Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/01/2011, PH1 - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW OF THE REVISED GARDEN STREET TERRACES MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT IN THE C-D C") council M•�i� EA: accn6A mepom - � CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Community Development Director;Pb, BY: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner p. SUBJECT: FINAL DESIGN REVIEW OF THE REVISED GARDEN STREET TERRACES MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT IN THE C-D & C-D-H ZONE(ARC 124-06; 1119 GARDEN STREET AND ADJACENT PARCELS). RECOMMENDATION As recommended by the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) and Architectural Review Commission (ARC), adopt a resolution granting final approval of the revised project design, based on findings, including a finding acknowledging the. review and acceptance of the Addendum to the Final EIR, and subject to conditions and mitigation measures. BACKGROUND . Situation Garden Street SLO Partners, LP submitted applications to the City in 2006 to develop a downtown mixed-use center including retail, residential units and a hotel known as the Garden Street Terraces (GST) Project. A detailed project description is included in the 8-15-11 Architectural Review Commission(ARC) report(Attachment C of Attachment 6). The proposed project site is located within the City's Downtown Core and Downtown Historic District and consists of six parcels, including City Parking Lot No. 2, bordered by Broad Street, Garden Alley, Garden Street and Marsh Street. The project has been extensively reviewed by City advisory bodies over the course of twelve public hearings between August 2007 and September 2011, including four hearings before the Planning Commission (PC), four before the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) and four before the ARC. The comments and recommendations made by these advisory bodies have been incorporated into the final project design where appropriate. The end result is that the current version of the project containing about 135,000 square feet of floor area has been substantially modified and reduced in scale from the approximately 212,000 square-foot project evaluated in the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The project is now before the City Council for final review of the overall project design. Final EIR Adoption & Addendum Early on in the process, the City determined that the large-scale, mixed-use project located in a sensitive downtown location had the potential for significant environmental impacts and warranted preparation of an EIR. On-June 1, 2010, the City Council certified the Final EIR for the GST Project through City Council Resolution No. 10182. PHI-1 Council Agenda Report—den Street Terraces Project(ARC 124-06)":) Page 2 At the same hearing that the Final EIR was certified, the Council also approved Use Permit 124- 06 and Tract Map No. 124-06 through Resolution No. 10183. The first condition of the approved use permit required that the City Council formally act on the final design of the project and directed the applicant to revise the project to be consistent with the Reduced Development and Project without Public Parking Spaces alternatives included in the certified Final EIR. The revised project is consistent with those alternatives. In fact, the revised project goes well beyond the minimum thresholds of the Reduced Development Alternative that would have allowed building heights up to 74 feet and construction over the historic buildings along Garden Street. Compliance with the alternatives was achieved by reducing the overall building height to be 50 feet or less and having more visual breaks and greater articulation in the new building facades along Marsh and Broad Streets. The retention of all of the historic buildings along Garden Street, including elimination of new construction above the buildings, also made a dramatic impact on eliminating most of the Aesthetic and Cultural Resources impacts identified in the Final EIR. An Addendum to the Final EIR was prepared to update the project description, impact analysis, and mitigation measures based on the revised project design since the EIR was certified (Attachment 2). The Addendum needs to be reviewed and considered along with the Council's review of the final design, but does not require recirculation or a new public review period because the revised project does not result in any new impacts not previously analyzed in the certified Final EIR. Similar to the Chinatown Project, the EIR process resulted in a public dialog before decision makers that had an important influence on the ultimate project design. In general, the changes to the project description would reduce or avoid a significant number of impacts, including impacts to Aesthetics and Visual Resources, Cultural Resources, and Land Use and Planning Policies. In fact, the revised project reduces or eliminates a significant number of mitigation measures related to the treatment and preservation of historic buildings along Garden Street and associated aesthetic impacts. Advisory Body Review of the Final Project Design The revised project plans have been through a rigorous review with a public hearing before the CHC on July 25, 2011, and two hearings before the ARC on August 15`x' and September 19"'. With their review of the new project design on August 15`h, the ARC supported the retention and treatment of the historic buildings along Garden Street, and appreciated the reduced scale and height of the new structure proposed on the remainder of the project site closer to Broad and Marsh Streets where Parking Lot #2 and some private buildings now exist. However, after significant public input, the ARC requested that further details about the new building return to them prior to recommending final design approval to the City Council including the following: 1. Provide more information on proposed colors, materials and textures used on the new building including consideration for a lighter shade of brick rather than the charcoal color currently proposed. PHI-2 Council Agenda Report __den Street Terraces Project(ARC 124-06) Page 3 2. Consider an alternative treatment for the portion of building directly located at the comer of Marsh and Broad Streets that respects the prominence of views at the intersection. 3. Provide more information on pedestrian features in the project such as awnings and bulkheads. On September 19`h, the ARC found the project consistent with the Community Design Guidelines (CDG) for downtown and adopted a resolution recommending that the City Council approve the final design of the project, based on findings, and subject to conditions. The responses to the three directional items were the focus of the ARC's discussion of the project on September 19`h. DISCUSSION Consistency with Community Design Guidelines The ARC typically makes the final design decision for projects and their purview is to review plans in terms of their consistency with the Community Design Guidelines (CDG).. The downtown is referred to in the CDG as "the heart of the community". Because of its importance to the City as a whole and to protect its unique character and charm, the CDG include a separate chapter for the downtown. The CDG do not dictate that a particular architectural style be followed like some other communities such as Santa Barbara. They do provide direction for new buildings in the downtown with guidance on a variety of topics including massing, rhythm, and building detailing. The new building's architectural style is Contemporary with elements of Spanish architecture in terms of some of the materials like the smooth finish plaster and clay tile roof and details like rafter tails and window styles. Detailing is sleek, rather than fussy, but there is a wide variety of forms and materials including plaster, multi-colored brick, wood and tile that give the building distinction, interest and character. The building does not attempt to create a historically themed replica,but rather provides an addition that is clearly of the current time. Chapter 4 of the CDG provides guidance to the ARC in terms of evaluating the appropriateness of the new building in its Downtown Core setting and specific elements of the proposed design (Attachment J of Attachment 6). Compatibility with surrounding development is provided with signature architectural elements like the Spanish detailing mentioned as well as the brick material proposed on several prominent walls. Key to the architectural compatibility of the new building is its reduced scale, massing and rhythm of different elements. The structure is built generally to the back of sidewalk consistent with Land Use Element guidance and the CDG 4.2-A, but it is not a solid wall plane along street frontages up to 50 feet. Along both the Broad and Marsh Street elevations, horizontal articulation (wall offsets) is created by ground floor entries as well as tiered massing through varied upper floor setbacks (CDG 4.2- B). Balconies and awnings add to building articulation with vaned materials and colors (CDG 4.2-D 5. & 6.). There are also visual gaps created at upper building levels where no structure is proposed such as the exit stairway area on the Broad Street elevation and the private terrace area on Marsh Street. Desired vertical articulation is provided through the vaned heights PH1-3 Council Agenda Report_Cden Street Terraces Project(ARC 124-06) Page 4 of different building elements (CDG 4.2-B.4. a.). While it is a single building, its design achieves the desired rhythm of multiple spaces by varying colors and materials (CDG 4.2-41). The design changes made between ARC meetings specifically addressed maintaining the differentiation and rhythm of storefront spaces as well as lightening the colors of wall surfaces of the ground floor. Inherent to fitting into the pedestrian character of the downtown core and remaining consistent with polices and guidelines is the continuous retail presence on the building's ground floor. Consistent with Community Design Guidelines, the building has a more transparent ground floor and upper floor window symmetry (CDG 4.2-B. 4.c). Attached to this report is a copy of the September 19, 2011 ARC agenda report prepared for the Commission's discussion of the final review of the revised project design (Attachment 6). This report includes the following important background information that will be of assistance to the Council in evaluating the project design: a. Detailed discussion about the applicant's proposals for structurally reinforcing, seismically strengthening, and remodeling the historic buildings on Garden Street (part of Attachment C — the more detailed report prepared for the initial 8-15-11 ARC meeting where the revised design was reviewed). b. Discussion about planned pedestrian connections through the project and the Garden Street improvement plans (Attachment Q. C. An analysis of the changes made between the most recent ARC meetings to modify the details and colors of the new building to better comply with the Community Design Guidelines for the downtown. CHC Meeting Update On July 25, 2011, the CHC found that the revised project design is consistent with Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and Secretary of the Interior Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties and appropriate in the Downtown Commercial Zone and Downtown Historical District. The CHC recommended final approval of the project design to the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) and City Council (Attachment 4). The CHC was very pleased with the dramatic project changes including preservation of all the historic buildings along Garden Street and the reduced scale of the new building. ARC Meeting Update On September 19, 2011, the ARC on a 5:1 vote (Vice Chair Duffy voting no) recommended that the City Council approve the final design of the project, based on findings, and subject to conditions (Attachment 5 — 9-19-11 ARC follow-up letter & meeting minutes). The ARC concluded that the directional items they identified on August 15"' regarding colors and materials, the comer building design, and architectural details had been addressed. The Commission supported the new building design as evoking the current time and place and complying with the Community Design Guidelines for the downtown. Findings in support of the final design approval referenced that the new building had proportions and detailing that complemented surrounding structures and had a pedestrian—oriented ground floor. PHI-4 Council Agenda Report den Street Terraces Project(ARC 124-06) Page 5 Eight members of the public spoke during the public hearing on September 19`h. A majority of the speakers were affiliated with the Save Our Downtown organization and had continued objections regarding building detailing, especially with the corner of the new building at Broad and Marsh Streets, and the dark grey color of some of the proposed brick. Two speakers representing owners of the adjacent building at 742 Marsh had questions about a proposed wall that divided the back of their property from a proposed pedestrian walkway. Correspondences Attachment 7 includes the correspondences received regarding the project since the ARC meeting of September 19`h. The correspondences cover a range of topics including public art, building design, colors, landscaping and pedestrian amenities. Conclusion The environmental and design review processes have been a success with the GST Project. The revised project plans now before the Council responded to the criticisms received from decision- makers, staff and the public during the many project public hearings and the end result is a superior project that respects its setting in the downtown core, is in scale with its surroundings, provides for pedestrian flow through the site and onto adjacent streets, and will bring new excitement and economic vitality to the downtown core. . CONCURRENCES The comments from other City departments have been incorporated as conditions in the attached draft resolution. 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. Because the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, it is compatible with this finding. ALTERNATIVES 1. Deny the project design, based on findings of inconsistency with the Community Design Guidelines. 2. Continue the project with direction to the staff and applicant if the Council desires further information or analysis to render a decision. