Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
06/01/2010, PH 6 - CONSIDERATION OF A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR), USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT
council MR°�°� , o j acEnaa Report CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Direct Prepared By: Tyler Corey, Associate Planner U SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR), USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR THE GARDEN STREET TERRACES PROJECT. RECOMMENDATION As recommended by the Planning Commission, adopt the following resolutions granting approval of the Final EIR, use permit and vesting tentative tract map for the Garden Street Terraces Project: 1. Adopt Resolution A .that certifies 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 approving the Reduced Development (environmentally superior) and Project Without Public Parking Alternatives as the required project. 2. Adopt Resolution B that approves a modified use permit and vesting tentative tract map, based on findings and subject to conditions. REPORT-IN-BRIEF On April 20, 2010 a public hearing was held before the City Council to introduce the project redesign, Final EIR, and Planning Commission recommendation for the Garden Street Terraces Project. At this meeting, Council shared questions and unanimously agreed that final project design review, including a physical model, would be undertaken by the Council. Ten individuals spoke during the hearing and were generally complimentary to the content and conclusions of the Final EIR while expressing concern for the Final EIR project's size and mass, and need for a physical model. The EIR has been extensively reviewed by City advisory bodies over the course of nine public hearings between August 2007 and April 2010, including four hearings before the Planning Commission (PC), three before the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) and two before the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). The comments and recommendations made by these advisory bodies have been incorporated into the Final EIR where appropriate. In addition to EIR certification, the applicant is seeking approval of project entitlements including a use permit to allow a maximum building height of 74 feet and vesting tentative tract map in the form of an airspace subdivision. The use permit is required for development projects with maximum building heights between 60 and 75 feet in accordance with Chapter 17.42 of the Zoning Regulations. The use permit requires Council make a specific finding that the public �� 6- 1 Council Agenda Report—ER/U/TR 124-06 June 1,2010 Page 2 benefits associated with the project significantly outweigh any detrimental impacts from the additional height. On February 24, ,2010 a public hearing was held before the 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 3; PC minutes). Specifically, PC directed the project to 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. DISCUSSION Final EIR Project Description The Final EIR project includes the request for the following entitlements: 1) Final EIR certification 2) Use Permit to allow a maximum building height of 74 feet 3) Vesting tentative tract map The Final EIR 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 Final EIR 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 City parking lot #2 which currently has 62 public parking spaces and the closed restroom facility. PH 6 Council Agenda Report—ER/U/TR 124-06 June 1,2010 Page 3 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 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. Final EIR& Policy Analysis EIR Adequacy The Final EIR is a compilation of the Draft EIR and responses to comments. Responses to comments are a written evaluation of comments on the environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the Draft EIR. Copies of all the written comments received during the public review period have been incorporated into the Final EIR. The responses to comments (Section 7.0 of the Final EIR)were prepared by the consultant and reviewed by City staff. Council needs to review and consider the information contained in the Final EIR to determine whether it is complete and in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); this review process is called in CEQA "certification". On February 24, 2010 the PC unanimously voted to recommend the, Council certify the Final EIR (Attachment 3). On March 22, 2010 the CHC adopted a resolution reaffirming its previous determination that the EIR adequately identifies, evaluates, and mitigates environmental impacts of the proposed project relative to cultural resources (Attachments 4 & 5). On April 19, 2010 the ARC adopted a resolution affirming the CRC's and PC's determinations of EIR adequacy(Attachments 6 & 7). PC, CHC, ARC and staff evaluation of the Final EIR indicates that it adequately identifies. evaluates and mitigates environmental impacts of the project. If Council believes the document is adequate, it should certify the EIR. The EIR must be certified prior to approval of the project or project alternatives analyzed in the EIR. Regardless of Council's action on the vesting tentative tract map and use permit (even if it is to deny it), Council could certify the EIR. In other words, Council could certify the EIR even if it did not approve the other requested entitlements. Environmental & Policv Conclusions Based on an objective analysis of environmental impacts, project ,goals and objectives and consistency with applicable General Plan policies, staff and the PC are recommending a combination of the EIR's environmentally superior alternative (Reduced Development) and Project Without Public Parking Spaces alternatives. Specifically, the project.would include all PNS - 3 Council Agenda Report—ER/U/TR 124-06 June 1,2010 Page 4 components of the Reduced Development alternative with the basement parking levels operated solely as a private facility. In general, the Reduced Development 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 the following: 1) All historic structures would be rehabilitated in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties; 2) Reduced project size due to the Secretary Standards restrictions on construction above the historic buildings along Garden Street; and 3) 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. The Project Without Public Parking Spaces 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. Please see Attachment 8 (CAR from the April 20, 2010 meeting) for a complete discussion of this alternative. Specifically, this alternative would provide the following benefits: 1) Consistency with Land Use Element Policy 4.10 and the Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center by providing public parking on the perimeter of downtown, not in the core. 2) Eliminate operational issues and conflicts.resulting from a mixture of public and private parking. 3) Eliminate City enforcement and maintenance difficulties in the subterranean parking structure. 4) Result in a more efficient parking design (no parking area needed for City enforcement or maintenance vehicles). 5) Allow for implementation of the Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center through payment of public parking replacement fees to offset the project-created relocation of 62 public parking spaces. 