very little pedestrian conflicts. Mc►,•r G O �4 1 entrance bib O — Ex r -� — ex its Axl 4 conflicts with ned p4 �.,� .u �� Pr y ani u 9 Appendix 3: ACCESS ROUTES FROM NORTH AND SOUTH Current plan draws unnecessary traffic into downtown . SLO I Very dangerous route /6 � /t'lnrll, .I Pae-/z FIN rAa Alternate plan provides direct access without using Higuera and Marsh Streets Midio✓ . M°'^�Prt7 SLo � arra Pam�z n � � � ° o t /0 1 Appendix 4: INFLUENCE OF ALTERNATE PLAN ON TRAFFIC, SMALLER GARAGE VERSION . Alternate plan reduces traffic in the highly sensitive areas of Higuera and Marsh Streets L---) XL0 lkerr4 same Paa�-C h in commercial area with 10%residential use rJ Plrw,o Smaller garage version is less expensive and leaves the post office operations untouched. "Pay on foot" ticketing may allow for just one entrance and exit lane (existing). � /ala rr P .« ly 0 Z - - - e //0 a r I � d4y Pam 4C /i � I�� ►SII { �►��llll� C- ItyoSAMWISONSPO+ APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL In accordance with the appeals procedures as authorized by Title, 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals from the decision of C rendered on Fee'. 5 Zoo/ ,Yeu, 2— which which consisted of the following (i.e., explain what you are appealing and the grounds for submitting the appeal. Appeal Re: Marsh Street Parking Garage Expansion Summary: On January 22,2001,the Cultural Heritage Committee(CHC)unanimously decided that the "garage design is not architecturally compatible" with the surroundings. In their meeting of February 5 the Architectural Review Commission(ARC)totally ignored this advice and decided to continue to review the project. Save SLO, Citizens for Ethical Planning and the Old Town Neighborhood Association appeal to the City Council to please stop the project in its current form while continuing . to promote the Copeland's "Chinatown Project", combined with fast and inexpensive Parking Reduction Measures (PDR). The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with: def4l- on 1=eC. 51 .ernl Name/Department (Date) Appellant orfa,.. fiyu I'. secn� ' fifUE rG0 c.o ✓ecr., Sea // NamefTitle Mailing Address (& Zip Code) Sqq 10', J;�.. SLD. 9344o1 S`tg 9DD3 ' Fa�k- ss�-,s — goo s Home Phone Work Phone J4 5*e4 1pae(e//. mel Representative: �� eL. ✓U� 6ES LP .r •, .�C D G4 93 1/0/ amefTitle Mailing 1Address (& Zip Code) `� --ZZ 2- ,q �e�lOw 17-F2�ucT@ ta/oO/�y.�c✓v For Official Use Only: / f Calendared for MOLE d1 a011 olzOl Date & Time Received:. c: City Attorney City Administrative Officer RECEIVED Copy to the following department(s): ion whisena.nd FEB 1 5 2001 J bhn ZhaoJS SLO CITY CLERK Original in City Clerk's Office 1 z�SAVE SLO oafs Appeal Re: Marsh Street Parking Garage Expansion �' DOWNTOWN SSR Summary - On January 22, 2001,the Cultural Heritage Committee unanimously decided that the"garage design is not architecturally compatible"with the surroundings. In their meeting of February 5 the Architectural Review Commission totally ignored this advice, decided to continue reviewing the project and proposed slight changes. - Save SLO, Citizens for Ethical Planning and the Old Town Neighborhood Association appeal to the City Council to please stop the project in its current form while continuing to promote the Copeland's "Chinatown Project", combined with fast, inexpensive Parking Management and Parking Reduction.Measures (PDR). - We deem it appropriate that the garage expansion isnot on the Council Goals 2001-03 any more. Purpose of this appeal - The appellants thank both commissions for conducting the above meetings in a friendly and correct manner. However, in the ARC meeting we did not have enough time to refute the misleading statements of the project architect concerning traffic. This is done under point 5. - For the citizens,this "Downtown big parking box" is much more emotional than all the"big boxes" along Los Osos Valley Road taken together. The main purpose of this appeal is to make sure that the Council understands the grave consequences of the current project for the downtown atmosphere and economic vitality. We would like to avoid the renewed misuse of private industry to make expensive bids for a project which—in our opinion—is rejected by a majority of the population and contains highly disturbing flaws on all levels: planning, design and construction economy. Based on the laudable Council Goals for 2001-2003 of February 5, 2001,we ask you to consider the following: 1. Cultural heritage and downtown aesthetics 1.1 Meeting of the Cultural Heritage Committee(CHC) The minutes of the CHC meeting of January 22, 2001, read(in part) as follows:. • "The massing and scale of the proposed addition is too large for the adjacent historic buildings, specifically..." • The proposed project is inconsistent with the architectural style and materials of historic structures noted above. • The project will preclude the development of other,more historically compatible structures at this location. Increased traffic and densification resulting from the project will have a significant adverse, cumulative effect on the longevity of historic properties in the Downtown Historic District. • 1 • The project is inconsistent with City Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Properties because it would adversely affect the setting of adjacent historic properties. (Italics by appellants) Note that even Consultant Meyer Mohaddes writes; that the garage does not fit normal "recommended siting criteria"(Progress Report No. 2,top of page 33, 1997). 