Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/20/2010, SS1 - INTRODUCE PROJECT REDESIGN, FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR), AND PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMM counat � ,�►� Z��,o acEnda Repoat II�"®°`ss CITY OF SAN LUIS O B I S P O FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director Prepared By: Tyler Corey, Associate Planner SUBJECT: INTRODUCE PROJECT REDESIGN, FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR), AND PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION FOR THE GARDEN STREET TERRACES PROJECT. RECOMMENDATION Receive staff presentation on project redesign, Final EIR and Planning Commission recommendation. REPORT-IN-BRIEF In 2006 the City and WestPac entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) intended to facilitate the development of a significant downtown mixed use project utilizing both private and public property. Consistent with that MOU Garden Street SLO Partners, LP has submitted applications to the City to develop a downtown mixed-use center including retail; residential units and a hotel known as the Garden Street Terraces Project. The project site is located within the City's Downtown Core and Downtown Historic District and consists of six parcels, including . City Parking Lot No. 2, bordered by Broad Street, Garden Alley, Garden Street and Marsh Street. . The project has substantially evolved through two complete redesigns since it was originally submitted in August of 2006. The first redesign occurred prior to work commencing on the Draft . EIR. The second redesign occurred subsequent to completion of the Draft EIR, and was initiated by the applicant to eliminate the Verizon Parcel (742 Marsh Street) from the project boundary and to respond to impacts and mitigation measures contained in the environmental document. Since revisions to the project occurred after circulation of the Draft EIR, the Final EIR has been updated to reflect the revised project description and address impacts and mitigation measures associated with the revised project. Changes have also occurred to the alternatives section between the Draft and Final EIR versions. Among the alternatives evaluated by the EIR were the Reduced Development Alternative and the Project Without Public Parking Alternative, the former being the environmentally superior alternative and the latter evaluating General Plan consistency and circulation concerns associated with incorporation of publicly operated parking spaces into the project. On February 24, 2010, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend the City Council certify the Final EIR; approve the Reduced Development (environmentally superior) and Project Without Public Parking Spaces alternatives as the required project; approve a use permit to allow a,building height of 74 feet; and approve a vesting tentative tract map for an airspace subdivision (Attachment 2). The project would include all components of the Reduced Development Alternative with the basement parking levels operated solely as a private facility. r� Council Agenda Report—ER/U/TR 124-06 April 20,2010 Page 2 The Commission recommended several changes to the mitigation measures in the EIR relative to noise, upper floor building setbacks, Bubblegum Alley, parking requirements and energy efficiency. The purpose of this presentation is to inform the Council and community on the project redesign, Final EIR and Planning Commission recommendation. Council will not be taking any formal action on the project. The project is scheduled to return to Council on June 1, 2010 for review and consideration of the Final EIR as well as other project entitlements and the report for that meeting will include a formal staff recommendation. DISCUSSION The discussion below describes and compares the evolvement of the project over three main stages of design: 1) The project as presented in the Draft EIR. 2) The project as redesigned in the Final EIR subsequent to the circulation of the Draft EIR. 3) The project alternatives as recommended by the Planning Commission. Revised Project Description evaluated in Final EIR The proposed project consists of demolition and modification of existing structures on 1.11 acres, and construction of a 212,607 square-foot mixed-use development. The proposed project would include a total of eight levels, including two basement levels and a rooftop pool terrace level. Average building height would generally range from four to five stories (approximately 36 to 51 feet) above ground level, with maximum elevations up to approximately 74 feet at the top of the elevator shaft. Proposed uses include 34 residential units (including two split-level townhomes and three low- income affordable housing units), a 95-room hotel, and 27,589 square feet of ground-floor retail space. Retail space would include a 13,248 square-foot neighborhood market. Retail, hotel, and market space would generally occupy the first floor ground