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Vicinity Map Attachment 2: Addendum to the Final EIR PH1-5 Council Agenda Report __den Street Terraces Project(ARC 124-06) Page 6 Attachment 3 Council Resolution No. 10183 (2010 Series) approving use permit&tract map Attachment 4: 7-25-11 Cultural Heritage Committee follow-up letter&minutes Attachment 5: 9-19-11 ARC follow-up letter&minutes Attachment 6: 9-19-11 ARC staff report & attachments Attachment 7: Correspondences received since 9-19-11 Attachment 8: Draft resolution to approve project design Distributed to Council: 11"x 17"project plans TACommunity Development\CARS\GST Project City Council (final design review 11-1-11).doc PH1-6 -D- Attachment 1 C C VICINITY MAP File No. 124-06 1119, 1123, 1125, 1127, 1129, 1137 Garden 712, 7209 722, 728, 7369 748 Marsh 2111- 7 o Attachment 2 Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Garden Street Terraces Project (ER #124-06, SCH #2007071062) September 2011 1. Project Title: Garden Street Terraces Project 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Pamela Ricci, Senior Planner (805) 781-7168 4. Project Location: 1119, 1123-1127, 1129-1137 Garden Street and 712, 720, 722, 728, 736, 748 Marsh Street 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Garden Street SLO Partners, LP 895 Aerovista Place Suite # 100 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 6. General Plan Designation: General Retail 7. Zoning: C-D, Downtown-Commercial & C-D-H, Downtown-Commercial with the Historical Preservation overlay (for properties on Garden Street) 8. Description of the Project: The revised version of the project will retain all of the existing historic buildings along Garden Street, but will demolish both private and public structures and surface parking near the comer of Broad and Marsh Streets to enable the construction of a PHI-8 Addendum to Final EIR f�. .,ie Garden Street Terraces Project Attachment 2 (City File No. ER 124-06) Page 2 135,448 square-foot mixed-use development. The proposed project has a maximum building height of 50 feet and would have four stories over a basement level. Proposed uses include 8 residential units, a 48-room hotel, and 25,047 square feet of ground and mezzanine level retail space. . Retail space would include a 13,227 square-foot neighborhood market. Retail, hotel, and market space would generally occupy the first floor ground level street frontages along Marsh, Garden, and Broad Streets, with the upper stories comprising a mix of hotel uses and residential condominiums. A total of 74 private automobile parking spaces for the project would be accessed from Marsh Street. On the ground floor, 11 valet parking spaces are set aside for hotel guests. The basement level garage would consist of 63 parking spaces with 16 residential spaces, 34 market spaces, and 13 valet spaces for the hotel. 9. Project Entitlements Obtained & Requested: On June 1, 2010, the City Council certified the Final EIR for the project through Resolution No. 10182. That same evening, the Council also approved Use Permit 124-06 and Tract Map No. 124-06 through Resolution No. 10183. The first condition of the approved use permit directed the applicant to revise the project to be consistent with the Reduced Development and Project without Public Parking Spaces alternatives included in the certified Final EIR. The revised project described above is consistent with those alternatives. The applicant is now seeking final design approval of the project from the City Council based on the review and recommendations of the Cultural Heritage Committee and the Architectural Review Commission. Along with their design review of the project, the City Council will review and consider this Addendum to document the changes made to the project since certification of the Final EIR. 10.Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The site measures approximately 1.11 acres bordered by Broad Street, Garden Alley, Garden Street and Marsh Street within the City's Downtown Core and Downtown Historic District. The site is currently developed with a mix of public parking (City Parking Lot #2) and 12 one- to two-story public and private buildings, seven of which are historic resources, including 748 Marsh Street and 1119, 1123- 1127, 1129-1137 Garden Street. The project site is located between two of the City's main commercial streets, Marsh and Higuera, at the southwest end of the Downtown Core and is highly visible to residents and visitors entering the downtown via Marsh Street. Surrounding properties consist of predominantly one-to two-story buildings occupied by office, retail, restaurant, and residential uses. Zoning surrounding the site is shown in the attached vicinity map (Attachment 1) PH1-9 Addendum to Final EIR fd�e< Garden Street Terraces Project Attachment (City File No. ER 124-06) Page 3 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): None ADDENDUM PREPARATION: In December of 2009, the City's environmental consultant, AMEC prepared an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the Garden Street Terraces project. On June 1, 2010, the City Council certified the Final EIR for the project through Resolution No. 10182. A Notice of Determination was filed with the County Clerk on June 3, 2010. Based on the City Council's actions taken on June 1, 2010, the applicant and the project design team redesigned the project to be consistent with the Reduced Development (environmentally superior alternative) and Project without Public Parking Spaces alternatives included in the certified Final EIR. With the reduction of the mass and scale of the proposed new structure and retention of the noted historic resources, the revised project eliminates several identified impacts in the Final EIR and the need for certain corresponding mitigation measures. Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA°) Guidelines allows a lead agency to prepare an addendum to a previously adopted Final EIR if changes or additions have occurred in the project description that do not result in new or more severe environmental impacts since the EIR was originally prepared. In the case of the current version of the project, many of the previously analyzed impacts have been either reduced or eliminated. Because none of the following circumstances exist with the revised project description, the preparation of an addendum is the appropriate environmental document consistent with CEQA: 1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or 3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete. PH1-10 Addendum to Final EIR Ze Garden Street Terraces Project ,J Attachment (City File No. ER 124-06) 2 Page 4 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:. The amended Project Description affects the conclusions regarding impacts contained in the following sections of the Final EIR: Table 2. Changes to Impact Evaluation (Final EIR & Current Project) Impact Statement Final Current Project EIR 3.1 Aesthetics and Visual Resources VIS-1 The height of the Broad Street facade would create a Class II No Impact—The building has potentially significant impact to the character or quality of the been reduced in height to not site and its surroundings. exceed 50 feet; building setbacks vary from 2-26 feet above the second story; a visual gap occurs in the facade where there is no solid building exit stairway). VIS-2 The height of the proposed project's Garden Street Class 11 No Impact—The historic and facade would create a potentially significant impact to the visual resources of Garden character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Street are now proposed to be retained with project development. No new construction is proposed above the historic structures located on Garden Street. (See Sheet A.8—Preliminary Elevations and Sheet A.3— Second Floor Plan VIS-3 Construction of the proposed project would Class I No Impact—The historic and significantly alter the character of Garden Street, eliminating visual resources of Garden many of the visual and historic elements which make this street Street are now proposed to be representative of and an important contributor to the historic retained with project small town character of the City's Downtown Core and the development. No new associated Downtown Historic District. construction is proposed above the historic resources. The historic resources will be retained and rehabilitated in their current location pursuant to the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Historic Buildings. (See Garden Street Terraces Project Analysis, Chattel Architecture, Planning & Preservation, Inc., April 2011 VIS-4 The height of the proposed project's Marsh Street Class II No Impact—The building has facade would create a potentially significant impact to the been reduced in height to not character or quality of the site and its surroundings. exceed 50 feet; building setbacks vary from 2-110 feet above the second story;a visual gap occurs in the fa ade where there is no solid PH1-11 Addendum to Final EIR f�,ie Garden Street Terraces Project J Attachment 2 (City File No. ER 124-06) Page 5 building (private terrace). 3.3 Cultural Resources CRA The proposed "project would result in significant and- Class I No Impact-The Master List unavoidable impacts to the Downtown Historic District as a and Master List-eligible result of the demolition or significant alteration of Master List historic structures associated and Master List-eligible historic structures. with the project will be retained and rehabilitated in their current locations, pursuant to the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Historic Structures. (See Garden Street Terraces Project Analysis, Chattel Architecture, Planning & Preservation, Inc.;April 2011 and Sheet A.8—Preliminary Elevations CR-2 The proposed project would result in significant but Class II No Impact—The project has mitigable impacts to the historic Union Hardware Building been revised to retain the (Downtown Brewing Company Building)located at 1119 Garden building, including all identified Street; a historic resource on the Master List of Historic significant and contributing Resources and considered eligible for listing on the National character-defining features. Register of Historic Places. CR-3 The proposed project would result in significant and Class I No Impact—The project has unavoidable impacts to the historic Smith Building, located at been revised to retain the 1123-1127 Garden Street, a historic resource on the City's building, including all identified Master List of Historic Resources. significant and contributing character-defining features. CR-4 The proposed project would result in significant and Class I No Impact—The project has unavoidable impacts to the historic Laird Building complex, been revised to retain the located at 1129-1137 Garden.Street, a historic resource on the building, including all identified City's Master List of Historic Resources. significant and contributing character-defining features. CR-5 The proposed project would result in significant and Class I No Impact—The project has unavoidable impacts to the building at 748 Marsh Street(San been revised to retain the Luis Traditions), a historic resource eligible for the CRHR and building, including all identified the City's Master List of Historic Resources. significant and contributing character-defining features. CR-6 The proposed project could result in significant impacts Class II Remains Class II—The to historic structures both on and adjacent to the project site as language of the mitigation a result of indirect structural damage from demolition and measure was simplified to construction activities. reflect the retention and rehabilitation to Secretary of the Interior Standards for Historic Structures, rather than partial demolition and substantial remodeling of the historic structures along Garden Street. It addresses the potential impact of new construction affecting the historic buildings and maintains provisions for PHI-12 Attachment 2 Addendum to Final EIR foiz,ie Garden Street Terraces Project (City File No. ER 124-06) Page 6 protection and careful staging during construction. 3.7 Land Use and Planning Policies LU-1 The proposed project would be potentially inconsistent Class II No Impact—The project with conceptual goals for Area 4 of the Downtown Plan for _ redesign now depicts a mid- providing new mid-block pedestrian links. block pedestrian link connecting Marsh Street, through the project,to "Bubble-Gum Alley'. The project also proposes improvements to Garden Alley. (See Sheet A.1 —First Floor Plan and Sheet C.7— Sidewalk and Pedestrian Improvement Plan LU-2 The proposed project may be potentially inconsistent with Class III No Impact-The project has several of the policy objectives established for taller buildings been revised so that all under Land Use Element Policy 4.16.4 and Chapter 17.42(C-D buildings are less than 50 feet zone)of the Citys adopted zoning ordinance. in height. 3.10 Transportation and Traffic TT-5 The-proposed project would result in potentially adverse Class III Nolmpact-The project's but not significant increases in congestion to sidewalks along redesign modified all the project's frontages and interior pedestrian walkways where sidewalks and related multiple"pinch points" (e.g., street trees, newspaper racks, components to maintain the etc.)restrict pedestrian free passage to less than 8 feet, in requisite eight(8)foot clear conflict with adopted City Circulation Element Policy. path on all of the sidewalks directly adjacent to the project site. (See Sheet C.7— Sidewalk and Pedestrian Improvement Plan TT-6 The proposed project would result in potentially Class II No Impact- Modifications to significant adverse safety impacts to vehicles entering the site the Marsh Street entrance and pedestrians crossing the parking structure driveway. include removal of the median, appropriate curb radii, and separated vehicle and pedestrian/bicycle entrances. Bicycle parking is also provided in this location, providing a physical buffer between vehicle and pedestrian traffic. (See Sheet A.1 — First Floor Plan TT-10 The proposed project would not provide adequate Class II No Impact-The revised motorcycle parking and would result in a shortage of required project provides the requisite motorcycle facilities. amount of motorcycle parking. Four(4) motorcycle spaces are located on the basement parking level. (See Sheet A.0 —Basement Floor Plan TT-12 The design of the proposed Second Basement'Level Class II No Impact-This impact is no private parking lot and the First Basement Level public parking longer applicable. With the lot would result in potentially significant but mitigable impacts elimination of the metered PH1-13 Addendum to Final EIR fo ie Garden Street Terraces Project Attachment(City File No. ER 124-06) 2 Page 7 on vehicle safety and interior circulation efficiency. public parking, the revised project now has only one basement parking level. (See Sheet A.0—Basement Floor Plan Legend for Hierarchy of Impact Classifications in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Class I Impacts - Significant,Unavoidable Impacts That May Not Be Fully Mitigated to Less Than Significant Levels Class II Impacts- Significant Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels Class III—Less Than Significant No Impact DETERMINATION In accordance with Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of San Luis Obispo has determined that this addendum to Final EIR ER 124-06 is necessary to document changes or additions that have occurred in the project description since the Final EIR was certified. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in this addendum along with the analysis and conclusions of Final EIR ER 124-06 and finds that the preparation of a subsequent EIR is not necessary because: 1. None of the following circumstances :included in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines have occurred which require a subsequent EIR: a. The project changes do not result in new or more severe environmental impacts. b. The circumstances under which the project is undertaken will not require major changes to the EIR. c. The modified project eliminated the need for several mitigation measures because of its scaled down size and the retention of historic buildings previously proposed for demolition or substantial modification, but does not require any substantive changes to previously approved mitigation measures. 2. As directed by the City Council with Use Permit 124-06 approved through Resolution No. 10183 on June 1, 2010, the revised project is consistent with the Reduced Development (environmentally superior alternative) and Project without Public Parking Spaces alternatives included in the certified Final EIR. 3. The changes are consistent with City goals to promote the intensification of the downtown core with mixed-use projects. PH1-14 Addendum to Final EIRy�- ne Garden Street Terraces Project Attachment Z (City File No. ER 124=06) Page 8 4. The proposed scale and design of buildings will be compatible with surrounding uses with the review and approval of project plans by the City's Architectural Review Commission, and approval of project plans by the City Council; consistent with the City's General Plan, Zoning Regulations, Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, and Community Design Guidelines. 1 c I Signature Date - -__ For: Kim Murry, Doug Davidson,Deputy Director Acting Community Development Diredtor - Attached: Exhibit A: Revised Table ES-1 List of recommended mitigation measures for the revised project (A4b.Ghe4 cd he and of +he Dra4 Resolution. Links to Final EIR: http://www.slocity.org/communitydevelopment/download/unifiedgeneralplan/JDavid/Gar den%20Street%20Final�/o2oElR.pdf http://www.slbcity.org/commun itydevelopment/down load/unifiedgeneralplan/J David/GST -Appendices.pdf PHI-15 Attachment 3 RESOLUTION NO. 10183(2010 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING A MODIFIED USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR THE GARDEN STREET TERRACES PROJECT(U/TR 124-06) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on February 24, 2010,for the purpose of considering Application U/TR 124-06, a use permit to allow a maximum building height of 74 feet and vesting tentative tract map for the Garden Street Terraces Project;and WHEREAS, said public hearing was for the purpose of formulating and forwarding recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the requested entitlements; and WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on June 1, 2010, for the purpose of considering Application U/TR 12406; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the Final EIR prepared for the Project;and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation.and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Use Permit Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following findings in support of the use permit to allow a maximum building height of 74 feet: 1. With implementation of conditions of approval and mitigation measures contained in the EIR, the public benefits associated with the project significantly outweigh any detrimental impacts from the additional height because the project meets or exceeds all established performance standards for buildings taller than 50 feet and at least two required policy objectives,including the following: a. Affordable and workforce housing (three low-income housing units at 9% of total units built). R 10183 IPH1 16 3 Resolution No. 10183 (2010 Series) Attachment Page 2 b. Economic vitality(retail and hospitality uses at 216%of building footprint). c. Other policy objectives (implementation of the City's Garden Street Improvement Plan and Conceptual Plan for the City's Center). d. View access and preservation (fifth floor Sky Terrace with views of the Santa Lucia foothills). e. Historic preservation (rehabilitation of all on-site historic buildings consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Resources). 2. The mixed-use project is consistent with the General Plan and community goals for the following reasons: a. Maintains and enhances the downtown area as the commercial and social center of the City by converting surface parking lots to more economically productive uses. b. Expands space for existing businesses and opportunities for new businesses to locate in the downtown area by creating new hotel,retail and restaurant space. c.. Provides housing downtown.interspersed with commercial uses to help balance jobs and housing in the community. d. Provides for improved pedestrian amenities via the project's pedestrian streets and paseos. e. Rehabilitates all on-site historic buildings consistent with the Secretary Standards for Treatment of Historic Resources. SECTION 2. Subdivision.Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following findings in support of the airspace subdivision: 1. The design of the vesting tentative tract map is consistent with the-General Plan because the project will incrementally add to the City's housing inventory, conforms to the site's allowable density, provides for three low-income housing units, and does not change j allowable land uses or modify the intent or design of the project. 2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the CD- H zone because the site is located adjacent to existing street right-of-ways with complete City services and the airspace subdivision will simply allow for separate ownerships of the various project components. 3. The design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements, is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because the site does not have any creeks or other potentially significant habitat nut 17- Resolution No. 10183 (2010 Series) Attachment 3 Page 4 that this required clearance is not provided at the comer of Broad and Marsh and along the Broad Street frontage. 8. Garden Street Improvement Plan: The final design of Garden Street shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director and Fire Chief. Revisions to the plans shall include parallel parking, in-ground pavement lights across Higuera Street at Garden Street, dimensioned plans that identify a minimum 20-foot wide curb-to-curb clear area between Marsh and Higuera Streets for emergency vehicle access, a minimum clearance of 4 feet behind a parked bicycle in Peak Racks for users to access the bike rack, dimensions from street furniture to building face with the goal of providing an 8-foot clear width, the location of utility boxes or other sidewalk features that would limit the placement of street furniture, and retention of the existing truck turning radius onto Garden Alley to allow continued use by service vehicles. 9. Any City street furniture (i.e. bike racks, parking meters, trash cans, etc.) not utilized in the project shall be offered to the City for reuse at another location. 10. Building plans shall include City standard tree grates and pedestrian lighting for the downtown. 11. The parking structure shall be developed as a private parking structure. If the parking structure is approved for public parking, the circulation flow shall be reversed so the in- bound lane is on the right and adequate line of sight provided. This revision will provide adequate sight visibility and reduce confusion to those using a public parking garage. 12. Building plans submitted for public improvements shall include truck turning template diagrams illustrating truck turning movements at all street corners. A 35-foot long ladder truck (12 feet wide) with a 44 foot turning radius shall maneuver the left hand turn from Garden Street onto Higuera Street. Plans shall be revised as needed to comply. 13. Bollards proposed for Garden Alley shall be relocated as close to the alley entry toward Garden Street as feasible so unauthorized vehicles will not have to back out of the alley. 14. Building plans shall include long and short-term bicycle parking dimensions per the manufacturer to illustrate adequate space and clearances are provided with a bicycle parked in each space. 15. A minimum of 3 short-term bicycle parking spaces shall be provided near the Broad Street entry to the neighborhood market for use by customers, subject to the approval of the Public Works Director. 16. Building plans shall identify bicycle parking required for commercial uses, the path of travel to these spaces and how these spaces will.be easily accessed for use by employees and customers(i.e. directional signage and lighting). uu' 9 Q Resolution No. 10183 (20.10 Series) Attachment 3 Page 3 areas for fish and wildlife, is surrounded by urban development and has already been developed with commercial buildings and surface parking. 4. The design of the subdivision, or the type, of improvements, will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision because no such easements exist. 5. The design of the subdivision, or type of improvements, is not likely to cause serious public health problems because the development will be designed to meet all existing building and safety codes. SECTION 3. Action. The City Council does hereby approve application U/TR 124-06 with incorporation of the following conditions and code requirements: Conditions: 1. The project shall be revised consistent with the Reduced Development and Project without Public Parking Spaces altematives. Revised plans shall incorporate all applicable EIR mitigation measures and use permit and subdivision conditions, subject to review by the Architectural Review Commission and final design approval by the City Council. 2. Minor variations to the Reduced Development alternative setback requirement of 15 feet above the 2nd floor level along Marsh and Broad Streets should be considered to achieve architectural benefits, subject to review by the Architectural Review Commission and final design approval by City Council. 3. If the revised project continues to exceed 50 feet in height, it shall be designed to comply with all applicable performance standards and policy objectives required.in Chapter 17.42 (C) of the Zoning Regulations for buildings taller.than 50 feet, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. 4. The use permit shall be effective for a period of five years from the date of approval. 5. All applicable mitigation measures contained in the Final EIR shall be included as conditions of approval,and are incorporated herein by reference. 6. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9(b),the subdivider shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this subdivision, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review. 7. The project shall provide a minimum 8-foot clear sidewalk width on all project street frontages where existing buildings are not retained. To accommodate this requirement, building entries may need to be recessed or street furniture relocated. Project-plans indicate 1 i Resolution No. 10183 2010 Series) Attachment 3 Page 5 17. A minimum 6-foot wide lighted pedestrian walkway shall be maintained (via an easement) through the building at street level to allow public access from the interior of the building to Garden Alley,Garden Street,and Marsh Street. 18. To reduce vehicle conflicts in the parking structure street level driveway and allow for 6- foot clear pedestrian circulation, the proposed handicapped parking behind the hotel shall be relocated to the lower level. 19. The section of the City owned parcel located within "Garden Alley" and labeled as "Remainder"on the tentative map shall be incorporated into the public alley to remain. The process to achieve this alley continuity shall be resolved prior to map recordation. The final map shall be revised if necessary to reflect any offer of dedication, prior deed, or revised tract boundary reflecting any final project development conditions or provisions of the MOU. 20. The final map shall correctly define and describe all lots including but not limited to the lot(s) used for parking purposes. The final map shall comply with final project actions regarding the use(s)of the parking garage as public,private,or common areas. 21. The final lot configurations including upper and lower limits shall be based on the final construction requirements. 22. A separate exhibit documenting zoning and building code compliance shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department prior to recordation of the map. 23. The final map shall show any existing or proposed offers of dedication and pedestrian easements as conditioned with all applicable agreements, discretionary approvals and/or building permit and public improvement plan approvals. 24. Public pedestrian easements may be necessary to accommodate improvements required for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance or for circulation clearances around obstructions to satisfy conditioned access width requirements. If required, these easements shall be shown on the map to the approval of the Public Works Director. 25. The subdivider shall dedicate any private or public utility easements determined necessary to serve or accommodate the development of this.project. The necessity of said easements will be determined in conjunction with the review of the public improvement plans,utility company plans,and building plans for the development. 26. The final map shall reserve and delineate certain applicable horizontal and vertical private easements including but not limited to drainage, utilities, vehicular and pedestrian ingress&egress for the benefit of the lots affected by such easements. 27. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall receive Utilities Department approval of an interim garbage storage and pick up plan for businesses currently utilizing Garden Alley for trash pick up and storage. f sib�w- Attachment 3 Resolution No. 10183 (2010 Series) Page 6 28. The proposed project includes replacement of the existing six-inch sewer line in Garden Street with a new eight-inch sewer line due to its age, grade defects, and poor condition in order to accommodate the additional wastewater flows from the proposed project. Should the City replace the sewer line prior to the project, the applicant shall reimburse the City for the cost of upsizing the sewer line from six to eight inches to accommodate the wastewater flows associated with the project. Upon motion of Council Member Settle,seconded by Council Member Marx, and on the following vote: AYES: Council Members Ashbaugh, Marx and Settle, and Vice Mayor Carter NOES: None ABSENT: Mayor Romero The foregoing resolution was adopted this I sc day of June 2010. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Elaina Cano City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: J. stine Dietrick ity Attorney Du 1 It I C } Attachment 4 �►��I�Ill�llllllllllllll������� �III�IIIIIII llll !1I Cl orSa1�11�,11S OBlSPO Community Development Department• 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 August 10, 2011 Garden Street SLO Partners, LP c/o Hamish Marshall 895 Aerovista Place, Suite 100 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: ARC 124-06: 1119, 1123-1127, 1129-1137 Garden Street and 712, 720, 722, 728, 736,748 Marsh Street Review project redesign for the Garden Street Terraces project Dear Mr. Marshall: The Cultural Heritage Committee, at its meeting of July 25, 2011, determined that the revised project design is appropriate in the Downtown Commercial Zone and Downtown Historical District and recommended final approval of the project design to the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) and the City Council, based on findings and subject-to conditions noted in the attached resolution. The action of the Cultural Heritage Committee is a recommendation to the ARC and the City Council and, therefore, is not final. This matter has been scheduled for public hearing before the ARC on August 15, 2011. It has been tentatively scheduled for public hearing before the City Council on October 4, 2011. This date, however, should be verified with the City Clerk's office at (805) 781-7102. If you have any questions, please contact Senior Planner Pam Ricci at (805) 781-7168. Sincerely, Kim Murry Deputy Director of Community Development Long-Range Planning Attachment: Resolution No. CHC-1005-11 cc: SLO County Assessor's Office C. M. Florence Oasis Associates 3427 Miguelito Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 �� The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. PHl-22 Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. Attachment 4 RESOLUTION NO. CHC-1005-11 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE DETERMINING THAT THE REVISED PROJECT DESIGN OF THE GARDEN STREET TERRACES PROJECT IS APPROPRIATE IN THE DOWNTOWN HISTORICAL DISTRICT AND RECOMMENDING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT DESIGN TO THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION (ARC)AND CITY COUNCIL ARC 124-06 (11199 1123-11277 1129-1137 GARDEN STREET AND 712, 7209 7229 7289 736, 748 MARSH STREET) WHEREAS, the applicant, Garden Street SLO Partners, LP, on August 8, 2006, submitted a request for architectural approval of a proposal to develop a mixed-use development project in the downtown core know as Garden Street Terraces-, and WHEREAS, the 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 July 25, 2011, for the purpose of evaluating the project; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; 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. Findings. The Cultural Heritage Committee hereby makes the following findings in support of the project's appropriateness in the Downtown Historical District, and recommends final approval of the project design to the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) and City Council, based on the following findings: Findings 1. As designed and conditioned, the building materials, style, character, and form of the new structures within the project will promote the architectural character, style, form, and materials of the existing Downtown Historical District and complement the architectural character of the surrounding buildings and area consistent with the City's Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. 2. The project is consistent with standards contained in the City's Community Design Guidelines for the downtown, which encourage projects to be pedestrian-oriented and to have proportions and design details that complement surrounding structures. PH1-23 Attachment 4 Resolution No. CHC-1005-11 Page 2 3. The project's design is consistent with the design principles contained in Section 4.16 of the Land Use Element including providing pedestrian-oriented spaces on the ground floor of buildings, continuous storefronts, and upper floor dwellings and offices. 4. The project is consistent with the mitigation measures adopted by the City Council on June 1, 2010, with the certification of the Final Garden Street Terraces Project EIR. Section 2. Action. The Cultural Heritage Committee hereby determines that the revised project design is appropriate in the Downtown Commercial Zone and Downtown Historical District, and recommends final approval of the project design to the Architectural Review Commission and City Council, subject to the following conditions of approval: Conditions 1. Final project design and construction drawings shall be in substantial compliance with the project plans reviewed by the CHC & ARC and ultimately approved by the City Council. . A separate full-size sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that lists all conditions and code requirements of project approval as Sheet No. 2. Reference should be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed. Any change to approved design, colors, materials, landscaping, or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Director or Architectural Review Commission,as deemed appropriate. 2. Historically-accurate window specifications for the buildings at 1119, 1123, & 1137 Garden Street shall be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) with their review of project plans and details shall be included in working drawings. 3. Changes to the rear elevation of the building at 1123-1127 Garden for new windows and doors shall be a quality and historically-accurate treatment. Specific details shall be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) with their review of project plans and details and specifications included in working drawings. 4. The existing variety of color with the tenant spaces within the buildings at 1129-1137 Garden, or. a similar new proposal, shall be maintained to reinforce the character and interest of the block to the approval of the ARC. 5. All of the significant and contributing character-defining historic features identified in the Garden Street Terraces Project Analysis prepared by Chattel Architecture, Planning & Preservation dated April 2011 shall be retained and incorporated into the project consistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards and Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. 6. The building at 748 Marsh Street shall be painted in a color consistent with its Spanish architectural style that differentiates it from the new construction beyond. 7. Plans submitted for a building permit for all project components shall include window details indicating the style and type of materials for the windows, mullions, their PH1-24 Resolution No. CHC-1005-11'' Attachment 4 Page 3 dimensions, and colors. Plans shall also include the materials and dimensions of all lintels, sills, surrounds, recesses, and other related window features. 8. Plans submitted for a building permit for all project components shall clearly show details for all railings, balconies, decorative architectural features, and storefronts. 9. The plaster finish for buildings shall be smooth-troweled as noted on plans. 10. The project's required archaeological monitoring report shall be reviewed by the Cultural Heritage Committee. On motion by Committee Member Fowler, seconded by Committee Member Dandekar, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commrs. Fowler, Dandekar, Hill, Kalkowski, Costello, &Oliveira NOES: None REFRAIN: None ABSENT: Commr. Pavlik The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 25`h day of July, 2011. Kim Murry, Secretary Cultural Heritage Committee PH1-25 CHC Minutes C - ' Attachment 4 July 25, 2011 Page 2 MMITTEE COMMENTS: Comm a Member Dandekar questioned if there were further pictures showin he enclosed rch, pillars, window, and entry. She also questioned if the appli t had considered r ming the components to their original design. The applican iscussed the cost in retu ' g the property to original design and did not provide fu.rt pictures. Committee Member I requested further information on the addition roperties on the site. Committee Member Dande r stated that properties evolve a this property provided a significant contribution to the bric of the community. Committee Member Kalkowski ported the listin ut noted that if the property returned for Mills Act consideration three struct s would be considered separately and the porch would be addressed un r conditio . Committee Member Fowler noted the sign nce of Harry Lyman's contribution to the community. There were no further comments ma from the mittee. On a motion by Committee M er Kalkowski sec_ ed by Committee Member Hill recommending the City C cil add the Propertv AL the Master List of Historic Resources. With conditi and/or consideration be aN that should this property return to the CHC for ills Act inclusion the three struNures shall be considered separately and Chan to the porch be addressed. :/ComAYES: mmittee Members Dandekar, Fowler, Hill, \Kalkow * ello, and Oliveira NOES: None RECO D: None AB T:Committee Member Pavlik mittee passed on a 6:0 vote. 2. 1119 Garden Street. ARC 124-06; Review project redesign for the Garden Street Terraces project, C-D-H zone; Garden Street SLO Partners, LP, applicant. (Pam Ricci) Pam Ricci, Senior Planner, presented the staff report, recommending that the CHC determine the revised project design is appropriate in the Downtown Commercial Zone and Downtown Historical District, and recommend final approval of the project design to the ARC and City Council, based on findings and subject to conditions which she outlined. PH1-26 CHC Minutes C� Attachment 4 July 25, 2011 Page 3 Chairperson Oliveira questioned if there would be an ongoing requirement of monitoring for archeological preservation, referencing the EIR. Staff replied that adopted mitigation measures required archaeological testing and monitoring. Committee Member Fowler asked staff about the concern noted in the staff report related to the colors proposed for the small buildings located at 1129-1137 Garden Street. Staff indicated that more variety in colors than the proposed charcoal was desired to help highlight architectural detailing, create individual identity, and add to the vitality of the block. Hamish Marshall, applicant, clarified that they would like to utilize the public Garden Alley for more active uses and special events, but that they were not in control of how it is used. Mr. Marshall discussed that individual business owners would need to work on ways for their businesses to take advantage of the double frontage nature (alley and Higuera Street) of their businesses. Carol Florence, applicant representative, indicated that she had concerns with conditions 4 and 6. George Garcia, applicant's architect, spoke in support of the project. Committee Member Hill questioned the viability of the alley for dining purposes given that it is currently used for deliveries. Staff noted that the alley is too narrow for fire truck access so there is not that conflict. George Garcia mentioned that bollards were proposed to restrict access and could be utilized to accommodate other uses of the alley. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Elizabeth Thyne, San Luis Obispo, supported the development of the project, noting that the revised project integrates better into the downtown and will be a great asset. Joseph Abrahams, San Luis Obispo, indicated that he was generally in favor of the revised project and would like to see Garden Alley become a destination in the Downtown. David Brodie, San Luis Obispo, commended the developer on the historic component of the project and supported the development of the project. He requested the developer present a colors and materials board, which staff provided for the CHC and public to view. Mr. Brodie mentioned the importance of lighting, pavement materials, signage, and vegetation for Garden Alley. He indicated that the scale of the revised project was much more sympathetic to the overall setting. Dean Miller, San Luis Obispo, supported the development of the project noting how the architect had responded appropriately to prior concerns. He agreed with Condition 4 requesting color differentiation for 1129-1137 Garden Street. He noted that the metal awning was acceptable for the alley but that a canvas awning should be used for the streetscape of 1119 Garden. PH 1-27 CHC Minutes Attachment 4 July 25, 2011 Page 4 Sandra Lakeman, San Luis Obispo, supported the development of the project though noted concern for the security and lighting of the paseos at night. Ms. Lakeman expressed concerns for some of the color choices in the new building. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMITTEE COMMENTS: Committee Member Kalkowski mentioned that new lighting fixtures should shield the light source. He requested if stainless steel material would be used and the applicant replied that it wouldn't. Committee Member Hill requested clarification on the upper floor window design of the new building on Marsh and Garden Alley, which the applicant provided. She questioned the angled parking on Garden Street. The applicant and staff discussed various cities that integrated angled parking in their historic downtowns. Committee Member Costello indicated that the modem windows were fine on Broad Street. Committee Member Dandekar supported the massing of the project and indicated that it respects the historic corridor. She noted that the project was a great example of juxtaposing the two components. Committee Member Fowler supported the revised design and staffs recommended conditions regarding colors for the historic buildings along Garden Street. Chairperson Oliveira requested that an archaeological monitoring report be forwarded in the future to the Committee. Staff noted the applicant had concerns with conditions 4 and 6. After an explanation of the intent of the conditions from staff, the applicant indicated that the language provided for flexibility. There were no further comments made from the Committee. On a motion by Committee Member Fowler, seconded by Committee Member Dandekar, the Committee determined that the revised project design is appropriate in the Downtown Com_ mercial_Zone and Downtown Historical District, and recommended final approval of the proiect design to the ARC and City Council, based on recommended findings, and with an added condition that an archaeological monitoring report be brought back in the future to the Committee. AYES: Committee Members Dandekar, Fowler, Hill, Kalkowski, Costello, and Oliveira NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Committee Member Pavlik PHl-28 CHC Minutes C ,J Attachment 4 July 25, 2011 Page 5 The motion passed on a 6:0 vote. The Committee took a break between 7.30 p.m. and 7.40 p.m. Vice-Chair Costello left the meeting. C ity-Wide. CHC 48-11; Continued study session to review draft program for the City's Historic Resource Inventory; City of n Luis Obispo, Applicant. smore) re, Senior Planner, presented the sta report, recommending to receive ommittee testimony, further define bcommittee assignments, introduce rogram, and continue this item to a regular August CHC meeting. M NTS: There were no co ments. COMMITTEE COM I NTS: Staffand Committee di ussed a addition of existing resources and expansion of district boundaries. Disc sio focused on areas to be considered for analysis and identification of resources ph to designation of speck properties within the areas. Committee Member Fow r voice concern for the public outreach program. Committee Member ndekar voice concem for east side development. Chairperson Oliv ra suggested concen ting on the southern boundary toward Islay and Buchon Str et, supporting the modifie area as discussed. On a motio v Committee Member Hill seco ed b .Committee Member Kalkowski to acce t 4blic and Committee testimony, fu rt er define subcommittee assignments, acce t arkoutreach program, and continue the ite to the regular August CHC.meetin . AYES Committee Members Dandekar, Fowler, ill, Kalkowski, and Oliveira NOE None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Committee Members Pavlik and Costello The motion passed on a 5:0 vote. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 4. Staff a. Agenda Forecast 5. Committee PHl-29 Attachment 5 . r �u��iii�IIIIIIN811 pp���l�I�I ky _O sAn Wis oBispo Community Development Department• 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 September 22, 2011 Hamish Marshall Garden Street SLO Partners, LP 895 Aerovista Place, Suite 100 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: . ARC 124-06: 1119, 1123-1127, 1129-1137 Garden Street and 712, 720, 722, 728, 736, 748 Marsh Street Review project redesign for the Garden Street Terraces project Dear Mr. Marshall: The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of September 19, 2011, recommended final approval of the project design to the City Council, based on the findings and subject to the conditions, as noted in the attached resolution. This action of the Architectural Review Commission is a recommendation to the City Council and, therefore, is not final. This matter has been tentatively scheduled for public hearing before the City Council on October 18, 2011. This date, however, should be verified with the City Clerk's Office at (805) 781-7102. If you have any questions, please contact me at (805) 781-7168. Sincerely, V Pamela Ricci, P�GG� Senior Planner Attachment: Resolution No. ARC-1011-11 cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office C. M. Florence Oasis Associates 3427 Miguelito Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 �EThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. PH1-30 ` Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. • • rte\ ,. ., /v\/{ Attachment 5 RESOLUTION NO. ARC-1011-11 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION RECOMMENDING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE.PROJECT DESIGN TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ARC 124-06 (1119, 1123-1127, 1129-1137 GARDEN STREET AND 712, 720, 7229 7289 7369 748 MARSH STREET) WHEREAS, the applicant, Garden Street SLO Partners, LP, on August 8, 2006, submitted a request for architectural approval of a proposal to develop a mixed-use development project in the downtown core know as Garden Street Terraces and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted public hearings in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on August 15, 2011, and again on September 19, 2011, for the purpose of evaluating the final design of the project; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Findings. The Architectural Review Commission hereby makes the following findings in support of the project, and recommends final approval of the project design to the City Council, based on the following findings: Findings 1. As designed and conditioned, the building materials, style, character, and form of the new structures within the project will promote the architectural character, style, form, and materials of the existing Downtown Historical District and complement the architectural character of the surrounding buildings and area consistent with the City's Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. 2. The project is consistent with standards contained in the City's Community Design Guidelines for the downtown, which encourage projects to be pedestrian-oriented and to have proportions and design details that complement surrounding structures. 3. The project's design.is consistent with the design principles contained in Section 4.16 of the Land Use Element including providing pedestrian-oriented spaces on the ground floor of buildings, continuous storefronts, and upper floor dwellings and offices. PH1-31 F) Attachment 5 Resolution No. ARC-1011-11 Page 2 4. The project is consistent with mitigation measures adopted by the City Council on June 1, 2010, with the certification of the Final Garden Street Terraces Project EIR. Section 2. Action. The Architectural Review Commission.hereby recommends final approval of the project design to the City Council, subject to the following conditions of approval: Conditions 1. Final project design and construction drawings shall be in substantial compliance with the project plans reviewed by the CHC & ARC and ultimately approved by the City Council. A separate, full-size sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that lists all conditions and code requirements of project approval as Sheet No. 2. Reference should be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed. Any change to approved design, colors, materials, landscaping, or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Director or Architectural Review Commission, as deemed appropriate. 2. The final design approval shall be valid for five years from the date of City Council approval. 3. The project is subject to all of the conditions approved through City Council Resolution No. 10183 (20 10 Series) for a modified use permit and tentative tract map. If a previous condition is modified with this latest approval, the latter condition shall prevail and supersede the former wording of the condition. Any phasing of the overall project, shall receive Community Development Department and Public Works Department review and approval. 4. All applicable mitigation measures contained in the Final EIR shall be included as conditions of approval and are incorporated herein by reference. Building Design 5. The new project building through its lowered height and design, which includes wall offsets, tiered massing, and visual gaps at upper building levels, meets the intent of the parameters included in the Reduced Development Alternative of the EIR for upper floor setbacks eliminating the need for Condition No. 2 of City Council Resolution No. 10183 (2010 Series). 6. Historically-accurate window specifications for the buildings at 1119 and 1123 & 1137 Garden Street shall be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) with their review of project plans and details shall be included in working drawings. 7. Changes to the rear elevation of the building at 1123-1127 Garden for new windows and doors shall be a quality and historically-accurate treatment. Specific details shall be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) with their review of project plans and details and specifications included in working drawings. PH1-32 -� Reso]urionNo.ARC-1011-I1 Attachment 5�— `�� Page 3 8. The existing variety of color with the tenant spaces within the buildings at 1129-1137 Garden, or a similar new proposal, shall be maintained to reinforce the character and interest of the block. 9. All of the significant and contributing character-defining historic features identified in the Garden Street Terraces Project Analysis prepared by Chattel Architecture, Planning & Preservation dated April 2011, shall be retained and incorporated into the project consistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards and Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. 10. The building at 748 Marsh Street shall be painted in a color consistent with its Spanish architectural style that differentiates it.from the new construction beyond. 11. The central portion of the Marsh Street elevation of the new structure shall be finished in a compatible color to differentiate it from adjacent storefronts. 12. Plans submitted for a building permit for all project components shall include window details indicating the style and type of materials for the windows, mullions, their dimensions, and colors. Plans shall also include the materials and dimensions of all lintels, sills, surrounds, recesses, and other related window features. 13. Plans submitted for a building permit for all project components shall clearly show details for all railings, balconies, decorative architectural features, and storefronts. 14. The plaster finish for buildings shall be smooth-troweled as noted on plans. Planning 15. The project's required archaeological monitoring report shall be reviewed by the Cultural Heritage Committee. 16. The specific art proposals for the project shall return to the ARC for review at a later date once developed by artists and approved .by an art jury as overseen by the SLO Arts Council. 17. Details of lighting fixtures shall return to staff for review and approval, either prior to, or along with, the plans submitted for a building permit. The locations of all lighting fixtures shall be clearly called out on building elevations included as part of working drawings. The lighting schedule for buildings shall include a graphic representation of the proposed lighting fixtures and cut-sheets shall be separately submitted for the project file of the proposed lighting fixtures. The selected fixture(s) shall be shielded to insure that light is directed downward consistent with Section 17.23.050 of the Zoning Regulations. Details of all exterior light fixtures, including site lighting and service area lights, need to be included as part of plans. A note shall be included on plans that "Lenses of exterior wall- mounted lights may be modified or shielding devices added after installation if the Community Development Director determines that they emit excessive glare." PH1-33 Resolution No. ARC-1011-11 Attachment 5 Page 4 18. A specific sign program for the project shall be to the review and approval of the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). The sign program shall include information on the sizes, locations, colors, materials, and types of signage proposed for various buildings and project directional signs. Project signs shall be designed to be compatible with the architecture of proposed buildings and to complement the site's setting .within both the Chinatown and Downtown Historical Districts. Once adopted, the sign program shall contain provision for the Community Development Director to approve minor deviations to the approved sign program if findings can be made in support of the exception being consistent with the intent of the program, and in keeping with the design characteristics and historical context of the building(s) and/or site. The Director may refer signage proposals to the ARC if there are concerns that a particular design is out of character with the sign program. 19. Mechanical equipment shall be located internally to buildings. With submittal of working drawings, the applicant shall include sectional views of buildings, which clearly show the sizes of proposed condensers and other mechanical equipment to be placed on the roof to confirm that parapets and other roof features will adequately screen them. A line-of-site diagram may be needed to confirm that proposed screening will be adequate. 20. The required fire risers for buildings shall be located internal to buildings. Other Fire Department equipment shall be located internal to buildings where feasible. The externally-mounted Fire Department Connection (FDC) for buildings shall have a chrome or brass finish to the approval of the Community Development Director. Trees 21. Tree protection measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. The City Arborist shall review and approve the proposed tree protection measures prior to commencing with any demolition, grading, or construction. The City Arborist shall approve any safety pruning, the cutting of substantial roots, or grading within the dripline of trees. A City-approved arborist shall complete safety pruning. Any required tree protection measures shall be shown or noted on the building plans. Contact the City Arborist at 781-7023 to review and to establish any required preservation measures to be included with the building permit submittal. 22. A tree protection bond or surety shall be provided to the City prior to demolition, construction, and/or tree relocations to the satisfaction of the City Arborist, Public Works Director, and Community Development Director. The surety amount shall be established in accordance with current standards for evaluating tree value. 23. All new or relocated trees shall be installed per City Engineering Standards. Existing trees to remain shall be upgraded to include a tree well and grate per City Engineering Standard #8130 where determined feasible by the City Arborist. 