1.2 Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission(ARC) Massing The ARC did not even discuss the above CHC statement and continued to accept the nonconforming massing of the garage. This enormous massing(heavy overruns in height and footprint, insufficient setbacks) was rejected by the Planning Commission with a 5:2 vote in the summer of 1999,but later accepted by the Council. The ARC never mentioned on which guidelines or federal standards they base their conclusions, which appear to be highly subjective. Pedestrian environment The ARC only vaguely addressed the pedestrian environment which is crucial to any architectural judgment. For example... • The enormous benefits and the feasibility of a closure of the Marsh Street vehicular entrance were discussed only very briefly. • The newest project is worse than the previous one when it comes to direct pedestrian access to the Downtown Center through the mid-block crosswalk on Marsh Street. Counts show, that this crosswalk is the main"pedestrian desire line". Accident statistics prove, that the midblock crosswalk is safer than crossing at the intersection of Chorro and Marsh Street., • In the new plans the highly important stairway and elevator in the middle of the garage between the Parable and the Masonic Temple are eliminated. On the ground floor there is no more pedestrian connection in the center of the garage between Pacific and Marsh Street. Pedestrians, especially disabled persons, are forced into dangerous detours when reaching the Downtown Center from the garage. This flaw can only be overcome by closing the Marsh Street entrance to vehicles. •If the expansion were ever built, an,elevator in the center of the garage would be a must. Some ARC members were rightly concerned about some of these weaknesses. • The planned pedestrian traffic light at the mid block crosswalk is not only an unacceptable chicane for the pedestrian and dangerous from the:drivers point of view (three traffic lights too close together;liability). It is also an architectural nuisance which was not discussed at the ARC meeting. If this mid block traffic light were built, our whole downtown pedestrian philosophy is under attack.Z Therefore, if the garage project should continue,we ask the Council to please immediately submit it to the Planning Commission and to create the much needed Parking and Access Commission as promised in the new council goals for the years 2001-03. 2 Aesthetics and security The new shear walls—massive walls without windows at the outside of the building—change the visual impact upon observers in Marsh and Pacific Streets very negatively. The "biggest big box" in town begins to look like a correctional. institution or a bunker. Unfortunately the elevations shown in the ARC staff report create a false impression as the shear walls are hidden behind trees. We ask the council to look at the new facades without trees and to consider the fact, that observers in certain locations.of Pacific Street do not see the whole fagade but only one towering shear wall without windows. These walls are a security.risk as one cannot look into the garage from many locations outside. Criminals can hide much easier now. The fact that we have already cut back on other security features of the garage is an additional concern. It would be helpful to hear the opinion of the police chief,because security is a prime factor. 1.3 General interest - The County Historical Society shows'new dynamics and a broad interest in the above topic. - The Downtown Association brought in an expert from the National Trust for Historic Preservation in connection with their"Strategic Plan". It would be appropriate to hear his opinion about our downtown "walkability" and how this relates to such a massive garage in the middle of downtown. - The opinion of architect Peter Calthorpe on our"much too narrow sidewalks"has been noted. - Lois Capps, during a recent visit, voiced"concerns about the cultural heritage along Marsh Street'. - We therefore urge the Council to reject any statement that the most massive new structure in town(adjacent to our historic district) is architecturally compatible with the surroundings. 