level street frontages along Marsh, Garden, and Broad Streets, with the upper stories comprising a mix of hotel uses and residential condominiums. A two-level subterranean parking garage would be accessed from Marsh Street. The first basement level of the parking garage would consist of 60 City-owned, metered public parking spaces and two handicap-accessible spaces, while the second basement level would contain City-owned spaces leased for hotel/valet and privately-owned spaces for residential users. The project site area includes parking lot #2 which currently has 62 public parking spaces and the closed restroom facility. The development would include pedestrian access between the subterranean public parking garage and the corner of Broad Street and Garden Alley, including an elevator, stairwell, and escalator with the ability to transport shopping carts. A pedestrian walkway would also be provided between Garden Alley and Marsh Street, with a connection through to Garden Street S:S� a Council Agenda Report-ER/U/TR 124-06 April 20,2010 Page 3 adjacent to the proposed hotel lobby. Public viewing terraces are proposed on the second and fifth floors with stairwell access from Broad Street and elevator access only from the hotel lobby off Garden Street, respectively. The project would also include improvements to Garden Street, between Higuera and Marsh Streets, which are generally consistent with the City-approved Garden Street Improvement Plan. Garden Alley would also receive paving improvements, urban design features, and traffic control (e.g., bollards). The project would reconfigure private and public parcels and lead to the demolition and modification to both private and public structures and surface parking. The Final EIR Changes from Draft EIR to Final EIR The Final EIR reflects a redesign of the project subsequent to circulation of the Draft EIR. In general, changes reflected in the revised project include an increase in the number of hotel rooms and the amount of commercial development; a reduction in residential development; inclusion of an additional level of subterranean parking; increased retention and partial rehabilitation of historic resources; and use of setback and facade changes to address visual concerns. These changes are summarized below: Draft EIR Project Revised Project(Final EIR) Use Details/Units Size(sp Details/Units Size(sf) Retail 12 spaces 17,116 10 spaces 14,341 Residential 53 units v 56,406 34 units 42.011 --- ......... :_ ....... Market 0 units 0 1 unit 13.248 --— -------_---------- --- ........... ....._.._...._... ......- . _..-....-. Hotel/Restaurant 70 rooms 55,829 95 rooms 77,426 — --— ......... .._-- ........ -- - --.. Parking 162 spaces(40 public) 59,372 147 spaces(62 public) 65,581 Unmet Parking None(23 Space 37 Spaces Demand/In Lieu Surplus) Total 188,723 212,607 Changes to Impact Determination from Draft EIR to Final EIR Changes in project impacts and mitigation measures as a result of revisions to the project description include those listed in the table below. In general, the changes to the project description would reduce or avoid a number of impacts, including the project's impacts to Aesthetics and Visual Resources, Cultural Resources, Land Use and Planning Policies and Transportation and Traffic. The changes to impacts and mitigation measures under the Draft EIR project and the revised project are summarized below: Impact Statement Draft EIR Final EIR 3.1 Aesthetics and Visual Resources SSS/-3 I l Council Agenda Report—ERIU/TR 124-06 April 20,2010 Page 4 VIS 7 The first floor fagade of the proposed project, from the Class II No Impact-Fagade revised to garage entry on Marsh Street,extending around the Broad Street convey a sense of building Corner to the residential lobby, is inconsistent with the division. horizontal rhythm of nearby streets and the overall Downtown Core. VIS 8 The height of the proposed project would cast shadows on Class H No Impact-More than 51%of more than 51 percent of some existing building roofs across neighboring roof areas would Garden Alley and some south-facing walls across Garden Street be unshaded at a height of 50 and would result in potentially significant impacts. feet above grade. 3.3 Cultural Resources CR-2 The proposed project would result in significant but Class I Class II-The project has been mitigable impacts to the historic Union Hardware Building revised to retain more of the (Downtown Brewing Company Building)located at 1119 Garden building,including all Street,a historic resource on the Master List of Historic Resources identified significant character- and considered eligible for listing on the National Register of defining features. Historic Places. CR-6 The proposed project would result in significant and Class I No Impact-This building is no unavoidable impacts to the building at 742 Mash Street(Verizon), longer part of the project. a historic resource on the City's Contributing List of Historic Resources,as a result of proposed demolition. 