6) Provide more flexibility in the final project design. Mitigation measures are proposed to reduce most impacts to less than significant levels for the recommended alternatives. For those impacts that cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels (Aesthetics and Visual Resources, Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Noise and Cumulative Impacts), findings of overriding considerations are recommended. In accordance with CEQA, an agency may adopt a statement of overriding considerations as a means to approve a project with pry 6 - `� Council Agenda Report—ER/U/TR 124-06 June 1,2010 Page 5 unmitigated significant environmental impacts. CEQA allows the decision making agency to balance- as applicable- the economic; legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental impacts. Changes to Proiect Statistics Changes in project statistics as a result of revisions to the project description between the Draft EIR Project, Final EIR Project and Staff & PC Recommended Project are summarized in the table below. Changes from the "Draft EIR Project" to the "Final EIR 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 structures; and use of setback and fagade changes to address visual concerns. Changes from the `'Final EIR Project" 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 beyond what is needed to serve the demand of the development. Staff&PC Recommended Draft EIR Project Final EIR Project Project Use Details . _ ..Sizes _ Details Size(sD Details* Sizes * Retail 12 spaces 17,116 10 spaces 14,341 10 spaces 14,341 Residential 53 units 56,406 34 units 42,011 33 units 40,775 Market 0 units 0 1 unit 13,248 1 unit 13,248 Hotel/Restaurant 70 rooms 55,829 95 rooms 77,426 63 rooms 51,346 Parking Provided 162 spaces(40 59,372 147 spaces 65,581 147 spaces 65,581 public) (62 public) (No public) Unmet Parking None(23 37 Spaces None(61 Demand/In Lieu Space Surplus) Space Surplus) Total 188,723 212,607 185;291 * Project statistics.for the "Staff& PC Recommended Project" are assumptions based on the requirements for the recommended combination of alternatives included in the EIR. Precise project details will not be available until the applicant submits a redesign. As is true for the overall project, precise project details regarding construction above the historic structures will be available when the applicant submits a final design for the project. Changes to Impact Determination Changes in project impacts and mitigation measures as a result of revisions to the project description between the Draft EIR Project, Final EIR Project and Staff & PC Recommended Project include those listed in the table below. In general, changes between the Draft EIR Project, Final EIR Project and Staff & PC Recommended Project would reduce or avoid a number of impacts, including impacts to Aesthetics and Visual Resources, Cultural Resources, Land Use and Planning, Transportation and Traffic and Cumulative Impacts. PN6 -s Council Agenda Report—ER/U/TR 124-06 June 1,2010 Page 6 The impacts in the table below are listed as Class I, Class II or Class III. "Class I" = significant unavoidable impacts that may not be fully mitigated to less than significant levels, "Class II" = significant impacts that can be fully mitigated to less than significant levels; and "Class III" = impacts that are considered less than significant and do not require mitigation. Draft EIR Staff& PC Im act Statement _ Project. F.ina1,EIR Project _: Recommended Project., 3.1 Aesthetics and Visual Resources VIS-1 The height of the Broad Street facade Class 11 Class 11 Class 111-The building would create a potentially significant impact to facade will be setback 15 the character or quality of the site and its feet above the 2nd floor surroundings. level. VIS-2 The height of the proposed project's Class II Class II Class III-The buildings Garden Street facade would create a potentially along Garden Street will significant impact to the character or quality of be rehabilitated in the site and its surroundings. conformance with Secretary Standards. VIS-3 The proposed project would significantly Class I Class 1 Class I-Although alter the character of Garden Street,eliminating impacts to the character many of the visual and historic elements which of Garden Street and the make this street representative of and an Downtown Historic important contributor to the historic small town District would remain character of the City's Downtown Core and the significant,they would be associated Downtown Historic District. substantially reduced due to rehabilitation of the historic buildings. VIS4 The height of the proposed project's Class 11 Class II Class III-The building Marsh Street facade would create a potentially facade will be setback 15 significant impact to the character or quality of feet above the 2nd floor the site and its surroundings. level. VIS-7 The first floor facade of the proposed Class 11 No Impact-Facade No Impact-Facade will project, from the garage entry on Marsh Street, revised to convey a continue to convey a extending around the Broad Street Comer to the sense of building sense of building residential lobby, is inconsistent with the division. division. horizontal rhythm of nearby streets and the overall Downtown Core. VIS-8 The height of the proposed project would Class 11 No Impact-More than No Impact-Project will cast shadows on more than 51 percent of some 51'%of neighboring be further reduced in existing building roofs across Garden Alley and roof areas would be size and mass. some south-facing walls across Garden Street and unshaded at a height would result in potentially significant impacts. of 50 feet above grade. 33 Cultural Resources CR-1 The proposed project would result in Class 1 Class 1 Class I-Although impacts significant and unavoidable impacts to the to the Downtown Historic Downtown Historic District as a result of the District would remain demolition or significant alteration of Master List significant,they would be and Master List-eligible historic structures. substantially reduced due to rehabilitation of the historic buildings. :PN 6 -C Council Agenda Report—ER/U/TR 124-06 June 1,2010 Page 7 Draft EIR Staff& PC Impact Statement. Project., ,Final EIR Project Recommended.Pro ect CR-2 The proposed project would result in Class I Class II-The project Class III-The building significant but mitigable impacts to the historic has been revised to will be rehabilitated in Union Hardware Building(Downtown Brewing retain more of the conformance with Company Building)located at 1119 Garden building,including all Secretary Standards. Street,a historic resource on the Master List of identified significant Historic Resources and considered eligible for character-defining listing on the National Register of Historic Places. features. CR-3 The proposed project would result in Class I Class 1 Class III-The building significant and unavoidable impacts to the historic will be rehabilitated in Smith Building, located at 1123-1127 Garden conformance with Street,a historic resource on the City's Master Secretary Standards. List of Historic Resources. CR-4 The proposed project would result in Class 1 Class I Class 111-The building significant and unavoidable impacts to the historic will be rehabilitated in Laird Building complex,located at 1129-1137 conformance with Garden Street,a historic resource on the City's Secretary Standards. Master List of Historic Resources. CR-5 The proposed project would result in Class I Class I Class III-The building significant and unavoidable impacts to the will be rehabilitated in building at 748 Marsh Street(Traditions),a conformance with historic resource eligible for the CRHR and the Secretary Standards. -City's Master List of Historic Resources. CR-6 The proposed project would result in Class.1 No Impact-This No Impact-This building significant and unavoidable impacts to the building is no longer is no longer part of the building at 742 Mash Street(Verizon),a historic part of the project. project. 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 Class If Class III-The project Class Ill-The project will inconsistent with several of the policy objectives has been revised to be continue to be consistent established for taller buildings under Land Use more consistent with with the pedestrian Element Policy 4.16.4 and Chapter 17.42(C-D the pedestrian amenities and economic zone)of the City's adopted zoning ordinance. amenities and vitality policy objectives. economic vitality policy objectives. 3.10 Transportation and Traffic TT-9 The proposed project demand for bicycle Class 11 Class III-The project Class III-The project will facilities would exceed the available-supply. has been revised to continue to provide include additional adequate bicycle parking bicycle parking facilities. facilities. TT-11 The proposed project would create Class II Class 11 Class II-Removal of potentially significant impacts to parking through public parking would loss of on-street public spaces,potentially unmet substantially improve private parking demand,and management issues parking structure at the public parking area on the first basement functionality and allow level of the proposed parking structure due to lack the project to meet its of visibility from the public street and potential private parking demand. overflow parking demand from the proposed However,the project P/-4 6 -�- Council Agenda Report—ER/U/TR 124-06 June 1,2010 Page 8 Draft EIR Staff& PC Impact Statement Project Final EIR Project Recommended Project project occupying designated public spaces. would still need to pay in- lieu fees to mitigate the loss of on and off-street public parking. 