2. Fast and inexpensive parking demand reduction measures (PDR) 2.1 Cost benefit ratio - The Marsh Street Garage Expansion would bring 232 new parking spaces for$10 million: $40000 per space, without finance costs. For this money we would add a mere 6%to the existing 3700 parking spaces in downtown. - Many PDR measures, such as the recently discussed"low hanging fruit'are faster than construction of the Marsh Street Garage and 10 to 20 times less expensive when capital and operating costs are considered They have been proven in many locations for years. They could free up to 300 short-term parking spaces for downtown visitors by Christmas 2001 and an additional 400 by Christmas 2002. This would provide an increase of nearly 20% in spaces as compared to the above 6%. - Today the Marsh Street Garage is not used efficiently. 30% of these best spaces in downtown are used by 100 economically unattractive long term parkers per day. 3 70% are used by 1400 cash-carrying short term parkers (shoppers and visitors). If long term parking is eliminated, 600 additional shoppers, or 43% more, can be accomodated. In this light, constructing a new Marsh Street Garage,with money we do not have, appears to be fiscally irresponsible. It should be noted that even our existing parking garages are not paid off. Also, a Marsh Street Garage expansion will not really relieve the neighborhoods from today's long term parkers as these parkers are looking for free parking, not to pay for parking in a garage. 2.2 Examples According to Caltrans,trip reduction on the Cuesta Grade through van pools and better bus transportation is highly'effective. Two years ago the Public Works Department (PWD) introduced a trip reduction ordinance with six incentive measures for city employees who switch to alternative transportation. The result was a reduction of 15% in used parking spaces. If all downtown employers introduced such a program, several hundred parking spaces in downtown would be freed for shoppers. Preliminary talks with leaders of neighborhood associations (RQN, Old Town Neighborhood) indicate a considerable willingness to accept short term parkers for free, and commuters for$3 per day in the neighborhoods, especially if this money goes to the respective neighborhood fund. In February 2001 thirty students swarmed all over the City of San Luis Obispo and found 50 locations for Park and Ride lots with more than 1000 potential parking spaces. We urge the Council to immediately ask PWD to produce a parking management and PDR work program with a budget and timeline. Interested politicians and business people are incouraged to visit the following exemplary towns: -Monterey CA (Neighborhoodparking zone south of downtown with free short term parking allowed; all day parking in garages for$ 10 per day) -Aspen CO (Commuter parking in neighborhood parking districts allowed for$ 3 per day; Aspen got an international parking award) -Portland OR, San Francisco and dozens of European towns (effective policies of reducing parking in downtown based on successful PDR). 3. Strong support for a "Chinatown Project" which enhances the pedestrian atmosphere of the entire downtown Attractions in a downtown are the main antidote against outlying shopping centers. Such developments are positive and were always included in the parking calculations of planners. The Copeland's project is nothing new in this respect and does not necessitate or justify any special sweethart deal for parking. This is especially true, if ample bike facilities and good access to transit and paratransit are provided, as stated as one of the highest goals in the Circulation Element. 4 In 1976'Wilbur Smith and Associates counted the parking spaces in the Downtown Association district and found 2900 spaces. The City Report"Goals for Downtown" of 1979 claims on page 7, that 2000 more spaces are "needed" by the year 1990. Considering new buildings since 1990 the downtown should probably "need" a total of 7000 spaces today, according to this philosophy. According to the Meyer Mohaddes' Progress Report Nr. 1, in the year 1996 only 3700 parking spaces existed in downtown. Despite the fact, that the number of parking spaces grew much slower than the economic activities, downtown is booming. This is due to successful PDR in the last 24 years,mostly the introduction of SLO Transit and enhanced pedestrian/bike facilities. In this period,parking spaces grew an average of 1.4%per year while the economy grew 5 to 7%. The Council should create a reliable parking database and work with it, instead of listening to questionable parking prophets of doom and gloom. We conclude, that the Copeland's project should go ahead without construction of a Marsh 11 or a Palm 11 garage, if PDR measures are put into place by the County and private employers. We would be happy to explain our optimal phasing plan,which develops the Palm Street lot first and then the Court Street lot. Instead of a Palm H garage we suggest an underground Sears store or a similar attraction. The City should give a financial guarantee to the Copelands in the inprobable case that PDR fails, despite