3.7 Land Use and Planning Policies LU-2 The proposed project may be potentially inconsistent with Class 11 Class IH-The project has been several of the policy objectives established for taller buildings revised to be more consistent under Land Use Element Policy 4.16.4 and Chapter 17.42(C-D with the pedestrian amenities zone)of the City's adopted zoning ordinance. and economic vitality policy objectives. 3.10 Transportation and Traffic TT-9 The proposed project demand for bicycle facilities would Class II Class III-The project has been exceed the available supply. revised to include additional bicycle parking facilities. Significant & Unavoidable Impacts The Final EIR concludes that the proposed project will result in significant and unavoidable Class I environmental impacts to: • Aesthetics and Visual Resources—visual impacts to the character of Garden Street. • Air quality — short and long-term construction emissions of Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), and operational air pollutant emissions associated with vehicle trips from the project. • Cultural Resources — potential to impact human burials; impacts to the Downtown Historic District; and the demolition and modification of significant historical buildings. • Noise—short-term construction noise. • Cumulative Impacts — relative to Air Quality (long-term operational emissions of ROG and NOx and emissions associated with vehicle trips), Cultural Resources (loss of historic resources in the Downtown Historic District) and Noise (increase in vehicle traffic). '5Ss -L� ( i Council Agenda Report—ER/U/rR 124-06 April 20,2010 Page 5 The City would be required to adopt a statement of overriding considerations if it were to accept the project as submitted or the revised project. The EIR also finds that there will be significant impacts that can be mitigated to less than significant in the categories of aesthetics and visual resources, air quality, cultural resources, geologic resources, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning policies, noise, energy, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems. Table ES-1 at the beginning of the EIR summarizes the project's impacts and mitigation measures. Planning Commission Recommendation On February 24, 2010, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission (PC) to consider the Final EIR, use permit and vesting tentative tract map for the project. Consistent with the staff recommendation, the Commission unanimously voted to recommend the City Council certify the Final EIR; approve the Reduced Development (environmentally superior) and Project Without Public Parking alternatives as the required project; approve a use permit to allow a building height of 74 feet; and approve a vesting tentative tract map for an airspace subdivision (Attachment 2; PC minutes). Specifically, the project would include all components of the Reduced Development Alternative with the basement parking levels operated solely as a private facility. The Commission recommended several changes to the mitigation measures in the EIR relative to noise, upper floor building setbacks, Bubblegum Alley, parking requirements and energy efficiency. The PC also unanimously recommended the City Council certify the Final Revised Project(Final EIR) Staff&PC Recommended Project Use Details Size(s Details* i Size(st)* Retail 10 spaces I 14,341 10 spaces 14,341 _ _ _...... .. ....._. Residential 34 units I 42,011 33 units 40,775 Market 1 unit 13,248 1 unit i 13,248 HoteVRestaurant 95 rooms 77,426 63 rooms 51,346 Parking 147 spaces(62 65,581 147 spaces(No j 65,581 public) public) j Unmet Parking 37 spaces i None(61 Space Demand/In Lieu Surplus) Total j 212,607 185,291 EIR with findings of overriding considerations relative to aesthetics and visual resources, air quality,cultural resources, short-term construction noise, and cumulative impacts. A comparison between the revised project evaluated in the Final EIR and the staff and PC recommended project are summarized below. In general, changes from the "Revised Project (Final EIR)" to the "Staff & PC Recommended Project" include a reduction in the amount of proposed development; avoidance of some of the project's most visually intrusive elements; increase in protection of historic resources; and elimination of public parking. Project statistics for the "Staff & PC Recommended Project" are assumptions based on the SS/ '� Council Agenda Report-ERIUfrR 124-06 April 20,2010 Page 6 requirements for the recommended combination of alternatives included in the EIR. Accurate project details will not be available until the applicant submits a redesign. As is true for the overall project, accurate project details regarding construction above the historic structures will be available when the applicant submits a final design for the project. Reduced Development Alternative The Reduced Development Alternative is considered to be the environmentally superior alternative