24. Any required off-site compensatory tree planting as required by Mitigation Measure VIS- 5b shall be 24" box stock. Said plantings shall be completed prior to acceptance of the PH1-34 Resolution No.ARC-1011-11 Attachment 5 Page 5 public improvements or prior to occupancy whichever occurs first unless otherwise approved for deferral by the Public Works Director. Public Works 25. Plans submitted for a building permit shall address the following items of the Garden Street Improvement Plan: a. In-ground pavement lights across Higuera Street at Garden Street. b. Final loading zone design/placement. c. Public art proposal, if applicable. d. An increase in height of the parking bollard to improve its visibility. e. Inclusion of one on-street ADA parking space. f. Use of the four existing Peak bicycle racks. g. Final parkway designs. 26. The Garden Street Alley plan shall include a decorative pavement treatment for its entire extent between Garden and Broad Streets and show all existing and proposed public and private utilities. Improvements to the public alley, including final bollard design, shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director. The proposed grease interceptor may be located within the public alley. A separate encroachment agreement shall be recorded against the property. 27. Final street furniture details shall comply with the City Engineering Standards in effect at the time of submittal or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 28. Disruption to pedestrian or vehicle traffic and/or property access shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. The contractor or sub-contractor(s) may be required to provide written notice to any affected properties prior to commencing with work. A list of properties to be noticed shall be approved by the City and documentation of delivery of said notice(s) shall be provided to the City. On motion by Commissioner Wynn, seconded by Commissioner Ehdaie, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commrs. Wynn, Ehdaie, McCovey-Good, Palazzo, and Hopkins NOES: Commr. Duffy REFRAIN: None ABSENT: Commr. Curtis The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 19`h day of September, 2011. V Pam Ricci; Seeretary Architectural Review Commission PH1-35 J Attachment 5 SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES September 19, 2011 ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Suzan Ehdaie, Steven Hopkins, Michelle McCovey-Good, Greg Wynn, Vice-Chair Jim Duffy, and Chairperson Anthony Palazzo Absent: Commissioner Ken Curtis Staff: Senior,Planner Pam Ricci and Planning Technician Marcus Cadoni ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented. MINUTES: The minutes of August 8 & 15, 2011 were approved as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: There were no comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 779, 781, 785, and 787 Hiquera Street. ARCMI 82-11; Review of corrugated metal awning additions to building facade; C-D-H zone; Beverly Maytag, applicant. (Marcus Carlon) Marcus Carloni, Planning Technician, presented the staff report, recommending the Commission adopt a resolution to approve the project design, based on findings and subject to conditions which he outlined. Jeff Bague, applicant's representative, explained the design intent behind Corten steel awnings. Beverly Maytag, applicant, noted her pride of ownership of the subject property and. its connection to the history of downtown San Luis Obispo. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: There were brief comments from the Commission and consensus that the project was a great addition to the downtown. PHl-36 ARC Minutes � September 19, 2011 Attachment 5 Page 2 On motion by Commr. Duffy, seconded by Commr. Ehdaie, to grant final approval to the proiect design based on findings and subject to conditions of approval included in the draft resolution. AYES: Commrs. Ehdaie, Hopkins, McCovey-Good, Wynn, Duffy and Palazzo NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commr. Curtis The motion passed on a 6:0 vote. 1. 1119,. 1123-1127, 11294137 Garden Street and 712, 720, 722, 728, 736, 748 Marsh Street. ARC 124-06; Review project redesign for the Garden Street Terraces project; C-D-H zone; Garden Street SLO Partners LP, applicant. (Pam Ricci) Pam Ricci, Senior Planner, presented the staff report recommending that the Commission adopt the Draft Resolution which recommends to the City Council that the revised project design be approved, based on findings and subject to conditions which she outlined. Carol Florence, applicant representative, described that 25 public outreach meetings have been conducted with residents, business owners, and the Downtown Association in attendance. She expressed some concern with condition #26 in the draft resolution regarding extending pavers the full length of Garden Alley and who would have maintenance responsibility. George Garcia, applicant's representative and project architect, provided a project overview, and stated that 95% of Downtown is plaster, brick, and mortar. He discussed the evolution of the project's design through the Environmental Impact Report, public hearings, and outreach. Regarding directional item #1, Mr. Garcia showed brick patterns and colors. In terms of directional item #2, he noted that the comer building at Marsh and Broad was designed as a strong element that gives a sense of anchor to the corner and will be given a Flemish bond brick treatment. Mr. Garcia addressed directional item #3 by using perspectives to show canopy and bulkhead details. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Vicente Del Rio, San Luis Obispo, provided a PowerPoint presentation and noted that his time before the Commission also represented the interests of other Save Our Downtown (SOD) members who would not be speaking. He stated concerns with the relationship of the new building with the sidewalk and its proposed colors and materials. Sara McEre, expressed that she had concerns regarding the project elements and what was presented at the last hearing. PH1-37 ARC Minutes Attachment 5 September 19,2011 Page 3 Judy Lang, requested changes to make the project more warm and inviting in relation to pedestrians and also wanted to eliminate the use of grey colors in the project. Mike McNamara, San Luis Obispo, called attention to a project wall proposed at the rear of their adjoining property at 742 Marsh that will block their access to the pedestrian walkway. Jon Seitz, San Luis Obispo, stated there is a wall separating his building at 742 Marsh from the alleyway and has concerns about access to the rear of the building and parking. Sandra Lakeman maintained that changes to building color treatments are not satisfactory as they are still dark grey and white. She noted that the General Plan has principles that require a transitional building and wanted the project to relate more to the architecture of historic buildings. Diane Duenow, San Luis Obispo, appreciated the model of the project. She would like the design to respect the architecture of historic buildings, especially-the Mission. Jim Duenow, San Luis Obispo, opposed the project, and stated that it is insensitive to the history of Downtown. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Duffy was still concerned with colors and details. He would like to hear more positive comments from the public. Commr. Wynn supported the project as designed finding that it provided a strong statement and included architecture of the current time and place. He did not have any objections to the colors or materials. Commr. McCovey-Good agreed with Commr. Wynn's statements regarding colors and materials, but agrees with the idea of using different colors for the central part of the Marsh Street elevation to differentiate it from adjacent storefronts and maintain a regular downtown rhythm. She also noted that the changes made to eliminate some of the grey brick and lighten up the project's appearance were an improvement. Commr. Hopkins supported the project.. Commr. Ehdaie supported the project with the added condition about modifying the color of the central portion of the Marsh Street elevation. Commr. Wynn stated that the proposed variety of colors and materials in the project adds excitement and diversity, and is a benefit. PH1-38 ARC Minutes ,_ September 19, 2011 Attachment 5 Page 4 On motion by Commr. Wynn, seconded by Commr. Ehdaie, to _recommend that the revised project design be approved, based on findings and subiect to conditions included in the draft resolution with one added condition, which read: `The central portion. of the Marsh Street elevation of the new structure shall be finished in a compatible color to differentiate it from adjacent storefronts." AYES: Commrs. Ehdaie, Hopkins, McCovey-Good, Wynn, and Palazzo NOES: Commr. Duffy RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commr. Curtis The motion passed on a 5:1 vote. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 2. Staff: a. Agenda Forecast- Pam Ricci provided a forecast for upcoming agendas. b. Awning Discussion — Staff discussed with the ARC that metal as an awning material was cited in the Community Design Guidelines as not being appropriate in the downtown. Based on the review of recent proposals for metal awnings in the downtown by the ARC including Item #1 on tonight's agenda, the Commission suggested that staff could make decisions to allow metal awnings that were compatible with the architectural style of the building and respected the locations of windows and other details. Staff mentioned that metal awning designs found not to be compatible with a building's architectural style would continue to be forwarded to the Commission for their review. Staff also noted that modifications to the language in the guidelines regarding downtown awnings would be drafted and reviewed by the ARC at a later date for consideration when the guidelines are updated. 3. Commission Commr. Wynn brought up the concern with the barriers for outdoor dining being left in place within the sidewalk area after restaurants are closed. Staff pointed out the reasons for this including keeping the area properly demarcated, having a more refined and attractive barrier design, and convenience to the business owners. Staff suggested that a Public Works representative could attend an upcoming meeting and provide some insights into how these types of projects are reviewed. Vice-Chair Duffy mentioned the recent remodel of the Applebee's Restaurant on Madonna Road. He noted that the style, material, and color of the awnings were very bright and did not relate to building features. PHI-39 N N. Attachment 6 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM#2 BY: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner(781-7168) DATE: September 19, 2011 FROM: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner . FILE NUMBER: ARC 124-06 PROJECT ADDRESSES: 1119, 1123-1127, 1129-1137 Garden Street and 712, 720, 722, 728, 736, 748 Marsh Street SUBJECT: Final design review of the Garden Street Terraces Project. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION: Recommend to the City Council that the revised project design be approved, based on findings, and subject to conditions. BACKGROUND Situation Plans for the downtown mixed-use center including retail, residential units and a hotel known as the Garden Street Terraces Project were reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) on August 15, 2011. The plans reviewed by the ARC last month had been substantially modified from the version that the ARC had reviewed last year on April 19, 2010 along with the conclusions of the project's Environmental Impact Report (EIR). With the new project design, the Commission supported the retention and treatment of the historic buildings along Garden Street, and appreciated the reduced scale and height of the new structure proposed on the remainder of the project site closer to Broad and Marsh Streets where Parking Lot #2 and some, private buildings now exist. However, the ARC requested that further details about the new building return to them prior to recommending final design approval to the City Council including the following: 1. Provide more information on proposed colors,materials and textures used on the new building including consideration for a lighter shade of brick rather than the charcoal color currently proposed. 2. Consider an alternative treatment for the portion of building directly located at the corner of Marsh and Broad Streets that respects the prominence of views at the intersection. 