proven efforts by downtown employers. In this case additional physical parking could be built on city or private land. Note,that more "brick and mortar"parking spaces rise rents for shops, businesses and residences considerably. It may be that City politicians and/or the Copelands are not aware of all possible PDR measures and how well they work, This can not be an excuse for any developer to ask that the City build him "his"Marsh Street Garage (corporate welfare?). Could it be that the public was invited to information meetings about "Chinatown" with the hidden agenda of promoting the Marsh Street Garage Expansion? Given current real estate trends and the amount of city owned land in downtown, our city is in a very strong position to deal with potential developers. Many are willing to adapt to a situation of"zero,new physical parking" if they can settle in a prestige location. We are willing to furnish names. The recent dealings of the Presidio Trust in San Francisco with 18 developers illustrates this point. Generally speaking downtown SLO is not"underparked". The Parking Handbook for,Small Communities by ITE and The Main Street Center(page 3) compares the number of downtown parking spaces with the total inhabitants of many cities. The resulting ratio for cities our.size indicates that downtown SLO would only need 2800 spaces. The same handbook states clearly that parking management and PDR comes before construction (page 101). 5 4. Make buying land for alternative transportation a priority Buying land for a downtown transportation center east of Santa.Rosa Street, as proposed in the Council's Goals,makes sense. The emphasis must be on alternative transportation. 5. Keep alternatives of a Marsh Street Garage Expansion as a fall back ,position Should an addition to the Marsh Street Garage ever be built, then the following must be considered, as illustrated in the sketches of the appendix: An attractive direct pedestrian connection from the railway station through the "SLO Morro Street" to the mid block crosswalk on Marsh into the Downtown Center must be offered. This means the elimination of the vehicular entrance to the garage from Marsh Street. Marsh Street could be designed like State Street in Santa Barbara,which excludes a direct garage entrance from Marsh Street. Concentrating all entrances and exits in Morro and Pacific Streets will - eliminate most pedestrian/car conflicts by allowing only 4 locations where cars can cross a sidewalk, as opposed to the currently proposed 5 crossings. - provide more queuing space for entering vehicles - provide smoother traffic flow, especially if Pacific Street were made one-way direction west, which would reduce the number of conflict points - allow the postal truck to unload in the exact same location as today, which eliminates the need to rebuild the post office internally - reduce garage-access traffic through Higuera Street by providing direct .access from Santa Rosa Street.: - As this garage might stay with us for 100 years this redesign would be imperative. The current access routes to the garage from north and south are..confusing and lead to many conflicts with pedestrians in dowtown. A specific downtown transportation plan, as requested by 1000 signatures, is imperative before new projects are approved. The undersigned have such a plan. It contains three phases up to the year 2028 and was done by civil engineer Mike Sallaberry from San Francisco. - A reduced version with only 110 added spaces, as proposed five years ago, should be considered. This version would not touch the post office parking lot and be more economical because of the lowered clearance on the ground floor. - Today's garage version requires a clearance of 14' on the whole ground floor because of the postal truck. This is 6' higher than the normal 8' 2" clearance and adds considerable building volume and costs. It should also be noted that the current project needs a lot of grading(cut volume),because in some locations the post office lot is 4' higher than the lot on 860 Pacific Street. The reduced project would not have to deal with this issue and would keep the existing retaining wall and some trees in place. 6 I 1 For ticketing, a more economical and ecological pay on foot system must be considered in any case. This necessitates changes to the current project. Should the Council decide to put the project to bid in the coming months, then we would ask permission to see the bidding documents together with an expert in construction management and costing. Before any contract is awarded, the City must have a reasonably strong guarantee, that cost overruns do not fall back on her. San Luis Obispo,February 14,2001 Representative: Eugen Jud, Fellow Institute of Transportation Engineers.. SAVE SLO: Jean Seay, Secretary f CITIZENS FOR ETHICAL PLANNING: Brian Christensen, President OLD TOWN NEIGHBORHOOD: Leo.Pinard,President Report PWD by traffic engineer Debra