5.0 Cumulative Impacts Cultural Resources-Cumulative loss of historic Class I Class I Class III-The project's buildings in the Downtown Historic District. historic buildings will be rehabilitated in conformance with Secretary Standards. Silzrifficant& Unavoidable Impacts The Final EIR concludes that the Final EIR 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). A comparison of Class I impacts of the Final EIR Project to the various alternatives are summarized below("Yes" means Class I impact): Alternatives Staff& PC Recommended Incorporation Protection Project Final EIR of Historic of Visual No Public Reduced Class I Impact Project Buildings Resources Parking Development No Prgjcct 3.1 Aesthetics and Visual Resources VIS-3 Character of Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Garden Street 3.2 Air Quality AQ-I NOx and ROG I Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No construction emissions AQ-3 NOx Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No operational emissions / t Council Agenda Report—ERIU/TR 124-06 June 1,2010 Page 9 Alternatives Staff& PC Recommended Incorporation Protection Project Final EIR of Historic of Visual No Public I Reduced Class l Impact Project Buildings_ Resources Parking Development No Project 3.3 Cultural Resources CR-1 Downtown Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Historic District CR-3 Demolition of Yes No Yes Yes No No 1123-1127 Garden (Smith Building) CR4 Demolition of Yes No Yes Yes No No 1129-1137 Garden (Laird Building Complex) CR-5 Demolition of I Yes No Yes Yes No No 748 Marsh CR-8 Mission-era Yews Yes — Yes Yes Yes No human burials 3.8 Noise .. .. ----- --- NO-1 Short-term Yes I Yes Yes Yes Yes No construction activities 5.0 Cumulative Impacts Cultural Resources- Yes No Yes Yes No No Cumulative loss of historic buildings in the Downtown Historic District. Impact Comparison of Alternatives The environmental advantages and disadvantages associated with the Final EIR Project when compared to the analyzed alternatives are summarized below ("Less" means less impact than the Final EIR Project): Staff& PC Recommended Incorporation Protection of project of Historic Visual No Public Reduced No- Issue Area Buildings Resources Parking Development Project Aesthetics and Visual Less Less I Similar Less I..ess Resources Air Quality Less Less Similar Less Less Cultural Resources Less Similar ( Similar Less Less P/4� - 9 Council Agenda Repo rt—ER/U/TR 124-06 June 1,2010 Page 10 Staff&PC Recommended Incorporation Protection of project of Historic Visual No Public Reduced No- Issue Area Buildings, Resources Parking, Development Project Geological Resources Similar Similar Similar Similar Less Hazards and Hazardous Less Similar Similar Less Less Materials Hydrology and Water Similar Similar Similar Similar Less Quality Land Use and Planning Less Similar Less Less More Policies _�_ Noise Similar Similar Similar Similar Less Energy and Mineral Less Less 1 Similar Less Less Resources Transportation and Traffic Less Less e More —Less Less Utilities and Public Less Less Similar Less Less Services Project Objectives Met I All All All All None CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6) state that if the environmentally superior alternative is the No-Project Alternative, the, EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative from among the other alternatives that achieve the project objectives. Based on the preceding, the Reduced Development Alternative is considered to be the environmentally superior alternative since impacts would be reduced for most issue areas, including significant unavoidable long-tern impacts to historic resources (e.g., loss of historic structures). In addition, all project objectives would be met. While the impacts of the Reduced Development and Incorporation of Historic Buildings alternatives appear equivalent in the summary table above, the Reduced Development Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative because significant unavoidable long-term impacts to historic resources would be reduced to less-than-significant levels, and visual impacts would be reduced due to decrease in overall project size and greater upper story building setbacks. General Plan Consistency Consistency with the General Plan is the most important part of evaluating the proposed development. While over-riding considerations can allow significant environmental impacts, the City must find that the proposal is consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan contains many goals and policies intended to guide the decision on this development proposal. Key goals and policies pertaining to the proposed project are found in the following elements of the Plan: • Land Use • Noise • Housing • Safety t114C -1b I Council Agenda Report–ER/U/TR 124-06 June 1,2010 Page 11 • Circulation • Water and Wastewater Management • Conservation and Open Space Chapter 3.7 of the EIR contains a listing of the applicable policies and whether or not the Final EIR Project is consistent, inconsistent, or can be made consistent with the General Plan with certain mitigation measures. Attachment 8 to this report provides a policy consistency comparison of the Final EIR Project and the alternatives analyzed in the EIR. This analysis shows that there are differences in how the various alternatives comply with the General Plan. The differences are summarized below. Each policy was given equal weight in the analysis and only those policies that had different consistency results are shown. Alternatives Staff&PC GP Recommended Project Element Incorporation Protection of No and Final EIR of Historic Visual Public Reduced No Policy I Policy Issue Project Buildings Resources Parkin Develo merit Project ✓=Consistent; &=Inconsistent Land Use Element 4.12 I Building B ✓ ✓ ^ ✓ 1 Conservation and Compatibility Conservation and Open Space Element 3.3.1 Historic B ✓ B ✓ ✓ Preservation 3.3.2 Demolitions B I ✓ — 0 A _ ✓ ✓ 33).4 Changes to ✓ B ✓ ✓ Historical Buildings The policy comparison of the alternatives reveals that the "Incorporation of Historic Buildings" and the"Reduced Development" alternatives are more consistent with the General Plan than the "Final EIR Project" or the other two alternatives. It should be noted that staff and the consultant's policy analyses give equal weight to all of the applicable policies and determine whether or not a policy is satisfied or not satisfied. In reality, some community values are weighed more heavily than others and different project alternatives will implement particular policy objectives more or less than others. Use Permit—Building Height Ordinance 1527 became effective on October 18, 2007, which increased building height and intensity limits in the Downtown Commercial (C-D) zone. New buildings that meet multiple policy objectives, including specific design amenities and housing and retail land uses, could be po 1 -I Council Agenda Report—ER/U/TR 124-06 June 1,2010 Page 12 developed to a maximum height of 75 feet. The purpose of the use permit is to ensure that specific performance standards and policy objectives outlined in Chapter 17.42 (C) of the Zoning Regulations for buildings between 60 and 75 feet tall are adequately met. If found consistent, the Final EIR Project building height of 74 feet may be allowed if Council finds that the public benefits associated with the project significantly outweigh any detrimental impacts from the additional height. The performance standards and policy objectives of importance for this evaluation are listed below and staffs analysis follows in italics. Performance Standards (All Required) a. The project must include housing at a minimum residential density unit value of 24 units per acre. The average floor area of dwellings within the project shall be 1,200 square feet or less. Staffs Analysis: Consistent. The residential density for the project is approximately 31 units per acre with an average floor area of dwellings approximately 1,100 square feet. b. For projects on sloping sites, the height limit on the downhill portion of the site shall be defined by a line 75 feet above the average between the highest and lowest points of the site grade prior to development, and 75 feet above the lowest point. Staff's Analysis: Consistent. The project site slopes gently from Garden Street towards Broad Street with an approximate elevation change of 5 feet (less than 2%). Based on Sheets A.10 & A.11 of project plans, no portion of the building, including the Broad Street fafade, exceeds 73 feet tall as measured from average natural grade or lowest site elevation. c. The applicant shall demonstrate that the project will exceed Title 24 California Energy Efficiency Requirements by a minimum of 15%; or The project is designed to achieve at