3. Provide more information on pedestrian features in the project such as awnings and bulkheads. Therefore, the ARC's action on August 15`h was to continue consideration of the project design to the specific date of September 19'h with the requested information above to be the focus of the extended review. A copy of the August 15th report is attached for background information and a comprehensive evaluation of the entire project. PH1-40 Garden Street Terraces Project(ARC 124-06; 9-19-11) ALLQchment 6 Page 2 EVALUATION Attachment B to this report includes a Project Design Statement prepared by the project architect. This statement provides additional background on the project's design genesis and evolution as the EIR and other entitlements have been reviewed by the City at multiple public hearings. A key component of the design approach with the new structure is to respect the existing rhythm of historic storefronts in the downtown core by breaking down the building into smaller elements of 20'-50' widths through vertical and horizontal articulation and color and material changes. With this maintenance of a typical downtown storefront rhythm, buildings that contain contemporary design elements can appear complementary. The other major design topic that arose at the last meeting was colors and materials. The architect's statement notes that the material palette was selected to pay homage to and respect historic building materials,rather than attempt to replicate them. Commission Direction # 1: Provide more information on proposed colors, materials and textures used on the new building including consideration for a lighter shade of brick rather than the charcoal color currently proposed. Applicant's Response: As further detailed in the Project Design Statement (Attachment 2) recently submitted to staff, the design team confirms the use of brick & mortar and smooth cement plaster as the two main exterior building finish materials for the new project. The matter of the brick color has been reviewed by the team, and we propose to provide alternative lighter brick elements, including alternate patterns, blends, and mortar color. The intent is to leave the strong building element at the corner of Marsh & Broad as designed, but to offset this feature by providing lighter brick treatments for the (2) other brick facades that flank the primary corner element down Marsh and Broad Streets respectively. Please refer to the revised project Elevation sheets A8.1 and A9.1 for clarification. Staffs Analysis: Comparing the elevations reviewed by the ARC on 8-15-11 with the current elevations, the changes to the colors and materials described above have had an impact on the overall appearance of the new building to address the concern with it appearing too dark and foreboding. In particular, eliminating some of the darkest gray brick and replacing it with the White Dove plaster surfaces on both Broad and Marsh Streets did much to lighten up the appearance of the structure: This change creates more variety in the wall surfaces along the street frontages which helps to maintain the typical downtown storefront rhythm previously mentioned. One minor suggestion would be to use a slightly darker, but still light color shade for the central portion of the Marsh Street elevation closest to the street to help pop it more from other like- painted parts of the building located further behind it. Obviously the elevation views cannot completely convey the variety and texture of the building materials. The applicant is proposing to include a higher proportion of lighter colored bricks and vary mortar colors used on different parts of the building to provide variety and lighten the overall colors of the brick walls. In addition, two different patterns of brick are proposed for added interest. PHI-41 A Garden Street Terraces Project kc 124-06; 9-19-11) M Attachment 6 Page 3 As discussed at the previous meeting, the applicant is planning on using a brick veneer. However, the applicant team is still exploring options to use a veneer with more depth or a dimensional brick product. A revised colors and materials board and actual material samples will be available at the meeting. The Garden Street elevation of the project was modified to show the varied color scheme to the single-story tenant spaces located at 1129-1137 Garden Street and the corner building at 748 Marsh Street that currently exist as directed by Conditions 8 & 10 in the attached resolution. As changes to building colors may be contemplated in the future, these conditions have been maintained in the resolution to provide direction to.staff and tenants of the desire to maintain variety in the facades. Commission Direction # 2: Consider an alternative treatment for the portion of building directly located at the corner of Marsh and Broad Streets that respects the prominence of views at the intersection. Applicant's Response: We have re-reviewed the proposed comer "building" extensively. We are of one accord that the current design proposal continues to provide for a strong, balanced "anchor" building at this focal intersection. This design possesses both historic and modem elements in its massing, scale and use of materials, which allows this building element to simultaneously announce the entrance to the downtown core without pretense, false ornamentation or disingenuous architecture.. Staff's Analysis: The color changes in the brick that affect this corner of the building have been previously discussed. In addition, there have been some subtle, but important changes to refine the building detailing at the corner and create more of a distinct architectural statement. One change was to include a more enhanced cornice treatment. Another modification was to lower slightly the height of the horizontal canopy so that it is level with the base of, rather than interrupting the transom windows beyond. The more pedestrian-oriented height of the canopy along with ftu-ther and more enhanced divisions in the glass better highlight the transom making it more of a focal point. The individual letters mounted vertically on the canopy also draw attention to the comer. Commission Direction#3: Provide more information on pedestrian features in the project such as awnings and bulkheads. Applicant's Response: Supplemental large-scale pedestrian-level details and drawings, including storefront/bulkhead drawings & sections, awning/canopy details, sample signage and graphics renderings, and other graphic materials are included that clearly illustrate major pedestrian oriented features along the project's public facades. Staff's Analysis: The applicant has provided details of the additional pedestrian level features as requested by the ARC. Revised elevations show more variety in the styles and colors of storefronts. The more subtle palette of main building surfaces is further articulated by the addition of brightly colored PHI-42 Garden Street Terraces Project(ARC 124-06; 9-19-11) Attachment 6 Page 4 awnings, canopies, and valances. Examples of varied signage treatments to the public facades also add to the pedestrian experience. Some specific changes were to relocate the recycled "Sycamore Tree" art piece to a more prominent location at the corner of Broad and Garden Alley and to eliminate the arches of the central ground floor tenant space on the Marsh Street elevation. One topic that came up at the last ARC meeting was why the decorative pavement treatment for Garden Alley did not extend the full length of the alley between Garden and Broad Streets: Staff has accordingly modified Conditions No. 26 to reflect this as a project requirement. Attachments: A. Vicinity Map—previously attached B. Architect's Project Design Statement &reduced scale copies of revised elevations C. 8-15-11 ARC staff report&attachments D. ARC Resolution supporting revised project design—not attached G:\CD-PLAN\PRICCI\Garden Street(124-06)\Staff Reports\GST ARC(9-19-11).doc PH1-43 Attachment 6 Attachment B PmPc t ®esogn Stat(Smant GST: An Urban Mixed-Use Redevelopment Project Garden + Broad + Marsh Streets, Downtown San Luis Obispo, California The following Project Design Statement is part of the Architectural Review application materials for a proposed urban redevelopment project located at the intersection of Garden + Marsh + Broad Street, in the downtown core of San Luis Obispo, California. The applicant Garden Street SLO Partners LP, is proposing to redevelop an existing surface public parking lot into a new mixed use facility that will include hotel + retail + residential uses, as well as retain, rehabilitate, and/or otherwise reincorporate of a number of historic structures along Garden V, :3 Street, and also provide much anticipated surface street improvements to an entire block of Garden Street. This proposed project, know as Garden Street Terraces, or more recently as simply GST, has been evolving since initial entitlement applications were first filed with the city in July 2006. A subsequently required Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared, reviewed, revised and finally certified by the City Council in June 2010, with direction to redesign the final project to align with EIR alternatives, mitigations and recommendations as dictated by city staff and the City Council. Background The project area consists of an "assembled" 1.1 acre project site in the downtown commercial district of San Luis Obispo. The parcels are zoned C-D Downtown Commercial, with the - easterly portion of the property lying within the downtown historic district. The existing project site is bounded by Broad ,!-- ry Street to the west, Marsh Street to the south, Garden Street to the east, and Garden Alley to the north. In addition to — -- privately owned property surrounding the perimeter, the site also consists of a city-owned parcel known as Parking Lot#2, currently a metered surface parking lot. The existing private properties consist of both Master List Historical structures as GST I An Urban Mixed Use Redevelopment Project PHI-44 % M Attachment 6 p a g e 2 g a r c i a arch i t e c t u re + d e s i g n well as non-historic and/or non-contributing properties. The historic resources, all which front along Garden Street, will be rehabilitated pursuant to the Secretary of the Interior standards for historical treatment of historical resources. In addition, three (3) un-reinforced masonry (URM) buildings along Garden Street will be seismically retrofitted pursuant to the city's seismic strengthening program, including properties at 1119 Garden Street (Union Hardware Building), 1123/1125 Garden Street(Smith Building), and 748 Marsh Street(aka SLO Traditions). Design Genesis This urban redevelopment project was first conceived in 2005 as a joint venture between the applicant and the city as a way to bring much needed hospitality, retail and residential uses to an underutilized downtown surface parking lot, while also providing an opportunity to rehabilitate existing historically significant structures along Garden Street. The initial project program called for a 105 room hotel to serve as the project "anchor', along with retained and new ground floor retail space, 56 residential units, and two levels of subterranean parking to a •� service the needs of the project. After years of I I design proposals, public outreach, community —�— _— meetings, and public hearings, the final project i^i7 I consists of a 45 room hotel and 8 residential units, along with approximately 25,000 SF of •"`" new and/or retained ground floor retail, and one level of underground on-site parking. In �� •: addition, significant public improvements to m..4.4 Garden Street itself have evolved into a • pedestrian-friendly proposal, while retaining vehicular and delivery uses. Lastly and most w. importantly, all historic , structures along Garden Street will be retained, rehabilitated, and incorporated into the overall Proposed Garden Street Improvement Pian+Section redevelopment proposal. Public Input Throughout the course of this project, the applicant and design team held numerous public outreach meetings in an effort to obtain input from the various stakeholder groups affected by this project. Years of public outreach efforts yielded the following summary list of public comment and project redesign goals and objectives: • Redirected approach from a program-driven design to a more character-driven aesthetic • Articulation emphasizes a more "linear'or horizontal approach to building massing • Primary pedestrian street facades of 2 and 3 stories emulate existing downtown development patterns • Breakdown of building forms complement existing surrounding commercial structures • Use of"negative space"via 2nd floor courtyards further breaks down vertical massing • Emphasis of "timeless" exterior materials and finishes which echo the SLO downtown vernacular GST l An Urban Mixed—Use Redevelopment Project PH1-45 « Attachment 6 page 3 g a r c i a architecture + design • Use of restrained yet sophisticated color& material palette throughout • Retention and/or rehabilitation of all existing historical structures on Garden Street In addition to the specific design criteria incorporated above, the design team noted and incorporated the following additional public comments: • Project should promote a "Pedestrian / European feel" and should be very pedestrian-oriented • Project should be good for downtown and other businesses • Architect should consider "breaking-up" the massing of the a • project, especially at the upper levels of the project r Applicant should encourage non cookie-cutter retail spaces at the ground level • Design should keep individual character of Garden Street storefronts which help reflect local, sole-proprietorship businesses Design Response In response to the public comments and design input received and noted above, the final project has incorporated the following design concepts and features: 0 All significant elements of the previous Garden Street Improvement Plan have been incorporated into the final design, including widened sidewalks and alternate paving materials, in order to encourage more barrier-free pedestrian activities, as well as accommodate outdoor retail activities including potential sidewalk dining. 0 Garden Alley will be re-purposed in favor of pedestrian friendly materials, including enhanced paving materials, recessed wall for planting opportunities, and recycled public art installations, all intended to yield a more pedestrian oriented environment. o- ,f. GST I An Urban Mixed—Use Redevelopment Project PH1-46 r M Attachment 6 p a g e 4 g a r c i a a r c h i t e c t u r e + d e s i g n RI All commercial retail buildings along Garden Street will be rehabilitated, refurbished, or otherwise retained as-is. The overall goal is to encourage a diversity of retailers by providing a variety of retail-space options, from smaller "sole-proprietor" or start- up retail spaces along Garden Street, to larger, more traditional retail pads along Broad and Marsh streets, while protecting these specific Master List historic resources in the downtown historic district. a Individual character of new retail spaces is achieved using a variety of indigenous "downtown" exterior-finish materials, such as brick and plaster, as well as utilizing a palette of"individualizing color"for storefronts, windows, awnings and canopies. a The revised overall project massing benefits from articulated facades both horizontally and vertically. The street facade design provide both vertical and horizontal relief via varied setbacks, material changes, courtyards, balconies, terraces, trellises, cornice treatments, and other elements which work to "break- down" the overall mass, scale and height of the project. Upper levels are terraced to not only provide architectural relief, but also serve to open up the project from the street levels and provide more pedestrian scale. 