Larson =Circulation Element pages 6-7 and 15 3Meyer Mohaddes, Progress Report Nr. 2, 1997, chapters 2 and 3; multiple literature under Transportation Demand Management(TDM) and www. i.org Appendix: Sketches traffic flow 7 f Appendix 1: TWO MAIN PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS to the Downtown Center going over the mid block crosswalk must be attractive: - from the new center of the garage - from the Railroad District and the pedestrien oriented "SLO Morro" Street �. o PIt-11 1 ��, dot-W�-ce-I.f A z ® C o ® elevafor_ 0 Ktw ee., ® Per ell Xr CZO O t V � � 8 Appendix 2: TRAFFIC FLOW AROUND GARAGE Current plan creates permanent conflict with pedestrians and inefficient traffic flow due to short queuing space for vehicles entering the garage. Queuing interferes with pedestrians. L e g N d E c, , =s queuing vehicles ,r postal truck /tlarc4 �� Cf�NFL!CT 1 P Pa`l 0. 3 entrances —J a 2 exits J 5 conflicts with T2ed. I_ _ e _ I Mal �� PF i1c Alternate plan provides smooth traffic flow, ample queuing possibilities and very little pedestrian conflicts. 6v�� e" 0 � _ 1 entrance > - �' X ! 3 exits t Exl 4 conflicts with ned a u- fu3 EO 9 Appendix 3: ACCESS ROUTES FROM NORTH AND SOUTH Current plan draws unnecessary traffic into downtown SLo � Very dangerous route wia a� '.G9�Gajl A .// . /t'lgrlGi PSG Viz. Alternate plan provides direct access without using Higuera and Marsh Streets SLo � `7ch vee, �oia r� I S /Lfgrr-4 el - ply&,o �o Appendix 4: INFLUENCE OF ALTERNATE PLAN ON TRAFFIC, SMALLER GARAGE VERSION Alternate plan reduces traffic in the highly sensitive areas of Higuera and Marsh Streets Mi a;or Mme/-e,{y it 0, 101-4q f,.r Vleo( SLo 1 ® QKa —9i /�arflr same �� r1 in commercial area p with 10%residential use rAt Smaller garage version is less expensive and leaves the post office operations untouched. "Pay on foot' ticketing may allow for just one entrance and exit lane (existing). F 0 0 v Aed /,:::t 9:; � /i 1 I ) .�illlllll Iilll I����;��� piillll IIII OBISPOcl O sanWIS 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 March 8,2001 CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE MARSH STREET PARKING EXPANSION ARC 28-99(MOD) You are being notified that the San Luis Obispo City Council will hold a public hearing to consider an appeal of the Architectural Review Commission decision regarding Marsh Street parking expansion. The Public Hearing portion of the meeting will be held on Tuesday,March 20,2001 beginning at 7:00 p.m in the Council Chamber at City Hall,990 Palm Street. The public is welcome to attend and comment.Written comments are encouraged. Other items may be discussed before or after this item. Please know that if you challenge this action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised during the public hearing described in this notice,or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to,the public hearing. The agenda report,including recommendation by staff,will be available for review in the City Clerk's Office (Room#1 of City Hall)the Wednesday before the meeting. For more information,please contact John ahoalsot the Communi Development Department at 781-7166. Lee Price,C.M.C. City Clerk OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. �� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781.7410. . � l O P 03/08/01 14:39:13 Dstuart Label List Page 1 Occupants 100 meter File Number: ARC 28-99 SourceAddress: 860 PACIFIC ST ARC Owners 100 meter Occupants OCCUPANT 2485 Village Lane (for 1141 CHORRO) duplicate OCCUPANT P.O.Box 1348 (for 1144 CHORRO) duplicate OCCUPANT 1235 CHORRO OCCUPANT 1235 CHORRO# non-mail OCCUPANT 1235 CHORRO# '• non-mail OCCUPANT 1235 CHORRO#"' non-mail OCCUPANT 1260 CHORRO non-mail OCCUPANT 1260 CHORRO# A OCCUPANT 1260 CHORRO# B OCCUPANT 1301 CHORRO OCCUPANT 1306 CHORRO OCCUPANT 1317 CHORRO non-mail OCCUPANT 1317 CHORRO# A OCCUPANT 1317 CHORRO# B OCCUPANT 1317 CHORRO# C OCCUPANT 1318 CHORRO OCCUPANT 1325 CHORRO OCCUPANT P.O.Box 15914 (for 1326 CHORRO) duplicate OCCUPANT 1329 CHORRO OCCUPANT 1334 CHORRO OCCUPANT 1336 CHORRO OCCUPANT. 1341 CHORRO OCCUPANT 1370 CHORRO OCCUPANT 1212 GARDEN OCCUPANT 1304 GARDEN non-mail OCCUPANT 1304 GARDEN# 1 OCCUPANT 1304 GARDEN# 2 OCCUPANT 1304 GARDEN# 3 OCCUPANT 1304 GARDEN# 4 OCCUPANT 1308 GARDEN OCCUPANT 1312 GARDEN non-mail OCCUPANT 1312 GARDEN# A OCCUPANT 1312 GARDEN# B OCCUPANT 839 HIGUERA non-mail OCCUPANT 4115 Broad Street,Suite B-1 (for 849 HIGUERA) duplicate OCCUPANT P.O.Box 1348 (for 853 HIGUERA) duplicate OCCUPANT 879 HIGUERA OCCUPANT 255 Alhambra Circle#1523. (for 883 HIGUERA) OCCUPANT P.O.Boz 34067 (for 885 HIGUERA) duplicate OCCUPANT 887 HIGUERA OCCUPANT 891 HIGUERA OCCUPANT P.O.Boz 12252 (for 893 HIGUERA) duplicate OCCUPANT 8624154th Avenue NE (for 895 HIGUERA) duplicate OCCUPANT P.O.Box 182216(Attn.Tax Dept.) (for 899 HIGUERA) duplicate OCCUPANT 777 MARSH OCCUPANT 781 MARSH OCCUPANT 781 MARSH# 1 OCCUPANT 781 MARSH# 2 OCCUPANT 781 MARSH# 4 OCCUPANT 781 