since impacts would be reduced for most issue areas, including significant unavoidable lona-term impacts to historic resources (e.g., loss of historic structures). In addition, all project objectives would be met. This alternative would reduce the amount of proposed development, avoid some of the project's most visually intrusive elements, increase protection of historic resources, and better maintain the existing historic and aesthetic character of Garden Street. Specifically, this alternative would require all historic structures be rehabilitated in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties and provide for 15-foot building setbacks above the 2"d floor level for the Broad and Marsh Street facades. It should be noted that the EIR discusses the potential to construct an additional floor level above the historic buildings in accordance with the Secretary Standards for rehabilitation. This may not be financially or structurally feasible, or consistent with the rehabilitation standards given the condition, size and dimensions of the project's historic buildings. Project Without Public Parking Spaces Alternative The recommended alternative would eliminate the designation of 62 parking spaces on-site as public parking. Parking demand generated by private uses under this alternative would be accommodated within the subterranean parking structure. The public parking spaces were initially proposed to be within the new building at grade with Marsh Street; however the revised project (studied as part of the EIR) proposed to construct these spaces in the first basement level of the underground parking structure with access coming from a long speed ramp located at the rear of the new building. The recommended alternative does not include any change to the project's proposed 85 private parking spaces in the second basement level for hotel valet and residential uses but does allow flexibility to the project to better meet its private parking demand on site. The original project as envisioned by the MOU between the City and the developer was predicted on a project that maintained public parking on the site. As the project has proceeded through the environmental review process a more comprehensive picture of policy consistency and operational impacts has emerged and is discussed in the EIR. The developer has revised the project to address some issues and partially mitigate some potential impacts. The retention of public parking on site creates operational issues that staff believes do not best serve the public parking needs, drive undesirable internal circulation design and create enforcement difficulties. Moreover, City policies, including General Plan policy, encourage the location of public parking outside the downtown core. Thus, staff ultimately recommended the Project With No Public Ss / -/b Council Agenda Report—ER/U/TR 124-06 April 20,2010 Page 7 Parking alternative because, in conjunction with the reduced development alternative, it best implements policy and addresses operational concerns. Further, the Project Without Public Parking Spaces Alternative balances the various needs and impacts of the project and allows flexibility in final building design; reduces costs and impacts to both the project and the City; and eliminates operational issues for Parking Services. The proposed subterranean parking creates operational concerns not inherent in the original project proposal and result in efficiency issues that can not be addressed through simple redesign of the building. GARDEN ALLEY s i —r— eanwa r Retail \ ,rJ iy a s , i ReSldenlial , ` �I _.' Hotel "`"" `1 Lobby ... L� i °°" �.nm. wcr ]] � I' i � � I � I{U1SR •t Pd p Ground Level Public Parking fin ,l 31I y � 40 Spaces .^p' V/!/, `.._'".� >, 1 m X1 'f z M i �- Retail I I� �� a ) 7 — m . `• Retail Retail ~ Remll Retail 1 /`scuEw rsEr —•-ivt 4 w�s�.-ad ® Parking Garage Entrarieej Exit- MARSH STREET o a LEGEND KEY l•�'RNO60p Pfe�oCr Area v Ewwax an6pt Skunvay Vii) Tmsv Facartba J Exiamp Wall W De Ro.wo } RanW 'J Mecnanlr morape Q Pedussvvlan AIXOK Wakway Q elks Laken10 J'ExW9nq 91eMirtp a Revwm Figure 1 —Original Project Design: At-grade public parking By its nature, the recommended alternative will result in a loss of public parking in the project vicinity; however, consistent with City policy (e.g., Land Use Element Policy 4.10), this parking would be accommodated at the Marsh Street Structure and eventually could also be entirely replaced in the proposed Palm/Nipomo Parking Structure. Under this alternative, impacts to traffic and circulation would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. This is also supported by the Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center ("Downtown Concept Plan,") which promotes parking on the perimeter of downtown, not in the core. The Downtown Concept Plan also outlines a primary goal of improving access between the Downtown core and peripheral areas by increasing parking spaces available to the