least a Silver rating on the LEED-CS or NC checklist (or equivalent measure) (LEED Certification is not required but is encouraged); or The project is designed to achieve a minimum value of 50 points on the SLO Green Build Multi-Family GreenPoint Checklist. Staff's Analysis: Potentially Consistent. The project would need an additional 20 points to achieve a LEED Silver Certification. The submittal of additional information prior to final design approval to confirm the necessary points, as required under Mitigation Measure EN-2c, would allow for project consistency with this standard. d. No more than 33% of the site area at the storefront level may be used for private parking facilities. Council Agenda Report—ER/U/TR 12406 June 1,2010 Page 13 Staff's Analysis: Consistent. All proposed private parking facilities are located on the second basement level. e. Lots shall conform to the minimum size and dimension requirements provided in the Subdivision Regulations. Staffs Analysis: Consistent. The project proposes an airspace subdivision, which divides property into three-dimensional spaces. Minimum lot sizes, dimensions, and area requirements do not apply to airspace subdivisions. Policy Objectives (Minimum of Two Required) f. Affordable and Workforce Housing The project provides affordable housing, per City standards, at the rate of 5% for low income households, or 10% for moderate income households, as a percentage of the total number of housing units built (no in-lieu fee option). Staff's Analysis: Consistent. The project provides three low-income housing units (9016). g. Economic Vitality The project provides additional economic benefit to the City by providing retail sales or hospitality uses (subject to the City's transient occupancy tax) on multiple levels. Total floor area dedicated to retail or hospitality uses must exceed 150% of the building footprint. Staff's Analvsis: Consistent. The project includes 27,589 square feet of retail space along the perimeter of the site at sidewalk level and a 77,426 square foot multi-story hotel. The retail and hotel uses have a combined area of 105,015 square feet or 216% of the building footprint. h. Other Policy Objectives The project directly implements specific and identifiable City objectives as set forth in the General Plan, the Conceptual Plan for the City's Center, the Downtown Strategic Plan or other key policy document. & 's Analysis: Consistent. The project directly implements the City's Garden Street Improvement Plan. Approved by the ARC in September 2002, the project has not been constructed due to lack of funding. Key elements of the plan include sidewalk widening on both sides of Garden Street, decorative paving along sidewalks, street trees, landscape planters, street furniture, tiled pedestrian crossing and locations for public art. The project proposes to construct these improvements, including 50% or more of the aggregate costs. In addition, the project is also consistent with many General Plan polices as shown in Attachment 4, and PNS - (3 Council Agenda Report—ER/U/TR 124-06 June 1,2010 Page 14 implements the Conceptual Plan for the City's Center by providing a pedestrian link between Marsh and Higuera Streets via Bubblegum Alley. i. View Access and Preservation The project provides a public viewing deck or decks, or similar feature, to provide significant free public access to views of surrounding natural features such as, but not limited to, Cerro San Luis. Staff's Analysis: Potentially Consistent. The project includes two public viewing terraces on the second and fifth floors; however, the second floor terrace would not provide views of surrounding natural features.. The fifth floor terrace would be co-located with an outdoor hotel and bar accessed via the hotel lobby and would provide views of the Santa Lucia foothills. Both terraces would not fully meet the intent of the policy,objective in terms of providing free and accessible upper floor public viewing decks. The submittal of a terraces management plan to ensure reasonably unrestricted public access to and use of the terraces, as recommended under Mitigation Measure LU-2, would allow for project consistency with this objective. Based on the preceding analysis, the Final EIR Project meets or exceeds all established performance standards for buildings taller than 50 feet, including a total of four policy objectives (two required), with incorporation of recommended mitigation measures. It should be noted that if Council approves the EIR's environmentally superior Reduced Development alternative as the required project, as recommended by staff and the PC, the project would also be found consistent with the Historic Preservation policy objective because all historic buildings would be rehabilitated consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Resources. Vesting Tentative Tract Map The applicant is requesting approval of an airspace subdivision which would allow the various project components (hotel, retail, residential and parking) to be sold separately without the need to bind them together through a homeowner's association for common area maintenance responsibilities. Airspace subdivisions are intended to serve mixed use, multi-story buildings within commercial zoning districts. A breakdown of the parcels and uses include: Parcel 1 consists of the hotel; parcel 2 and 44 consist of the residential common space; parcels 3-4 and 6- 7 consist of retail; parcel 5 consists of the City owned parking; parcel 8 consists of the building common space; parcel 9 consists of the public terrace adjacent to Broad Street; and parcels 10-43 consist of the residential units. For review purposes, airspace subdivisions differ from common interest subdivisions in that they do not share interest in a common area within the map boundaries. Because there are no common areas, an airspace subdivision is not a condominium project for purposes of the Subdivision Map Act. Instead, airspace subdivisions divide property ownership into three- dimensional spaces. Legal agreements recorded with the subdivision define how the lots and P/4 �� � Council Agenda Report—ER/U/TR 12406 June 1,2010 Page 15 uses will function once individual components are sold. Minimum lot sizes, lot dimensions, and lot area requirements do not apply to airspace lots. Parking requirements, setback requirements, building density, floor area ratio, and associated property development standards do apply and are determined as if all lots, buildings or structures in the airspace subdivision were merged into the same lot. As proposed, the airspace subdivision complies with the City's Subdivision Regulations without exceptions to the City's property development standards and without the need to change the zoning of the site. The subdivision does not modify the intent or design of the project, but rather allows for individual ownerships without binding the various project components together with a homeowner's association. Conditions and code requirements applicable to the subdivision have been included in Resolution B. Airspace subdivisions are well suited for projects that are likely to change. There are no "substantial conformance" issues since the number, size and dimensions of the lots are not individually evaluated as required for common interest or real property subdivisions. An airspace subdivision simply follows the form and function of the ultimate building design. Also, the requested vesting tentative tract map entitlement is a major milestone for project financing and will facilitate construction. For these reasons, staff recommends-approval of the subdivision at this time, even though it is recommended that the project design be changed in the future. Next Steps Following Council certification of the EIR, and approval of the Reduced Development and Project Without Public Parking Alternatives, vesting tentative tract map and use permit, the project must be redesigned. The redesigned project must incorporate all applicable EIR mitigation measures and use permit and subdivision conditions. The redesigned project would then be reviewed by the CHC and ARC with a recommendation to Council for final design approval. The project would include the following order of meetings: 1) CHC final review and recommendation to Council on project design (date TBD); 2) ARC final review and recommendation to Council on project design (date TBD); 3) Council final review and action on project design (date TBD). CONCURRENCES Other City departments, including Public Works, Utilities and Fire, have been involved in the drafting of the EIR and the review of the project through the development review process. Input from these departments is included in the proposed EIR mitigation measures and project conditions. Council Agenda Report—ER/U/TR 124-06 June,1,2010 Page 16 FISCAL IMPACT When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. Accordingly, since the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, it has a neutral fiscal impact. ALTERNATIVES Final_EIR The City has the following options in responding to the conclusions of the EIR: 1. Determine that the Final EIR is not adequate under CEQA, and provide direction to staff and the consultant on impacts not adequately addressed. 