MARSH# 6 OCCUPANT 781 MARSH# 8 OCCUPANT 781 MARSH# 9 OCCUPANT 781 MARSH# 10 03/08/01 94:39:13 Dstuart \, Label List Page 2 Occupants 100 meter File Number: ARC 28-99 Source Address: 860 PACIFIC ST ARC Owners 100 meter OCCUPANT 781 MARSH# 11 OCCUPANT 781 MARSH# 12 OCCUPANT 781 MARSH# 14 OCCUPANT 781 MARSH# 15 OCCUPANT 781 MARSH# 16 OCCUPANT P.O.Box 1002 (for 785 MARSH) duplicate OCCUPANT 1241 Johnson Avenue#340 (for 790 MARSH) duplicate OCCUPANT P.O.Box 1348 (for 837 MARSH) duplicate OCCUPANT 1042 Walnut Street (for 840 MARSH) duplicate OCCUPANT P.O.Box 1061 (for 855 MARSH) duplicate OCCUPANT 859 MARSH OCCUPANT 871 MARSH non-mail OCCUPANT Amber Hartman 485 Cochrane Circle(for 876 MARSH) OCCUPANT 815 Fiero (for 883 MARSH) duplicate OCCUPANT Tom&Jim Copeland P.O. Box 1348(for 888 MARSH) OCCUPANT 890 MARSH OCCUPANT 1334 Parkview Avenue,'Suite_330 (for 892 MARSH) duplicate OCCUPANT 893 MARSH OCCUPANT 1400 Old Country Road (for 894 MARSH) duplicate OCCUPANT 898 MARSH non-mail OCCUPANT P.O.Box 591 (for 951 MARSH) duplicate OCCUPANT 981 MARSH non-mail OCCUPANT 1119 MORRO non-mail OCCUPANT 1216 MORRO non-mail OCCUPANT 1322 MORRO non-mail OCCUPANT 1322 MORRO# non-mail OCCUPANT 1335 MORRO OCCUPANT 1345 MORRO non-mail OCCUPANT 1345 MORRO# A OCCUPANT 1345 MORRO# B OCCUPANT 1235 OSOS OCCUPANT 1239 OSOS OCCUPANT 829 PACIFIC OCCUPANT 836 PACIFIC non-mail OCCUPANT 860 PACIFIC non-mail OCCUPANT 860 PACIFIC#100 non-mail OCCUPANT 860 PACIFIC#101 non-mail OCCUPANT 860 PACIFIC#102 non-mail OCCUPANT 860 PACIFIC#103 non-mail OCCUPANT 860 PACIFIC#104 non-mail OCCUPANT 860 PACIFIC'#105 non-mail OCCUPANT 863 PACIFIC# A OCCUPANT 863 PACIFIC# B non-mail OCCUPANT 867 PACIFIC OCCUPANT 870 PACIFIC non-mail OCCUPANT 1260 Chorro Street,Suite B (for 880 PACIFIC) duplicate OCCUPANT 881 PACIFIC OCCUPANT 899 PACIFIC OCCUPANT 899 PACIFIC# non-mail OCCUPANT 971 PACIFIC non-mail OCCUPANT 818 PISMO OCCUPANT 820 PISMO OCCUPANT 850 PISMO OCCUPANT 854 PISMO OCCUPANT 866 PISMO OCCUPANT 890 PISMO non-mail OCCUPANT 890 PISMO# A 03/08/01 14:39:13 Dstuart .I Label List Page 3 Occupants 100 meter File Number: ARC 28-99 Source Address: 860 PACIFIC ST ARC Owners 100 meter OCCUPANT 890 PISMO# B OCCUPANT 0 1PARKING LOT 4 non-mail OCCUPANT 0 SPARKING MARSH non-mail Owners AYERS RONALD&LYNN 5915 ENCINO AV(for 850 PISMO) CARROLL.HOWARD E TRE ETAL PO BOX 1025(for 1318 CHORRO) CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO (940) ATTN:ADMINISTRATION 990 PALM ST(for 880 PACIFIC) non-mail CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO (940) ATTN:ADMINISTRATION 990 PALM ST(for 870 PACIFIC) non-mail CLARK MARGO D TRE 1335 MORRO ST COPELANDS PROPERTIES LLC PO BOX 1348(for 1144 CHORRO) COVEY 3 A CA GEN PTP %JAMES A QUAGLINO INC 815 B FIERO LN(for 1141 CHORRO) City of San Luis Obispo Administration 990 Palm Street(for 860 PACIFIC) non-mail City of San Luis Obispo SLO Capital Improvement Board/Admin. 990 Palm Street(for 837 MARSH) non-mail City of San Luis Obispo Administration 990 Palm Street(for 1260 CHORRO) non-mail FINFROCK WILLIAM ETUX 2608 BARCELONA(for 1322 MORRO) FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INS CO ATTN LL MEEK(for 899 PACIFIC) FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CH SLO PO BOX 591 (for 951 MARSH) FITZPATRICK&BARBIERI A CA GEN PTP%FITZPATRICK&BARBIERI 1326 CHORRO ST GIN JOHNNY TRE ETAL 556 LEFF ST(for 1345 MORRO) GREAT WESTERN BANK %WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK ATTN:MYERS,VIANI&PHILLIPS(for 1235 CHORRO) GREAT WESTERN BANK %WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK ATTN:MYERS,VIANI&PHILLIPS(for 1235 duplicate CHORRO) GREAT WESTERN BANK %WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK ATTN:MYERS,VIANI&PHILLIPS(for 1235 duplicate CHORRO) GREAT WESTERN BANK %WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK ATTN:MYERS,VIANI&PHILLIPS(for 1235 duplicate CHORRO) JOHNSON GREGORY TRE ETAL 1297 RICH CT(for 777 MARSH) JONES JAMES P JR ETAL %JAMES P JONES 3820 SEQUOIA DR(for 1312 GARDEN) KARLEN PAUL A&CYNTHIA A PO BOX 12238(for 863 PACIFIC) KIM MATTHEW Y&KELLEY A 1370 CHORRO ST LARSEN HARRY B TRE ETAL %FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INS CO PO BOX 1147(for 899 PACIFIC) LENGER JEANNETTE F TRE ETAL 3101 HORIZON DR(for 839 HIGUERA) MARCUM JAMES O TRE ETAL 830 VENABLE(for 1317 CHORRO) MASONIC HALL ASSOCIATION 859 MARSH ST MISSION LAND CO LLC c/o Joe Delucia PO BOX 1266(for 1235 OSOS) MISSION LAND CO LLC TENET HEALTHCARE CORP PO BOX 1286(for 1322 MORRO) duplicate MORTON DS&KAREN R 881 PACIFIC ST NELSON ALICE P TRE 1661 HILLCREST(for 1304 GARDEN) PUGH EDITH G TRE ETAL 70 BUENA VISTA ST(for 1334 CHORRO) RANELLETTI WILLIAM A&MARY E 253 EL PORTAL(for 883 MARSH) SAN LUIS OBISPO DOWNTOWN CENTRE 966 MONTEREY ST(for 883 HIGUERA) SAN LUIS OBISPO DOWNTOWN CENTRE 966 MONTEREY ST(for 490 MARSH) duplicate SAN LUIS OBISPO DOWNTOWN CENTRE 966 MONTEREY ST(for 879 HIGUERA) duplicate SHEAHAN FRANCIS 1329 CHORRO ST SHEAHAN FRANCIS PO BOX 1442(for 1329 CHORRO) SMITH DAN B ETAL 225 MAIN ST(for 1212 GARDEN) TAYLOR JOHN W,TRE ETAL RR 1 BOX 107(for 971 PACIFIC) TRUESDALE ARLETTA L TRE ETAL %TRUESDALE,NEAL,KAMM 734 PACIFIC ST(for 1301 CHORRO) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (932) (far 893 MARSH) non-mail VEGA NYDA ETAL 218 S RANCH ST(for 1306 CHORRO) WALTER WILLIAM&MICHELLE 679 MONTEREY ST(for 818 PISMO) 96 labels printed on 03/08/01 at 14:39:13 by Dstuart y / r ��;.