public at strategic locations direct through traffic around the Downtown. Safety and Functionality Issues The location of the public parking spaces has substantially changed in the project revisions. The initial project included public parking at grade with Marsh Street that was easily accessible and S7 ,3/ �_ Council Agenda Report—ER/U/TR 124-06 April 20,2010 Page 8 open to the general public. The revised project had more spaces, but had public parking in the basement level of the project with less direct access locations. The proposed mix of public and private uses in the parking structure had the potential to create user conflicts and delays, especially during peak hour or hotel events (e.g., vehicles circulating to hunt or stopping to wait for parking spaces, valets rushing cars to storage on the Second Basement Level, and residents accessing Second Basement Level parking). Due to internal circulation constraints of the project with public parking, City parking enforcement and maintenance personnel may have been required to perform their duties on foot rather than by vehicle to avoid adding to potential congestion within the parking structure. This created safety concerns. Circulating in and out of the proposed location when the parking is fully occupied is problematic in comparison to the surface lot design that was a quicker "in and out" if the lot is full. Additionally, due to the subterranean location, enforcement, even by scooter, is much more resource intensive than what was originally anticipated with the at-grade public parking version of the project. GARDENALLEY mow ; „ Com.; M V � I I 3:.CStrtll O NSI Lobby •{ C' t' 'hoMake; 6 �► rf�/ ' m - -- ao--- -------------- ------- m Cn I I I ------- 2 to M r� c II = ----� 1 REsiCerlWl M Loewy p._' ---- m I 11 t r tir Evtc+'c�'..icx °b— 1 N I th SCALE M FEET /Oor= MARSH STREET Parking Garage Entrance* +Exit G7 LEGEND kEy �7 Truk Faco-i:i Chu '© CMf J Raw Q hk JtaniuV_�a e J P_ nmal Demsing Wag Q E+ke Ra J Moving Walkway Figure 2—Proposed Project: Longitudinal Drive Aisle and Speed Ramp With the Project Without Public Parking Alternative, the applicant would pay replacement fees to the City to help offset the project-created loss of 62 public parking spaces and at the same time compensate the City for the use of the land. In turn, this may contribute to off-site parking i Council Agenda Report-ER/U/TR 124-06 April 20,2010 Page 9 facilities/projects, such as at the proposed Palm/Nipomo Street Parking Structure or other parking supply additions. It is worth noting that those seeking parking for this development would most likely park on adjacent streets or at the existing Marsh Street structure, which is located a block away on Marsh Street and has a current occupancy rate of 55%. Thus, existing structure capacity could accommodate public parking displacement as well and demand of the project if needed. Because the existing MOU between the City and developer contemplates on site parking replacement, Council's certification of the EIR with the No Public Parking Alternative as part of the required project would drive the need for renegotiation of the terms of the MOU. This process is underway and staff is attempting to have major terms renegotiated by the time this project is considered for final hearing by Council scheduled for June 1, 2010. GARDEN ALLEY E2 -Ni Ol,N I' i iF ;u Tm+•�xkaJ 3 ' 1 Cha ® B � _� '. i lfCbr 3eCttm i ran Reverse Basement Public Parking I z I 62 Spaces Flow I m throughout _ _ a��, j y Public Area A 8 i - --� ' 8 I m 11,11 I t I f tt:rr � ._ 1N / SCALE IN FEET - - ----- - - - - - - - - - - --.I 40 MARSH STREET LEGENDV^^l:� K=Y se ?rupod?raje'.A.� Elevabraocar Stairway (D Tmsn FactitSvChwv, Pubic Fa'm. We ParAmg-e;Spaces Public Mo:nmr1e Packing-4$pates P.amp QS Mec�anicaLBsrage PubtHetel ScyCe Pmmg_10 Spaces J Clk-Loax d h1.rt9L':3ikway Figure 3-Proposed Project: Subterranean (basement) Public Parking Once the project is operational, transportation and circulation impacts under the Project Without Public Parking Spaces Alternative would be similar to those described for the Proposed Project, though internal circulation would be improved. This alternative would result in better functionality and fewer user conflicts and delays since the mix of public and private uses in the subterranean parking structure would not occur. In addition, City parking enforcement, collection, and maintenance personnel would not be required and would not increase potential SS/-9 Council Agenda Report—ER/U/TR 12406 April 20,2010 Page 10 congestion within the parking structure. Parking demand generated by private uses under this alternative would be accommodated within the subterranean parking structure. Next Steps The purpose of this meeting is to receive a presentation on the project redesign, Final EIR and Planning Commission recommendation. The project is scheduled to return to Council on June 1, 2010 for review and consideration of the Final EIR as well as other project entitlements and will include a formal staff recommendation. Following Council certification of the EIR, and use permit and subdivision approval, the project will then return to the CHC and ARC for final design review. The project would include the following order of meetings: 1) Council review and action June 1, 2010 on Final EIR, use permit and subdivision; 2) CHC final review and recommendation to ARC on project design (date TBD); and 3) ARC final review and action on project design (date TBD). ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Planning Commission minutes from the February 24, 2010 meeting Previously distributed: Final EIR TACouncil Agenda Reports\Community Development CAR\2010\CC GST Report 4-20-10(4).doc 41 lei 3 V`y N Attachment 1 .�• l xi r � � t.' �l . y r �pF_ i T; r XN 11 77 v. ioK .' •�l � r � h.... Rl [ � � r.t yjr /i��� 1 � ��\\ lh fr t"r � ^ .•i s� Ar � Nt i .h �1. • +• �.1 P I 'fin. VICINITY MAP . File No. 124=06 N 11193 11239 1125, 1127, 1129, 1137 Garden � 7121 7209 7225 7289 7369 748 Marsh Attachment 2 SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 24, 2010 ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Michael Boswell, Michael Draze, Eric Meyer, Airlin Singewald, Mary Whittlesey, and Vice-Chairperson Michael Multari Absent: Chairperson Charles Stevenson Staff: Community Development Director John Mandeville, Deputy Community Development Director Doug Davidson, Associate Planner Tyler Corey, and Recording Secretary Janet Miller ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: There were no comments from the public. MINUTES: The minutes of January 27, 2010, were approved as amended. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 1119, 1123 — 1127. & 1129 — 1137 Garden Street and 712, 720, 748, 736, 722, & 728 Marsh Street ER 124-06: Consideration of Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Use Permit, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map; C-D-H zone; Garden Street SLO Partners, LP, applicant. (Continued from January 27, 2010, meeting) (Tyler Corey) Tyler Corey, Associate Planer, presented the staff report,- recommending the Commission adopt the following resolutions, which recommends approval of the Final EIR, Use Permit, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map to the City Council: a. Adopt Resolution A that recommends the City Council certify the Final EIR with findings of overriding considerations relative to aesthetics and visual resources, air quality, cultural resources, short-term construction noise, and cumulative impacts, and recommending that the Reduced Development (environmentally superior) and Project without Public Parking Alternatives is the required project. b. Adopt Resolution B that recommends the City Council approve a modified use permit and vesting tentative tract map, based on findings and subject to conditions and code requirements. Dan Gira, EIR Consultant, addressed EIR document changes and correspondence from Mr. Victor Montgomery. Planning Commission Minutes' February 24, 2010 ATTACHMENT Page 2 Carol Florence, applicant representative, supported staffs recommendation and urged approval by the Commission. Ms. Florence thanked the public, staff, and applicant for their participation. Hamish Marshall, applicant, provided clarification on the HOA portion of the proposed subdivision. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Bob Vessely, San Luis Obispo, supported staffs recommendation and urged approval by the Commission: Alan Cooper, San Luis Obispo, supported staffs recommendation. Mr. Cooper noted that historic resources should be preserved and that Garden Alley needs a specific design plan. Mr. Cooper noted concern with potential view loss and tree removals. David Brodie, San Luis Obispo, supported the process. Mr. Brodie expressed concern about the proposed building height and requested that a physical model of the building be provided for public review. Deborah Cash, Downtown Association, supports downtown investments. She noted the Downtown Association Board voted unanimously to support the project, which implements the Downtown Strategic Plan. Marianne Orme, San Luis Obispo, supported staffs recommendation. Mrs. Orme expressed concern about the loss of public parking on Garden Street. She also expressed concern about the passenger loading and unloading zone on Garden Street in front of the project, and construction impacts to her business. Mrs. Orme would like to seethe historic buildings preserved. Linda Groover, San Luis Obispo, expressed concern over the project's size and mass. Mrs. Groover requested that a physical model of the building be provided for public review. Elizabeth Thyne, San Luis Obispo, supported staffs recommendation. Ms. Thyne expressed concern over the project's size and mass. She noted that the historic buildings should be preserved. Diane Duenow, San Luis Obispo, expressed concern over the project's size and mass. She also noted concern for