2. Select another alternative than staff and the Planning Commission's recommended combination of alternatives. 3: Approve the project as proposed despite its significant environmental effects, if the proper findings and statement of overriding considerations are adopted. An agency is not required to select the most environmentally superior alternative. Use Permit and Vesting Tentative Tract Map I. Council may approve the project with modified findings and/or conditions. 2. Council may continue action, if more information is needed. Direction should be given to staff and the applicants. 3. Council may deny the project if the necessary findings cannot be made. Action denying the application should include the basis for denial. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Reduced scale project plans 3. Planning Commission minutes from the February 24, 2010 meeting 4. CHC minutes from the March 22, 2010 meeting 5. CHC Resolution No. CHC-1004-10 6. Draft ARC minutes from the April 19, 2010 meeting 7. ARC Resolution No. ARC-1005-10 8. General Plan policy analysis 9. CAR from the April 20, 2010 meeting 10. SLO Downtown Association letter dated April 19, 2010 / Council Agenda Report—ER/U/TR 124-06 June 1,2010 Page 17 11. Resolution A, certifying the Final EIR and approving the Reduced Development and Project Without Public Parking alternatives as the required project 12. Resolution B. approving a modified use permit and vesting tentative tract map Council Reading File: Full-size project plans Previously distributed: 11x17 project plan booklets Final EIR G:\CD-PLAN\Tcorey\GST1CC\CC GST Report 6-1-10 Pht _j - M A-S-H Attachment I PF VZ C- DS_ D C-D-H -H F- -D- O VICINITY MAP File No. 124=06 11199 11239 11253 11279 11299 1137 Garden 7129 7209 7225 7289 7369 748 Marsh. �= ga Fey Attachment 2 gg pp a E is A� $: t� A3 3nY g�s O 3 xe.: oil Xw AI a^. a>�4 3" Yn AA ¢ agA A c5+9999 vv^aa.i u g $ X5 H y -lug x c ggggHgggg ggS �Q 9' a ¢@Qyy9 a Aa-s " a^ s ps € r r pp tda dd SAdaY¢a c5 S�Z asRaR a it d? r R tla-a 'C !q5 c Raa pRA;c gg A " _ A V.d `�:? 'r= ac„a c § e pg y9 gp 83. 7 k; o $ } } A p} 0} a ++ a IA 12�h eu3 49 y 5^y v c 1111 1 tHII �i �Se3tz$ `se# a` a§ c§a N ' 2K4 g �� vd1 q BBy 33 p p ,f 5 [, WIN ay ya 5a§ 4a§ j d}yi Ili; !INN d a .. � EkGFHi �tl�S �fEE F �����g� kYYY Y f iSH; i f f LLEL uJJJ"' f<�2l�1 ii%llf<1 A 'O OCL O �• L Q � ca dg o € ————————————--LM �R /UIa ?cg $i9 �yg ¢ [. ' C 8 yg �tE�,pp5'3 YK� §y" d3$� '�`tl O E yt ^a: CL a` .e3 3vA `s€s��3 tee© 99 �? i "a §� 34 5 O LL ^W, O o ' s ' yNy g HBe g A + xg g3 o SS �':'. $$ g3 Eia'9 a� L � Q1 gs 9 9 pY fp g� ^k.d RfygR}irr 4R}� fU�1CY N N Fn O tl .3.: Y 9] �9 G a a $ d 3 C :6 $V-"^ �Bii ��3's� w�i d lr M 3 Q1 O• � R n P } 0 T ^, L E _ L W y r• �: € Ria Hip AIAA LA LA t O a g H w LL: F $ s = 3sg 9a 4.0 gg yy3 q E } Y ;R gR p p O O1 d N N g P Euf-E :3 Mo L E s ,A. O ' 41 +, E }as.es uLn A ; Ng :03 a..i Q N s o S e e E Ix y i 1 R � O I I 1 g a _ I - saaan ameer -1 t I G i�E i I pp�Npp .: - gr ------=== f, a �r:..,.N30560A'W.90:15: Uo S . I `4 m S • I I I Fr y X I I I S v rA 11 I 7,j u • ( • AC 3.1 r6 S r Y t' r: S_ a5 m ; y� Vp e Cl Ta `C aq m 1 It Sim if .71 s h= n o s� i 3€ fig e IF fill] ' $ an N m s ag � yf m a s gip. S _ Y s d m t 0 A g $ x o G o g+ YE t 2887•Garden Street Terraces 3 o zingNrSpaceTentativeMap rds � a € J$Foite Plan and Tract Boundary eaoa*eraser 12 it y ,e �t E m g 8i 114 - iii a Y i, Aff 'E � IA' Yn an v.� ��I YYP�✓✓✓• - n5 � L- Cp L., e I � aroma S �i - � *OQOFJ118rREHr j'a85 a aap a[ 3 m_ e4 v' �i S ` 33 5 3 tt (r 77 FZg , mcn .• nn fg gt� rE51 a �`r pg°6dig z e a is y C PD q N s v $a � Tract 2887-Garden Sheet Terraces3g€- �ii 11 1� vl 0 y 1 s°�O+r^o rt $ d N N Vesting AirSpaeeTentativeMap i i� °�€ PH3.'$ a$ Existing Site Top*and Building Layout j�gg�]]�"�e5e5I[+ aE°eo•' 0 + H pnp 3�:Sh3YYY ' IFS C i t ,nn• ' t Inv netT SR • �_� trygv ag- ar r y B o I N1 � ~t i � It era^ -- iY 9 CN 9 I yuRy� at 3X IO � y 0 � E9 e§ MIT Z 9 § MIT Z « � i �. 9 gale� a a S = aa1 R- = L S § r F ateIv WIT Ric 3f s �R VpR Ins Inv m.m In:r Inx tntr mlr n a m.. I Fs - S ti'!a a -§e: a fi a 5 n _ #� . #_I@ ae�goa � e�#_, �#� a 6 m,r a Iu 1@ Iu is � air" a am' 12S 11 iu .ae to n xer _to ,a txs rm 1N n m" q IY air -P 1" $ d i Iv d an-7 ary rasr a1.Iav ��6 r y ui• n ani _ a #Ween_ a H mn- aw• 6 ma f 5 :. � s p mR � ➢ � g mR � �a � � m„ � �� � 6 9 t3v -z O >» q- F ~ mR mR ITIT ad IT CC - IT s -z �3e N: IT a = $ kSaQgA( n.rr g a nre i Q s nn• -lye OR mR S � !l!log N.R � � g g@@ pggp g G 0.n6 $ 9 tIeq air uP 9s FIi Plle } 5 a 621T Ir rM S Cw FIT IlY Z ' § § WIT Z E}a •ya a S I 'a aa{ S p q a* MIT ale Y j S I' � 3 3 'O = •� 9 r a = IRA Inx Iam nSr nn• 5 F1T E.% y FIT FA z p5 °,;has PI-51i a 3 n am ITa 11 lu I I.: sw i ® r — F �gg � mnb 5 a =i9 55 Ir N n rr �,t 116 5. CS C FT im — �. F,s Ir r.mk _ _y _ a.Il z s s a asg ga S a ax �� air9. w k 18 ma y insv o Tract 2867.Garden Street Terraces Ilii➢➢ ,.S e3 a ot• ➢c _ i g ➢ m z•. Vesting Air Space Tentative Map b 3el f^ �t � e n 3F rc m In w O• Air Space Lot Numbers and Layout tf ., -ot'ap� e s¢S ➢ In ;= a Attachment ' 2 a BmeO Btrbel Mk Bbct Nley z yyyy s gy j+ a gu ggR t 1 g8i ,E c T" 1 U L a" z i d rsl Slee z pa N �A IO O Ot Y N a6 !fi r e Gen S e b N ' Im m IT T T Y N emtaa N m n 0 z A N ti r 8 O_ j IF 39 (8, ey} 5 8 S kS O Yr1 �' m N =i g X m g � r E � � p 1' L _ —a3 a � � Tract 2867•Garden Street Terraces a a Vesting Air Space Tentative Map h $ ° � $ Es ill 4 i n !I g i Air Space Lot Sections and Vertical Control I \ I I HI y . . _ � = -- tachment2 �— l' v----- I I 11. 977135_,'9•C JSP.fiI'lug u 1+.1 nl a un I SJei VJ 'lliimA� 99 � z I tiH�� ra. iN'I V a o w a m a €i}2 l UO I I 'S IN p v I A I e g A 1"' '. YN sJaSs'Is[ 7.66' oe m Q1 e —_------------------ Ik I I L m m` I i I ♦ � ♦ Y C?• b IN� m° ® on \^ s p s 1"E SII'90'02"E 51.40' T ♦� I �8.�uu.. i un o vII� 6r p,'=_N__T_ __ l—H S3 4-46-77-E .Ji (.\5m-� 1 I w IT.IT' {L{ J¢^ o ® Oa^l p10 IF I .m y 6 p 4 I a l oq€y- N I ptl EC ..P l u 00 nil .r 9a'v ,¢ ooh 00 IRnn o �O'-'�I — — SJe5a'z1 TV.J9' l/r s N A _ 1 _ I o ZAu 0Z I it 2 [ • y —�� -� NQ+ Im c $ $ a n .nm a. 1 40 I I o e 11, 11, ®®®8®®®®®®®®®®9 8 8 8 8 8 8 fig m. goo d z5 a5 ROP rL £ ch R 5 n e aG eROP p e # ! E t E € E i £ £3£ £f 5 gg 6g,. s9 5gaz 5c a a3CO ; 5�� k pa€�� 'J[� pg€H� . o yy N p p�20 $4�� m d 3gg +IFOX ji gg € S C P 5 0 (FN�4 Y:Y RPE C9 R ��ACC2�5�5 �•6� Ii (G R ryY g21fra N j A A A A A H $ 5 4 4 8 J a $5pp8g 5-€g SIR, 3 ���j�- � � `16d�9 =`z i7�e s« i REM p i A"ttac en I , I P N � , I;�a � Broad Street — --- .. fT - - -Tie"6LTi�- -- r----- 4I .. s N I fir..¢... � ��— -I- 97� I-. ..-.. - - - .. LA... .' _ • TAW._-__-_ •'--- ,�¢- >y n I ^ Lj @a I ~- as I m I N < 0 1rr �i 7 f J s IE 12 Go -- a 06 a an lip as OIA'fv eni RIM 7.n I I ' A € " x - - - i m i e • - - niu c PRIM 1� o ®o©®o®0000000a0000 0 oa000 �®NCO®®O��®NXa©O®OO�C�OOBOO�000000000 7 13 �. .$� 38gR �g8$^ E".$$5 r rd� � ffGBxf If a'.° b9�Ex � $ $AVR°S38,i°A $ z g x'A^ 8sog 8j �- e 4 s df E ° 8 a 9Milg : .g�6�- YY 9Y3Yg s 3dx$ dd`� ° g fi -€ 9� E - 5.9 ed $YE, a M �� Efts _$" 4 €€ . sgs'c 'v Nxa a a.gjgjE'.jIEY $"' x Kpa Iffill? 6 fx.f � _ gg . a x a fE 6 ccR 'aa6va9 t 5 4pSA`� " ., as85 a �+ - f � Q" p5p5yBd ..� .•a.9 f paPg C"^9ed $,yYy'�,+c£.a IAB �B�"° 595 � -R sg § �Kc�aF� a gGt• ¢a� PCCCy a PC �BGf d•� atD � bp gZ . 9 .. •• .9r$$ $ .'g$gY $ f 'E ° 7 a a f : :f %C 3 € �f 5 f •* 8• vs^ E.xgg 5f=`s i� s�. � fi55a � �c n �€ € € "s€� �a C �£ �d �.a� E " ° 47" � a�v� N E 3 � ���� �� € k c @@9 ° �9 Egg R ••pp�q* RR f EN �. � � � F� 3 �. ' € � gg5 � �• g � � e �ak z� gpq� E �a �� � 3a � s =B 9Eg£ Qg a ,E d L F f f ID S3 kms ' � 'e 3t� d €4 .prF YS E sg R� a �S PaP Rv Baia `s'e @ asa $ 4 `- & is pa IF RN gu=R1 nn C ♦. . "''F =�.Ittj3 P�f�r4 h\w�$�. g`e 5 33 'EO 'Z Jj��I 5 J Sco� pF(7,apa g 8ttit�i i S i' .; 9 a of-'s 4 e e,e; Attachment 2 -------------- 0 Higuera Street � Higuera Street L N M06 4ga J C $$ fD _ J9 gay � ] Uhl ,yN (D - g�g 2 I K �� i 85 # • s' € 3 a In of iWl a Pr •,I � € � a � , I � 9 rr' I , is ;ti,ti � o 9 Co v if 01 qoa a g gtc � saa 3ag• v as 803 .F. SC I < 1. 