%F/+v''�/%GyFGfi%cy/�/'�',�':% •t, rig�Jfr�J.'��'f .\ /n'.r r:r. % fh h q /%/.fI',y,'�I�•l+hNaiJC. i r....... ..:f'i'yloo/:'%,,�.T:F // ,G3%/.' t ;• /�if}� rtr�J ru pJ/O' i,N .'iG:�, .c�%"'�lrl%�1' y I/JA'%',�r,6•� y, .. t y Wof'��aavc./i N-0 /.3��'F/.%''jj %"%"djYf'/�vr,.0�;'',f+r1.:+r•;:CG%.' 9.:J.:'1:�f•f�ryF�r(:%�v�r,:.1!' /'r �+/rJ�'`rte%�J''h/.%!J'' ry /J.. ii {J +iG i wv 1. 1 •%`!% t ��/!r://�,� r�r:%/:F::':i" y _ /J L JIiF��i :�'�ii''.'.�ry \ ��'a/ v'�N./+�''r��p✓�/J:�� ': %o//��r /%r' r. '\+ 'a/f fv/,�'/Fr`j �"r'�'.':'r'�%'/: r''ri.». • F. F. •r:++F: rn:F f 't�Ji':..�v:n%�r;6JJ�,�/i r'/%. /irk i/J/:•:'1�"J/ 'r' :�%�� i:9.: '� < 4 /rJ:'/J. y ,�,o r6• :r�%G/��%/%/ f!F,J�'..�,i?c�Jn�,v��%r `t / t }rN:rr: fr Solid = Owner and Occupant Diagonal Lines= Occupant Only Cross Hatch = Owner Only CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO GEODATA SERVICES 955 MORRO STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401 805 781-7167 03/08/01 14:39 �►IIIIIIII IIII II II��,��� �Illl lllll � City of san luis oBspo 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 March 9, 2001 Save SLO Eugene Jud C/o Jean Seay 665 Leff Street 544 Pacific Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: Appeal of Architectural Review Commission Approval of Modifications to the Marsh Street Parking Garage Expansion Project at 860 Pacific Street Dear Appellants: The San Luis Obispo City Council will hold a public hearing to consider the Appeal of the Architectural Review Commission Approval of Modifications to the Marsh Street Parking Garage Expansion Project at 860 Pacific Street. The meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, March 20, 2001, beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis'Obispo. Other hearings may be held before or after this item. Please know that if you challenge this action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. For additional information or questions concerning this item, please contact the Community Development Department at 781-7166. The Council agenda report with recommendation by staff will be sent to you on the Wednesday before the meeting. Please call the City Clerk's Office at 781-7103 if you would prefer to pick up the agenda report. Sincerel W Lee Price, CMC City Clerk c: Brian Christensen, Citizens for Ethical Planning . Leo Pinard, Old Town Neighborhood Mike McCluskey, Public Works Department, City of SLO The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410. be artment of Communit 'evelo ment City of San Luis Obispo p p 990 Palm Street Planning Application San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 781-7172 Project Address 860 PACIFIC Parcel# 003-627-006 Legal Description CY SLO BL 100 PTN LTS 10&11 Zoning 1 p Zoning 2 Property Owner City of San Luis Obispo - In Care Of Administration Owner Address 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo CA 93401-3249 Applicant Name CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Day Phone( ) Address Representative KEITH OPALEWSKI.PARKING MNGR - Day Phone(805)781-7234 Address 836 PACIFIC ST,SAN LUIS OBISPO,.CA 93401 Send correspondence to applicant X representative owner other(see file) only environmental review of concept plan is proposed at this time Application made pursuant to Chapter/Section of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. Planning Services Summary _ Application# Type of Application Received Fee U 118-96 Expand four-level parking structure to northeast, 09/24/96 $819 by up to about 340 additional spaces ER 118-96 Environmental review for garage expansion 09/24/96 $613 ARC 118-96 Expand four-level parking structure to northeast, 09/24/96 $697 by up to about 340 spaces Total fees Exempt Total Fees does not match Total Paid! Received By GLEN MATTESON Fee Paid by Assigned planner GLEN MATTESON n Headngs ER PC Hearing 08/27/97 ER CC Hearing 11/18/97 ER Env.Determination 10/08/96 (f ER PC Hearing 07/14/99 TING AGENDA �..,rE ITEM # Co-= communication ICitv of San Luis Obispo DATE: March 12, 2001 TO: Mayor& Members of the City Council VIA: Ken Hampian, ACAO FROM: Lee Price, City Clerk SUBJECT: Meeting Schedule Issues RECOMMENDATION: Provide direction to staff regarding two meeting scheduling matters relating to the April 17th regular meeting and a"Wireless 101"Joint Study Session with the Architectural Review and Planning Commissions. 