the loss of trees in the City parking lot.. Vangeli Evangelopoulos, San Luis Obispo, expressed concern for Garden Alley and that a design plan should be prepared. He noted the importance of Garden Alley as a dual use corridor for both pedestrians and businesses. He would like to see a tree replacement plan for the project. �l - 13 Planning Commission Minutes ' -- ATTACHMENT 3 February 24, 2010 Page 3 Joseph Abahams, San Luis Obispo, requested that a physical model be prepared for the project. Mr. Abahams noted concern for the lack of upper-story building setbacks along Broad, Marsh, and Garden Alley to address massing.. Richard Stephens, San Luis Obispo, expressed concern with construction impacts and the passenger loading and unloading zone on Garden Street. There were no further comments from the public. The Commission took a 10-minute break at 8:25 p.m. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Meyer supported staffs recommendation. He noted the importance of historic resource preservation to the downtown and community. He requested clarification on mitigation requirements for tree removals. Staff cited speck mitigation requirements in the EIR that addressed tree removals. Commr. Draze was pleased with Final EIR. He noted that construction to LEED Silver standards is adequate energy efficiency mitigation for the project. He would like to see flexibility with the proposed exterior noise mitigation requirements. Commr. Boswell supported staffs recommendation. He requested clarification on the mitigation measures under consideration and if they would restrict the ARC's consideration of the project. Staff replied that the mitigations would not restrict the ARC's decision making. He also expressed concern about exterior noise mitigation requirements, and that an equitable Garden Street Improvement Plan needs to be considered for all Garden Street businesses. Commr. Whittlesey supported staffs recommendation. She expressed concern for construction impacts to surrounding streets and exterior noise mitigation requirements. Vice-Chair Multari suggested adding language to an existing mitigation measure with the intent to allow views through Bubblegum Alley be considered. He raised concerns about the proposed exterior noise mitigation requirements. He supported the use of City ordinance for parking requirements. For energy efficiency, he supported either LEED Silver or exceeding Title 24 by 15%, not both. There were no further comments from the Commission. On motion by Commr. Draze, seconded by Commr. Whittlesey to adopt Resolution A that recommends the City Council certify the Final EIR with findings of overriding considerations relative to aesthetics and visual resources, air quality, cultural resources, short-term construction noise, and cumulative impacts, and recommending that the Reduced Development (environmentally superior) and Project without Public Parking Altematives is the required project, with the following amendments: 1) Mitigation Measure NO-3c is required for applicable common outdoor residential activity areas and is optional for applicable private outdoor residential activity areas (2) Minor variations to SSI-/L( Planning Commission Minutes'-- ATTACHMENT February 24, 2010 Page 4 the Reduced Development Altemative setback requirement of 15 feet above the 2"d floor level along Marsh and Broad Streets should be considered to achieve architectural benefits, to the approval of the ARC; (3) Mitigation Measure LU-1 shall include Bubble-gum Alley with specific -attention to maintaining views through the proiect site from Higuera to Marsh; (4) The proiect's parking requirement shall be based on City Zoning Regulations; and (5) Mitigation Measure EN-2c requires the proiect be constructed to LEED Silver standards. Mitigation Measure AQ-3g is duplicative, and shall not require the proiect's energy efficiency rating also exceeds Title 24 by 15%. AYES: Commrs. Boswell, Draze, Meyer, Singewald, Whittlesey, and Multari NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commr. Stevenson The motion passed on a 6:0 vote. On motion by Commr. Boswell, seconded by Commr; Draze to adopt Resolution B that recommends the City Council approve a modified use permit and vesting tentative tract map, based on findings and subject to conditions and code requirements. AYES: Commrs. Boswell, Draze, Meyer, Singewald, Whittlesey, and Multari NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commr. Stevenson The motion passed on a 6:0 vote. On motion by Commr. Boswell, seconded by Commr. Draze to direct the ARC to: (1) Revisit the Garden Street Improvement Plan to evaluate equitable benefits for all business owners with particular attention to access and parking; (2) Promote the creation of a "hero" building with superior design, such as towers, arcades, and projections. AYES: Commrs. Boswell, Draze, Meyer, Singewald, Whittlesey, and Multari NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commr. Stevenson The motion passed on a 6:0 vote COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 2. Staff a. Agenda Forecast — Deputy Community Development Director Davidson provided the forecast. 