11 3 a xIP zMz - z - Y z Ssa d 8 v �o I§Ic I � �. I _ Fay % a •S o� E �, li/ --1 _ Ste• _ :s �$y_ � _ 9aR® 5��g; t5E39�xgLu�aQe 3i aez.•�c® � ..— _ E e, se^ssg ae eea •sa a Marsh Street Marsh (Street Y��3.ty eE :Es a45 if =� = €S � l 1 Te£0,^� I�j.u•+t'tt'r'" Tel t ( % $�Y F 'pt �sri Ell Lai pul ] �A1 H je�% a t i t - Attach ent 2 ! ! ! ! ! Ci Broad Street CD u v__, ---------- CL ,g vs . w I N ° CD 0 up 1 � 1 m a 1 >` I g5 g C•T 1 C� i Ar� C� Y� b t © 00000 ®O®0®O®000000 9OOC)000000000 5 n'gg°n 5 °y. 3 j gz 5 5 7 533 a e � i 5 •`4 �� � � � g g � sS R€t � i � � � � € � � �B f� 9 go N H 8 �¢a X57 � � �� � � � ❑ � �F$ € y� � 'a g9 � � � � .CSC �n l ! P a€ Z n�Sil�tft E t t t t n gig. "c _ ac 9111,cLJ .p� hn_ ,gg o pa7( N iiiil2�l:e 4 F �R o ra $ .3 Ep3afe� _:___. mom b 1 f 1 1 1 Attachmen 2 Vol las I 9 ig a a„ 0 O �- l ii Sa cs CD a s z ®®o®00000000 o z ID a 4# $ 89a fipg? S¢A $ g p [D a �� 5g aR eb 8 € yoilyi Nild i � Nd i1y� yj � tl A v a I, 1 4 a - Attachment 2 r I d I I • • I m •I� • I � I H r f z f• H 11 IiI UG i 0 Fl I 1� Pir 7 I x v1 � � � I, • I •IP��R g _ � � I � I '��� I I o • � I • \ ♦ I I , I I I I _ t I I I uo sf yG s ' c� n@ 0 000000000 a @`sa a v BA F N7 87 7,,� E 3 c ( °'F JIM ,B ' 3 I sit 66 $$ $xgp dt >? Y a Z e8 5 UP 1. Ln pillI1�PTs. eE II3�itt i 4A L'.. v3 F 99 n �� 1 1 I I i�1 1 Broad Streit f� _ g kavichmert /�/ QFfD / .r Q i $ 41, I '6 D f N 1 , 1 � I UO v lot no3 uck E tI i go Garden � Stmt-- i I S,ta€cyuayyr.y t- . . ,. Z ®CD ®Q94.QC)AC70© ® B© 000000000 o m sa€r "r9 � Er • oAll pa 14 4l M m WH4411 5 n gr $ g $ Y& 8S . tiz E a �` �1IfF Al a @�^� g� � � 1 g yy3A 2 U$ d F33 g Q g d 3 E d ,i 6§ g 5 1 t it 4 6 30 /� gill l 7 I Is Ell FiS4 rd3A =z _ UO R 6 tEOS;e Attachmen, 2 N = ZZ to m Tc a O CL C - 3 9 o su O s I` i HmHittlt i �® aacna�aaa�a - ^ - Z 000000000000889Al 70 all Hq � B ¢ Nb 3 ^ T Et pu•ut: o vng a nn g V 3 pg� 9;t fiDv8 s ar Q °p i ® Attachmen- 2 BROAD STREET VN PaJ I AC I � O mo o P 8 P g P g ebb A LII I "C e u I� %0 LL S a 4 O ® GARDEN TVT - .oJ A I I i tIg . [ ppmMIN nuF` H3 1 1 1 1 r 1 Attachment 2 1!11 r v 11, Ila #gee' sXY3ga a n ig ,-t^_ g 3�8 F C�'F £ T _ r n �gg � F m z �® P §k R� F y n o- L m [z -- S - m n O z 0 T -/ 4 111 5 lit w EBUIE 0 t A till Ltaehmen 2 a o � r m � sT x O T I O ttC r y g n m O T Or 4 0 I I i - : lml i'M 8 4 c z s m � g Z I I m~ 1 F yI J or Lo w y p S FL 34 a .�11E; tf EETiftH�t Q ..-._- .....�.....� 1 I � 1 Attachment 2 y Y r 5 1 CA CD a 4ul y ii I c r 1 � 11 - k � ,I I___ �•� I I I 1 II-x-11 I ♦ ® ♦ II.SL w4 iIrd LV.. 0 1 4 Y ' I I I I I I B - r 3 1^ice_ lil _ a V yysp O I I I . 1 TRRi 1 ID 1 IL-A 77 - ...m oi I.I- I - � u-r y u-r Ira aa u-r o-�I/l r-r Ira -.Ilr zgg$xggg x gig fg o ©©a000ao©©o ©000a©o©o©0000a00000000000 0 a .SaagEg96t ?g�xEdd A 83p s a[a7nnAd °P � 1� P � ,7 � 6aE jp $ } 99y533 q1N aig fp un d�#t78By�kijBgqj 14, ae'eg Bd' aF C� L • "R' PE lnijpJI� �'�'h�4�'I�� � � � �'� �F��g .z • 1 7 1 I I l J ITT Attachment 2 I 1 I I I 1 I I 1 . � r �� 0 3 1� _ ^ _ I V I I I I I T IY-Y '1�tjIIL «4 I I CAC eD su JI F Q • • • • F v. • • I �I n d I _ _ –H Par . I is a ;s �I 1 I 11 r I I � IY I (1.4t1 .r-r (Ilyl n-r y na y xr y u-r /I��}y�n���-1—•---1�---nnny r-r JJ��-- I--.'a '-+sir •0000©o®o® = rbOD©OOO�OO©�OOOOOOBOOOOO O eD ca �Yt :Qei:l E:(oY.b FgvbCg b �. 5 G JQP[ I § nG N MITI3 " 4 BROAD S T. _. 1 �achmen2 G TVVI M Y-YaT-] f- '� 44YTS A.Y fT r +N• 5 eM == Y l O e � h — 4 _- - T T i�__ --- I , re WR i i io ----`I---_-__----- j b . lj j n n d I iig ❑ y }fd ' s _ L ; I € ; I " Eli I of rR-Y a'-Y r14 l IId '� II-T' 1 /•r N' f-P Nd Y'J? fff 1II_fff 111 GARDEN ST gz f�� z �k@4 ay c ©oo©aoo©©0 000000a©0000000000000000ao a $ ��$$c,$z p #Yedqq.55. 488 ' ` d n ro e � s 3 s3a4 z�• m $ 9^3a: `LS�:LYw eve�3Sd��e3p3p; pLp 3 N { g TF I e�ag $�' ea as �= c L9 -7 8 go a a $ Y � 5 $�y 17A g D �a1`2 iTT�4l y{tiE E S� y�Nit 4n����v G RM +�E�1c9 .3Elm pAttachment 2 T Tl- w N 7 - a E1*9 lko s o m o s I g ❑'R3MN ❑n 06� � 5g Ei ID F1 MUM � n � Elk! oEfi _ g � I F1 o� f-5 p p o®oogoao©o€® gto®@o®000®000000g0000�0000000g0 � 895 .0 8 % N z d" gH. ' ®® • � 3�4s+'s� P'i�li'�7p !+ ��ihw � ��' 3 S� =I � rt � p Ei�rl if§q ilia�i63a L'22 '3 � rd5� I r I r i -rn , Attachment 2 I o I w Od n n 9 B A T E ' - a-rr @ 9 4 off q I ° Iel° aro r-r 14� R G I tea^ A £ rTy- nT -•I 'jl ] 1 { O n o El h ❑y TRj I � 3W a I tl —a r r-.• no T-r r-r a-r iso n'e• 10309E 98899C) 0 a g d F9 y R � 8 � GSGSGS 3A 6 �gvn ay =£3 • �� 3F Z'�� lja �;�l��h•'a� sF.X. sa - __ 5 eCi • II - ' - u�t�1'i 4A II +sf=1rr�$ i I I f F � n Attachment 2 ail A 111101111 P 119 C 4 � I 6 E d __ ' }fi 01§5 o g oaf e oeiA� Iff n 6 h O I] n 0 E o� I �•al"Jz v 8 � @� eel a R II and Vd I I. C i I I o o 2 e! He o G � I I , I , 000®no©ooM® o0000oo®©oa00000u000000000 0 ^ IIS I I $ px � aaa � P@g � � „ a $ �}�¢ ID 1 MR RIN - t Ila q p F A F b Ln TIRE t g p t . °i$1 °1 - g g R a 't Attachmen 2 egjmE Eiigou ig Egg 42 .................... ........................................ o =r o -n 0 B1, Fi oj I it 3 flat 3 ot i0lifil , Attachment 2 oo❑ 7 w A C9 C 0 O O C 4x7 n ' w o � O CC x i MINIMq � � A i D ❑ C - P ; it- ID'4 s'-ir L=JL"JL7000O®O© o0000000000000r�0000r�000000 0 � g ¢$ gp gy P� a Z D � $�ta'�� 1��:+1l�R rt� i�•tl� �€� Y ��`�� � �ECn It if . \ meas, n fl,tachmen, | | | | § o - \ E x988 CD . 2 a= »! - � ! � . - \ - / \ s ezzms . f k - ■ � o - ; § } \ \ § ! Ln /\ ? eseeme « ; , | . . � � - \ Pbo �- � (,,'I - z - ) @9/ ` � ■ � ih 71.,o : } ' chmen 2 � }/}} lg Z; 7 _£ - ƒ . g _ . E sere 'D . m\m e\ ^ � ! ! r¥ . #I O _ CD \ / [ � ; rJ CD - ¢ . . 6 E ` eEEEz - ) ( ; ! | « _ j [ LA \ - e seems . asesee l P. | . � 2 : | YIN /\ H . . 77 / �i E�Hp gg, ` I# � rH . s� {\ = 1 \ } p� . , . \ . Attachment 2 :| R j ;�. .. - _• ;( !| #! / I� !�;! §� {� � -` � | . _ g` M �! | � , ( ! (D ' ' ' w � . I � ribs � . � • , , ! � � | � i . � , , ® � . .,.. . , . . . . . --- | . . . . � | §| i, « | p; ! Js - - . EM Att cbmen'o 2 0 0 Y c 'gyp cA -g yY ?:t +? x'gg �� �gg� �� �y ca•b .Y Kt + �t �s` �1 pe 6€LoA 6t7 '3 ul i CD low v - n I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . y sy q n s • DO � CD CD n 9 m Ky Z a O '5iSE'. 7"u'�sF OWEN milt StH ali4s9 �sto�gfAef� dri . 11 1 litr 1 1 , i 1 qj! h i 7 I� 1 11111 �. �� 11 !1j; VIII: 1 ul L!li A ft I. - 1 ! 1 � ax o O O4 O Q V� YY FF T\ i V a o - C a � � 0 4 Ag2c�mpn, R o i Or rDD g a sED 3 � e 4_J S L L I 0 COW � x sx 1 • $`4.•.. is I��"!�! ti�`��.}� `6S' g�g'`�� . —E"�d �= H - 9 _ iii,}ilii -nil I • e ^U pCa-C . BROAD ST. ---------------------------------------------------------- 1) TT) 1 L11 � I o-�- ' _-.�,.d•.,.,—ice �>,---- " i I i o, I �, - - 1 — ------ --------T'--i—T----- ,•I— �(D II I 3 I I I I I b e I I I I - � �:m �r - - - - - ---- -------- -- fir_ I.. , ._.�------b----�--- — -�-------�---�-i---- � -i- i ���._ �: I I I I _ _ I I I _ •'I _ ° I I I I i II GARDEN ST. Ln t[ft ��❑ "k i n i� x °CcZ n 3 1 t-lY'S:l'{:r _ a: i{z�fyr(.]�F_ i k��l, �g' ' "a,n'„ N" c � � ❑ � i Fsl1•Iy41Ff 19 t L'a� q Z o s r� _n c �� is[ e'F fil { a i3 SAN LUIS OBISPO Attachment 3 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`` attachment 3 February 24, 2010 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 see the 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. Pk (-TI 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 specific 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 Alternatives 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 Planning Commission Minutes `� Attachment February 24, 2010 3 Page 4 the Reduced Development Alternative 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 Bubblegum 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 project 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 CHC Minutes - ��' Attachment 4 March 22,2010 Page 2 1121 Islay Street. ARCMI 89-09; Review of remodel and additions to a contributing historic property in the Old Town Historic District; R-3-H zone; City of San Luis Obispo, plicant. (Jeff Hook) Tyler Cor Associate Planner, presented the staff report, to recommend Community Development ector's approval, based on the findings and subject to conditions outlined in the staff report. Frank Cullen, applican , rovided an overview in support of the project. Mr. Cullen,discussed the challenges in making c es to a property considered historic in San Luis Obispo. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Ron Yukelson, a neighbor, spoke in s ort of the project. There were no further comments from the lic. COMMITTEE COMMENTS: The Committee briefly discussed the project. On motion bv Committee Member Oliveira seconded Committee Member Davis the Committee ado ted a resolution to recommend the Communit evelo ment Director approve the project subject to the recommended findings and conditions. AYES: Committee Members Davis, Oliveira, Kalkowski, and C ter NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Committee Members Miller, Breska, and Crotser The motion passed on a vote of 4:0. 4. 1119. 1123. -1127, & 1127 Garden Street and 712.720.748. 736 722 & 728 Marsh Street. ER 124-006; Reaffirm previous determination of EIR adequacy in terms of cultural resources and receive presentation on project redesign, Final EIR, and Planning Commission recommendation; C-D-H zone; Garden Street SLO Partners, LP, applicant. (Tyler Corey). Tyler Corey, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending the CHC reaffirm the previous determination of EIR adequacy related to cultural resources based on a finding outlined in the staff report; and to receive a presentation on the project redesign, Final EIR, and Planning Commission recommendation.. Committee Member Oliveira questioned whether the EIR had been re-circulated for public comment due to changes in project design. Staff responded that re-circulation of the EIR was not required because changes made to the project were in response to material contained in the Draft EIR, which reduced environmental impacts in a number of issue areas. I T -s� CHC Minutes ` Attachment 4 March 22,2010 Page 3 Carol Florence, applicant representative, spoke in support of the project. She further noted this was a project design still in progress and architectural design changes would be presented later to the CHC and ARC for review. George Garcia, applicant representative, provided a brief presentation on building design and spoke in support of the project. Committee Member Kalkowski requested clarification on the descriptions of Marsh and Garden towers noted in design. Mr. Garcia noted that that the Marsh and Garden towers are elevator and HVAC towers with a height of 68 ft. and 74 ft. respectively. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Bob Vessely, San Luis Obispo, discussed the interpretation of the guidelines for rooftop additions. Mr. Vessely suggested that the applicant engage an architectural historian to assist in project redesign and rehabilitation of the historic buildings. Paula Carr, San Luis Obispo, supported keeping the design consistent with the cultural heritage of the community. Ms. Carr suggested that the local setting should take precedence. David Brodie, San Luis Obispo, felt the project needed to respond to the historic context of the area. He cited recent San Luis Obispo examples where historic character and integrity were adversely affected by new development. Mr. Brodie requested that the Committee consider the character and setting when considering this project. Vangeli Evangelopoulos, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of developing a Garden Street alley pedestrian design plan and incorporating pedestrian circulation for the entire block. The plan should address lighting, safety, and creating pleasant spaces. Joseph Abrahams, San Luis Obispo, expressed concerns about the project's frontage on Broad Street and light access to the interior courtyards. W. Abrahams requested the applicants develop a three-dimensional scale model of the project. Sara McEre, San Luis Obispo, does not support the Spanish architecture design and height of the project. Elizabeth Thyne, San Luis Obispo, supported the EIR as presented. Ms. Thyne is concerned with retention of the historic structures on Garden Street and the possibility of incidental damage during project construction. The Committee took a break between 7:00 p.m. — 7:15 p.m. Elisabeth Abrahams, San Luis Obispo, did not support the project because she felt its scale and massing were inconsistent with the character of Garden Street. Ms. Abrahams would like to see the historic Laird Building remain intact. There were no further comments from the public. CHC Minutes Attachment 4 March 22,2010 Page 4 Ms. Florence noted that the applicant had retained a historic architect to work on the project and said all of the historic buildings on Garden Street would remain in the project design. Staff discussed mitigation measures included in the FEIR that address issues of preservation during project construction, such as requiring a pre-construction structural engineering site survey and a cash surety to protect historic resources. COMMITTEE COMMENTS: Committee Member Oliveira recommended that the EIR project file include a memo explaining why the FEIR did not require re-circulation. Vice-Chair Carpenter discussed the importance of Garden Street in terms of the City's cultural heritage and noted that the project will bring traffic impacts to the pedestrian-oriented street. He indicated that the revised project will be evaluated as a new project when it comes back to the CHC for review of the subsequent design. There were no further comments from the Committee. On motion by Committee Member Oliveira, seconded by Committee Member Davis the CHC adopted a resolution reaffirming the CHC's previous determination of EIR adequacy related to evaluation of cultural resources, and further directed staff to forward the determination alone with the comments from the Committee and the public regarding project design and comments related to clarifying the CEOA process. AYES: Committee Members Davis, Oliveira, Kalkowski, and Carpenter NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Committee Members Miller, Breska, and Crotser The motion passed on a vote of 4:0. Cit -Wide. GPI 72-09; Continued discussion of the Draft Historic Preservation ance and Draft Update of the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines; City of San Luis — Community Development Department, applicant. (Continued from March 8, 2010 spe ting) (Jeff Hook) Jeff Hook, Senior Planner, prese the staff report, recommending the CHC: 1) Establish a review protocol; 2) receive p ' estimony; 3) continue reviewing the Draft Historic Preservation Program Guidelines; and 4) con the Draft Ordinance and Draft Guidelines update to the regular CHC meeting on.April 26, 2010. Vice-Chair Carpenter acknowledged letters received from the c for the record. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Gerald Johnson, San Luis Obispo, requested information on how location of prop in historic districts affects new buildings on vacant lots. Y Attachment 5 RESOLUTION NO. CHC-1004-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE REAFFIRMING PREVIOUS DETERMINATION OF EIR ADEQUACY RELATIVE TO CULTURAL RESOURCES FOR THE GARDEN STREET TERRACES PROJECT (ER 124-06) WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on March 22, 2010, for the purpose of receiving a presentation on the project redesign, Final EIR, and Planning Commission recommendation, and to reaffirm previous determination that the EIR adequately analyzes and addresses impacts relative to cultural resources (ER 124-06); and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on this EIR was previously held before the Cultural Heritage Committee on March 24, 2008; and WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Finding. 1. The Cultural Heritage Committee finds and determines that the EIR prepared for the Garden Street Terraces Project adequately identifies, evaluates, and mitigates environmental impacts of the proposed project relative to cultural resources. On motion by Committee Member Oliveira, seconded by Committee Member Davis, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Committee Members Oliveira, Davis, Carpenter; and Kalkowski NOES: None REFRAIN: None ABSENT: Committee Members Miller, Breska, and Crotser The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 22nd day of March, 2010. rJ "I � ' G "LMX Kim Murry, Secret ry Cultural Heritage Committee �j Attachment 6 DRAFT SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES April 19, 2010 ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Suzan Ehdaie, Steven Hopkins, Chris Weber, Greg Wilhelm, Greg Wynn, and Chairperson Anthony Palazzo Absent: Vice-Chair Jim Duffy Staff: Senior Planner Pam Ricci, 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: Susan Ahamady, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of replacing the metered parking lots with ticketed time lots in the downtown area. Staff directed Ms. Ahamady.to contact the City Parking Manager Robert Horch. Jason Silver, San Luis Obispo, requested clarification on the renovation timeline requirements for structures requiring significant rebuild. He was specifically concerned with the Cabo San Luis restaurant on Foothill which had recently sustained fire damage. "Mike" Mayank Naik, San Luis Obispo, supported the design and development of underground buildings in the downtown area. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 1119, 1123 — 1127, & -1137 Garden Street and 712, 720, 748, 736, 722, & 728 Marsh Street ARC 124-06: Review project redesign and Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Garden Street Terraces project; C-D-H zone; Garden Street SLO Partners, LP, applicant. (Tyler Corey) Tyler Corey, Associate Planner, provided a detailed PowerPoint presentation highlighting items covered in the staff report, and recommended that the ARC adopt the Draft Resolution, which affirms the Cultural Heritage Committee's and Planning Commission's determinations of EIR adequacy. Carol Florence, applicant representative, supported staffs recommendation and urged approval by the Commission. George Garcia, applicant representative, provided a PowerPoint presentation that summarized the evolution of the project design and spoke in support of the project. Dq 6- \1 Draft ARC Minutes Attachment 6 April 19, 2010 Page 2 PUBLIC COMMENTS: Allan Cooper, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the staff and Planning Commission recommendation on the EIR and project. He supported: maintaining a 15-foot setback above the second-floor level along Marsh & Broad Streets; complying with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for historic rehabilitation and preservation; and having a coherent pedestrian plan. He did not favor valet parking on Garden Street and mentioned that with the ARC's discussion of revised plans that colors, materials, and textures for the elevations will be important. David Brodie, San Luis Obispo, stated that the pedestrian experience within and around the project is important. He expressed concerns with the height of the project. He noted that wind patterns and solar access are factors in evaluating a project design and requested a physical model be prepared. Marianne Orme, San Luis Obispo, supported the staff and Planning Commission recommendation for the reduced development alternative. She recommended that both sides of Garden Street have equal sidewalk widths and that there be a consistent treatment to Garden Alley. She did not support valet parking on Garden Street. She requested that the City support a public relation program during the project construction to assist existing businesses in the area. Terry Mohan, San Luis Obispo, expressed disappointment at removal of the public parking places. He did not support the project's height and massing. Kathy Collins, San Luis Obispo, did not support valet parking on Garden Street and was concerned with impacts of the project to bike parking and trash pick-up. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Wynn was concerned with solar shading impacts on Garden Street and wanted to see a shading analysis when revised plans returned to the ARC. He supported the diversity of the tenants proposed in the project. Commr. Ehdaie would like to see the pedestrian experience preserved and enhanced on the streets and alleys surrounding the project site. Commr. Weber strongly supported the retention of the wooden structures on Garden Street and endorsed that they be restored consistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards. Commr. Hopkins noted his support for the direction that the project is taking and mentioned that the scale and mass of the Marsh Street elevation could be reduced and its appearance enhanced through the selection of the right colors and materials. Commr. Wilhelm supported the retention of a market in the project and would like to see further design development of Garden Alley in future presentations. Draft ARC Minutes - Attachment 6 April 19, 2010 Page 3 Chair Palazzo agreed that valet parking for the project was better suited to Marsh Street and indicated the importance of seeing actual samples of materials and colors in future presentations. On motion by Commr. Wilhelm, seconded by Commr.. Weber,. to adopt. the Draft Resolution, which affirms the Cultural Heritage Committee and Planning Commission determination of EIR adequacy. AYES: Commrs. Wilhelm, Weber, Wynn, Hopkins, Ehdaie, and Palazzo NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commr. Duffy The motion passed on a 6:0 vote. Staff genda Forecast: • Ricci gave an agenda forecast of upcoming projects. • Gre ynn volunteered to serve as the ARC's representative on the Tree Comm for the next 6 months. 3. Commission: a. Minutes of April 5, 0, were approved as amended. b. Recent Project Review essons Learned Commr. Hopkins commented th a sculptures installed at Monterey and Buena Vista were a nice addition and looke od installed on the turf. Commr. Wilhelm mentioned the blank facing Marsh Street at the newly- remodeled service station at the corner of ' uera and Marsh Streets. Staff mentioned that the Pegasus logo was remove cause of its affiliation with a competing oil company and that they are working the architect to add some additional articulation to the wall along with enhanced Ian aping. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Janet Miller Recording Secretary PO6 -� a Attachment 7 RESOLUTION NO. ARC-1005-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION,AFFIRMING THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AND PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINATION OF EIR ADEQUACY FOR THE GARDEN STREET TERRACES PROJECT (ER 124-06) WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on April 19, 2010, for the purpose of receiving a presentation on the project redesign, Final EIR, and Planning Commission recommendation, and to affirm the Cultural Heritage Committee and Planning Commission determination that the EIR prepared for the Garden Street Terraces Project adequately identifies, evaluates, and mitigates environmental impacts of the project (ER 124-06); and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Findine. 1. The Architectural Review Commission finds and determines that the EIR prepared for the Garden Street Terraces Project adequately identifies, evaluates, and mitigates environmental impacts of the proposed project. On motion by Commissioner Wilhelm, seconded by Commissioner Weber, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Wilhelm, Weber, Wynn, Palazzo, Hopkins, and Ehdaie NOES: None REFRAIN: None ABSENT: Commissioner Duffy The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 19`h day of April, 2010. � !Q"3e-4c Pamela Ricci, Secotary Architectural Review Commission - Attachment 8 — ---- ++ — I ! t + , 0 ; 0I0 � 0 le ! II � d EI. ai id° t I r • � a'�. i I I I I W ; o wOtiP�. •j s4 .� c syx�. I I ._I ! i s`, wj U s t 6Ci I fn C j C; I z ,5 Cy y I N ° y V I .CJ 'O O ay rn .9 C c —Ud ¢ I aI cain c � i3I � w � iU � Ib y > 0 I �.'o C II - ------ — y R a� E 3 E i •' e m ! o ° a l 7 j o x a i B o N ° Ix ' Im I '_�_lw 13 o caU zU �rjLI) R Attachment 8 V I d I I a, 0 00 10 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 o ' rj z i 1 c I d � I O i w sEx ! o ' I y 1 r as 5 j al C � 1 f ;5 c o 0 0 c c nn a o x Y c II u a b b 3 o a o 8 '� 9 o o w x x o 0 o c. N cn V vi D •y N N � — oFr II �a � � � � � Ia �oI1M �N\• im � f,; ,� _ Attachment 8 u j I I �, 0 0 0 0 ! Ole 0 i0 0 w I C ' E � a II • II � � � ' II IIIII ' II � I � ! � , t a > a p I L > I t al - - -� 4---�--j =- O I � = � I — O I I I I I u I i aL � a ju I C I y I O ►.i T E I U z z � � OD O I ., O rn U C y o cui =u u O w Y 'u' E G, •� I •o � A to E •p � I d U 5 3 ¢ i o c v y 0 3 c o L t m z g ! Q w •y . i V C C C7 y o -- W S ri c1 U ri -7 4 vi vi ' vi vi 06 00 � - Attachment 8 V I V I I I I .O 0 ; 0 � a � � ' � ': III � � II � II ti ! IIII II iII � II a I i I I l _ I I a oa I O ', 0IIj0 � II jIIIIIiII IIiII II � ' II L z as ! w I I I I j I I � a ' 0 � 0 � II 0iII ' IIIII IIIIIII : II � � ' III i d i 'I I I I I ! I I I ' 1 I awy� 4 I � ' � III � III III IIIII II I u � ! o'L 0 0 II 10 II � :0 14 4 II j 4 II II L a a I i I I I I it d � o 0 9 u ; aai i a. a 0. w a°i a o o o c l o l o Q c i V 0. a V 'O •� .O v bD c�O V cVd R �'�' N V E T C_ Q L C p m d N I L I U � I i I i 7 Rf �, 7 C 7 p s O i i Q CY z a. 0 mCo Co Q d R w � II O M M M M v1 V'1 V1 Vl t/� h M 1 O U M M M M M M M C1 �+•� (.•� \ Attachment 8 V I 0 a > d A N Ci U q0 I z N d O L G � ow =i --4 - V p C V � L' d d y N N •N II I I v I .v £ � W c7 U � � ¢ N c c m N >a p R b U y R O R U Cu c a o 0 1 0 40. � — c ' c 0 �_ ac Led) � ¢ , � w ¢ ¢ � ¢ ' 3 xS N C7 _ 00 = CQO .. d