1. Vice Mayor Ewan has reminded staff that he had previously requested that there be no meetings scheduled for the week of April 16`s given the fact that it is Spring Break for SLO Coastal School District. The second regularly scheduled meeting of the month falls on Tuesday, April 17u'. Staff offers, as an alternative, that the Council meet on Tuesday, April 24`I' and would appreciate some direction from the Council about rescheduling the meeting. 2. On July 18, 2000, the City Council reviewed the City's current General Plan policies relating to the location of telecommunications facilities. During public testimony, Emily Haebib from Alpine PCS suggested that the Council conduct a joint study session with the ARC and the Planning Commission at which industry representatives could provide an educational workshop about wireless telecommunication facilities ("Wireless 101"). There was some general interest on the part of the Council, however,no formal direction was given to staff to coordinate the workshop. Staff would recommend that unless there is continued interest by a majority of the Council to proceed with scheduling this type of joint study session, that the matter be placed on the"back-burner" given the number of meetings on the Council's calendar over the next few months. Additionally, coordinating a joint session with the ARC and Planning Commission may.be a difficult matter particularly as we approach the summer months when we anticipate scheduling difficulties due to summer vacation plans. IL 0 CM D11 ❑ 4 Fia P4 O FIR -:;[F 0AItORNEY C FVO Q,3 feCCEMORIG 0 rOUV`c CHF T AGI ❑REG DIR O UTIL,DIR O p PERS DIR Communication-Agaida Review MEETING AIitIVUR DATE TTEM # RECEIVED- M FEB 1 4 '2091 SI.O_CITY COUNC nom, An ` -\\j 2, --ham gz ,-Y)12-,, � 1 des- -otic UU Y e, f T-) 4e., o S v O v 'Y n �.� h � a � � oo a � ct- n A © v Y v -Y w c _ 4 Di RECEIVED o _ — r L FEB I � 2001 :� . ,,; Y. `F 0,;r - i ❑Rcr,DIA SLO CITY COUNCILI o� pUTIL DIR DIR . ' MEETI,= AGENDA .' . DATE _077 DIR MEMO �0 FIN DIR AO�- -- V FA�RRE CHIEF jTTORNEY ®'PW DIR UrCLERK/ORIG. ❑ POLICE CHF March 18, 2001 0 DEPT HEADS ❑ REC DIR r2 0.-UTIL DIR To: Ken H*appofARC Z HR DIR From: Ken S Re: Delayaction on the Marsh Street Garage Expansion Copies: Mayor Settle and Council members Ewan, Marx and Mulholland- This is in response to your Memo of March 14's containing a suggestion for delaying the appeal on the ARC recommendation I do not support this recommendation Further, Ibelieve that it sets an extremely dangerous precedence for the orderly accomplishment of city work My reasons are as follows: 1. To my knowledge,the staffhas followed normal procedures for setting this matter on the agenda and has complied with normal noticing practices. 2. This is one appeal supported byfourindividua s;/organizations—it is not four appeals. It is my position that any one of the four individuals/organizations should-be equally able to present the basis ofthis johiappeal. If Eugene Jud has a special point to make,then I believe he should put that in writing and address it to the Council or have one of his to-appellants read it during the appeal hearing. 3. The City has engaged a professional architect for this project and for the subsequent changes the Council has-ordered be made. 4. This is an appeal to a recommendation of our Architectural Review Commission The ARC is the advisory mission whose expertise we rely upon in making architectural judgments. 5.--Professor Jud-has appeared before the Council on numerous occasions string his expertise as a traffic engineer. While everyone is entitled to his/her aesthetic opinions, I have not heard Professor Jud claim-to be a professional architect. 6. The business at hand is architectural Council members-sit-on this-Council with the desire to-participate in eyery meeting and in every agenda item, yet we know that there will be times when we have to miss a meeting. The City's scheduled mweti$gs do not stop because one of us is absent. (John Ewan recently missed one.) We rely on our colleagues to carry 09 the City's business and we accept that some of the decisions made in our absence y,not be the decisions we might have liked best. J-see this issue-in-much the same-light, Professor Jud-cannot make a meeting that he would like to participate in, yet he has colleagues who should be able to stand in for him. San Luis Obispo does not revolve around the opinions of one person. RECEIVED MAR 15 2001 SLO CITY COUNCIL Page 2: MEMO Would we accept this request from any other ofthe foar appellants? Can you imagine what a mess we would have if we did? Example: We schedule a meeting, appellant#2 can't make it and requests a postponement;we schedule a second meeting,but appellant #4 can't make it and asks for a continuance;we schedule a third meeting,but appellant #3-will be out of town and would lice another date;we schedule a fourth meeting but appellant#1 can't make that one and wants a postponement-this could go on forever. If we postpone for one,how can we refuse anyone else? This is not a smart thing to do. The precedence will be deadly.