3. Commission 20 April 2010 RED FILE To: Mayor Romero and City Council members MEETING AGENDA DATA ' o a ITEM # ss1 From: Deborah Cash, Executive Director San Luis Obispo SLO Downtown Association Downtown Association Re: Garden Street Terraces PO Box 1402 The SLO Downtown Association Board of Directors at its April 13,2010 San Luis Obispo meeting unanimously approved the following recommendation from its Parking California 93406 and Access committee: Phone 805-541-0286 Fax 805-781-2647Recommend to City Council to support Planning Commission's www.downtownslo.com townsl recommendation with removal of public parking from Garden Street Terraces with caveat that in lieu and lease payments go to the City's enterprise parking fund. It is understood that the City has well illustrated the challenges of operating a public parking enterprise in a private structure and, further, that the City's parking management practices have historically been carefully assessed to meet the parking demand created by any new situation where parking is lost. The Downtown Association is also supportive of the continuing momentum of the Palm Nipomo parking structure and while the Parking and Access committee and Board do not necessarily feel that particular structure should be "tied"to the Garden Street Terraces projects, its presence will provide a critical piece to the eventual parking management plan for all of Downtown. Lastly, the Board also notes that the developer and his team continue to be responsive to the needs and desires of the community, particularly the Downtown neighbors, showing good faith efforts to address and find solutions to concerns as they are raised. Therefore, the Board encourages the Council to support and move forward with the Garden Street Terraces project as per the Planning Commission's recommendation. Cc: SLO Downtown Association Board of Directors SLO Downtown Association Parking and Access Committee Hamish Marshall Carol Florence �p �mftrC George Garcia EF`� COUNCIL ErCDD DIR 3eeAeerri 44455- C'rFIN DIR I3-ABA6/+zr4' r'1*--z- ['FIRE CHIEF 2-ATTORNEY [DPW DIR RECEIVED ff`tLERK/ORIG CFPOLICECHF ❑ DEPT HEADS ['REC DIR APR 2 0 2010 i Pf6 [fiuTIL DIR SLO CITY CLERK nt✓%ron CacA)CAL C�Eee= Mcouncit MCMORAnbum 71-77 -777777777 DATE: April 19, 2010 RECEIVED TO: City Council APR 19 1010 VIA: Katie Lichtig, City Manager SLO CITY CLERK FROM: Doug Davidson, Community Development Deputy Director SUBJECT: Study Session, Garden Street Terraces— Council Meeting April 20, 2010 Attached is an email correspondence from the Downtown Association supporting the Planning Commission's recommendation for the No Public Parking Alternative of the Garden Street Terraces project. Please call Tyler Corey extension#7169 (781-7169) or Doug Davidson at extension#7177 (781- 7177) if you have any questions. RED FILE %��CIL L2tDD DIR I `° � Q'FIN DIP - 1MEE 1NG AGENDA "ry"'� Ct'FIRE CHIEF nlIRNEY Q9SW DIR DA Jo rmM # ld-CLERK(oRIG C OSCE COIF DEPT HEADS CMEC DIA g. V 72(Ai"lr �1DIP � GTK rn62 19 April 2010 To: Tyler Corey, Associate Planner City SLO From: Deborah Cash, Executive Director SLO Downtown Association Re: Garden Street Terraces The SLO Downtown Association Board of Directors at its April 13, 2010 meeting unanimously approved the following recommendation from its Parking and Access committee: Recommend to City Council to support Planning Commission's recommendation with removal of public parking from Garden Street Terraces with caveat that in lieu and lease payments go to the City's enterprise parking fund. It is understood that the City has well illustrated the challenges of operating a public parking enterprise in a private structure and, further, that the City's parking management practices have historically been carefully assessed to meet the parking demand created by any new situation where parking is lost. The Downtown Association is also supportive of the continuing momentum of the Palm Nipomo parking structure and while the Parking and Access committee and Board do not necessarily feel that particular structure should be "tied"to the Garden Street Terraces projects, its presence will provide a critical piece to the eventual parking management plan for all of Downtown. Lastly, the Board also notes that the developer and his team continue to be responsive to the needs and desires of the community,particularly the Downtown neighbors; showing good faith efforts to address and find solutions to concerns as they are raised. Therefore, the Board encourages the Architectural Review Commission to adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation and support the project, without the public parking component. Cc: SLO Downtown Association Board of Directors SLO Downtown Association Parking and Access Committee Hamish Marshall Carol Florence George Garcia