0 The "negative space" created by the projects' internal courtyards on the 2nd level will serve to further reduce the building's appearance from the street levels. These courtyards or terraces, provide enhanced architectural relief, as well as an opportunity to introduce new landscape planting which will be visible from both private and public vantage points. a In addition, human scale details such as recessed walls, wood trellis treatments, bulkhead wainscoting, awning and canopy features, coupled with perimeter planter boxes at the upper levels will soften the building's edges, and reinforce the pedestrian scale nature of the project. Design Approach In terms of developing an appropriate and responsive architectural vocabulary for this urban renewal project, the design team undertook an extensive physical survey of the entire downtown core building inventory, which consists primarily of early to mid 20th century building stock. The existing downtown built environment generally consists of one to three story commercial structures that were constructed using building methods and materials of their time. By careful consideration and analysis of the general massing, placement, height and scale of these extant structures, an overall design pattern or architectural rhythm emerges and becomes self evident. As with most downtowns, these existing structures were built over a long period of time, and it is this unique pattern that is the physical backbone of the downtown core. This rhythmic pattern of building reduces downtown street blocks into a manageable, pedestrian-scale urban environment. It is this very concept that is employed in the massing, articulation and scale of the proposed GST project. This seemingly large single-development building is broken down into smaller 20'-50' wide "buildings", all less than 50' tall, thereby reflecting the surrounding structural environment yet employing a unique strategy of material application and negative space throughout the project. By utilizing this historic building rhythm of horizontal and vertical articulation, the new project reflects existing development patterns while incorporating contemporary design strategies that complement the downtown urban environment. GST I An Urban Mixed—Use Redevelopment Project PH1-47 M Attachment 6 page 5 g a r c i a arch itecture + design In terms of materiality, the typical exterior finishes found in most existing downtown buildings can be generally classified into two categories 1) brick & mortar, and 2) cement plaster. While -�. other materials such as wood or clapboard siding can be found in a few downtown structures, ■ '_.� 111111M the predominant use of brick & mortar and cement plaster ®11�111�Irserves as the base material palette for a new design vocabulary that, through it's use Of "historic" materials, acknowledges the past construction means and methods, while presenting a new architectural vocabulary that speaks of our current place and time. The intent is to simultaneously acknowledge past indigenous downtown architectural materials while also integrating new applications of these "historic" materials in a contemporary mixed-use, modern day urban development setting. In terms of final material selection, the design team was careful not to simply replicate materials, patters or details of historic structures, as this approach tends to reduce c the significance and importance of our historic resources. Rather, in an effort that respects the existing structures on this site, a deliberate effort was made to not replicate historic details verbatim, but to provide a complementary material palette that pays homage to and respects these historic building materials. Design decisions for this project were also .guided by sustainable considerations and green principles. This is evidenced by the placement of the primary building elements, which are mostly oriented east-west along their longitudinal access. This deliberate souther orientation not only allows for maximum passive heating during winter months, but orients the buildings for optimum year-round solar access. South facing roofs will have the opportunity to incorporate photovoltaic panels, which can be grid-tied and provide solar power to the buildings they serve. In that spirit, this project seeks to set new standards for sustainable and responsible architecture and urban development for San Luis Obispo. In addition to implementation of many Smart-Growth and L.I.D. concepts such as infill redevelopment, compact urban form, storm water management, and-integrated mixed uses, the project has been designed to the highest standards in terms of energy efficiency and sustainable design. The proposed project qualifies for LEED certification, and is also designed to meet the Architecture 2030 Challenge. As GST I An Urban Mlxed—Use Redevelopment Project PH1-48 M Attachment 6 page 6 g a r c i a architecture + design members of SLO Green Build, the design team has also ensured compliance with the established SLO "Green Build Guidelines". Provisions for traditional sustainable components such as thermal mass, correct solar orientated fenestration, passive heating and cooling, solar shading, and natural day-lighting are incorporated into the core design of all commercial and residential spaces of the project. In addition, contemporary sustainable features such as cool roof and smart-energy devices have also been included into the project. Design Summary The GST urban redevelopment project is intended to evoke an aesthetic acknowledgement of our downtown commercial history, while simultaneously introducing a new design vocabulary that not only pays homage indigenous structures and materials, but also provides a striking modern-day interpretation of responsible and sustainable urban development in the heart of downtown San Luis Obispo. i Rev 11.0907 GST An Urban Mixed—Use Redevelopment Project PHI-49 a Attachment 6 page 6 g a r c i a architecture + design members of SLO Green Build, the design team has also ensured compliance with the established SLO "Green Build Guidelines". Provisions for traditional sustainable components such as thermal mass, correct solar orientated fenestration, passive heating and cooling, solar shading, and natural day-lighting are incorporated into the core design of all commercial and residential spaces of the project. In addition, contemporary sustainable features such as cool roof and smart-energy devices have also been included into the project. Design Summary The GST urban redevelopment project is intended to evoke an aesthetic acknowledgement of our downtown commercial history, while simultaneously introducing a new design vocabulary that not only pays homage indigenous structures and materials, but also provides a striking modern-day interpretation of responsible and sustainable urban development in the heart of downtown San Luis Obispo. C= Rev 11.0907 GST An Urban Mixed—Use Redevelopment Project PHI-49 _ Attachment 6 ❑❑6�'::�cE � � uo ��`z�`� d3L°��� � 2 �� �i��i,��'i1 �L�li b 7 e� ON IL i Z ' r C $ uulmu o00000o m m, c El W • ° I I O7 ® IU 8-1-11 Lu GJ �, ya W 4 gg 99 A 0 V1 IZ — R 5 � A 2 I r,,nrll ME FFi 87 z f COOOO =„T 10 I � 666 � Imo''r, I PHl-50 IFttac nt 6 }IIrmo r6.Bo vQ S All r �a qq epeii yyy i k (� 0000000 �— m y O _ v p C f � 88 yy a000aoo m m m m ' a s a m I o o m m Q Wcu P LA i - � � � � rte' €g ii i to as `S 000 c 4n LL I�1 a; egg INI 25 t BJ 0000 sp�k�gg�; �p 5� � PH1-51 N 'Attachment 6 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Attachment C ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM# 1 BY: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner(781-7168) DATE: August 15, 2011 FROM: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner_ FILE NUMBER: ARC 124-06 PROJECT ADDRESSES: 1119, 1123-1127, 1129-1137 Garden Street and 712, 720, 722, 728, 736, 748 Marsh Street SUBJECT: Final design review of the Garden Street Terraces Project. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION: Recommend to the City Council that the revised project design be approved, based on findings, and subject to conditions. BACKGROUND Situation Garden Street SLO Partners, LP has submitted applications to the City to develop a downtown mixed-use center including retail, residential units and a hotel known as the Garden Street Terraces Project. The proposed project site is located within the City's Downtown Core and Downtown Historic District and consists of six parcels, including City Parking Lot No. 2, bordered by Broad Street, Garden Alley, Garden Street and Marsh Street. The project has been reviewed by the ARC on two previous occasions beginning with an introduction in January of 2007, and most recently with a review of the revised project design and conclusions of the project's Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on April 19, 2010. Since the ARC's review of plans last year, the project design has been significantly modified in two important ways: 1. All of the historic buildings on Garden Street are retained within the project, and 2. All of the new buildings within the project are below 50 feet in height. The ARC's purview with the project is to review the revised project design in terms of its consistency with the Community Design Guidelines. If the ARC determines that there are still outstanding issues, then proposed conditions should be amended or additional conditions recommended to address remaining concerns. The ARC's determination on the project design, along with the prior recommendation of the CHC, will be forwarded on to the City Council, who in this case, will take the final action on the project design. PHI-52 Garden Street Terraces F._,act(ARC 124-06; 8-15-11) Attachment 6 Page 2 Site Description The site measures approximately 1.11 .... . . 0 acres bordered by WO SO Broad Street, Garden Alley, 'INN Garden Street and NIP, Marsh Street 1W within the City's Downtown Core N INA and Downtown <V Historic District (see Figure 1). ff O� The site is -w4�0_ q- currently :0 It,- developed with a C. mix of public Parking (city 10 #2) Parking Lot and 12 one- to T N, � lbb two-story public and private buildings, seven of t> which are historic resources, 748 including Marsh Street and 1119, 1123-1127, 1129-1137 Garden Street. Figure 1. Site Map The project site is located between two of the City's main commercial streets, Marsh and Higuera, at the southwest end of the Downtown Core and is highly visible to residents and visitors entering the downtown via Marsh Street. Surrounding properties consist of predominantly one-to two-story buildings occupied by office, retail, restaurant, and residential uses. Zoning surrounding the site is shown in the attached vicinity map (Attachment E). Revised Project Description The proposed project will retain all of the existing historic buildings along Garden Street, but will demolish both private and public structures and surface parking near the comer of Broad and Marsh Streets to enable the construction of a 135,448 square-foot mixed-use development. The proposed project has a maximum building height of 50 feet and would have four stories over a basement level. PHl-53 I Garden Street Terraces Pn,.,_.;t(ARC 124-06; 8-15-11) �'� Attachment 6 Page 3 Proposed uses include 8 residential units, a 48-room hotel, and 25,047 square feet of ground and mezzanine level retail space. Retail space would include a 13,227 square-foot neighborhood market. Retail, hotel, and market space would generally occupy the first floor ground level street frontages along Marsh, Garden, and Broad Streets, with the upper stories comprising a mix of hotel uses and residential condominiums. A total of 74 private automobile parking spaces for the project would be accessed from Marsh Street. On the ground floor, I I valet parking spaces are set aside for hotel guests. The basement level garage would consist of 63 parking spaces with 16 residential spaces, 34 market spaces, and 13 valet spaces for the hotel. Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) Determination On July 25, 2011, the CHC found that the revised project design is appropriate in the Downtown Commercial Zone and Downtown Historical District, and recommended final approval of the project design to the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) and City Council (Attachment H). The Draft ARC Resolution supporting project approval includes the findings and conditions endorsed by the CHC with their review of the project. EVALUATION Since the project was originally submitted in August of 2006, the project design has been substantially modified and reduced in scale. Building heights have been reduced to not exceed 50 feet and are limited to four stories. Table 1 below compares the floor areas for land uses within the mixed use project between the version evaluated in the Final EIR and the current version of the plans. Table 1. Project Land Uses (Final EIR& Current Project) Final EIR Project Current.Pro'ect Use Details/Units Size(SP Details/Units Size s Retail 10 spaces 14,341 10 spaces 11,820 Residential 34 units 42,011 8 units 18,023 — -- — ---............ _-- __ ___ _---_------ Market 1 unit 13,248 1 unit 13,227 Hotel/Restaurant 95 rooms 77,426 48 rooms 53,740 ........._.-- ---. _.. Trash room/ground 7,061 floor circulation Parking 147 spaces(62 65,581 74 private spaces 31,577 public) Total 212,607 1359448 Similar to the Chinatown Project, the EIR process resulted in a public dialog before decision makers that had an important influence on the ultimate project design. Changes in project impacts and mitigation measures as a result of revisions to the project description since the version evaluated in the Final EIR include those listed in the Table 2 (Attachment G). In general, the changes to the project description would reduce or avoid a number of impacts, including the PH1-54 Garden Street Terraces F�_,_ct(ARC 124-06; 8-15-11) Attachment 6 Page 4 project's impacts to Aesthetics and Visual Resources, Cultural Resources, and Land Use and Planning Policies. The current version of the project incorporates the Reduced Development (environmentally superior) and Project without Public Parking Spaces alternatives into the design. Compliance with the alternatives was achieved by reducing the overall building height to be 50 feet or less and having more visual breaks and greater articulation in the new building facades along Marsh and Broad Streets. As detailed in the attached Table 2, the retention of all of the historic buildings along Garden Street also made a dramatic impact on eliminating many of the Aesthetic and Cultural Resources impacts identified in the Final EIR. The following sections of the Evaluation discuss in more detail major components of the project: 1. Garden Street Buildings The original proposal evaluated in the Final EIR looked at partial preservation of the Downtown Brewing Company Building at 1119 Garden and retention of the facades only of the other structures along this street. The current proposal is to retain the Garden Street structures within the project with relatively minor modifications to the buildings and retention of all character- defining historical features. This change retains the historical resources and the character of the streetscape while eliminating many of the Cultural Resources impacts identified in EIR. The status and treatment of the Garden Street buildings has been a focus for both public comment and direction by decision makers with their review of the project. Because of this, staff has worked diligently with the applicant team to assure that the current project plans and materials are very clear about the treatment of these buildings within the project. The specific . information included in the current submittal package related to these buildings is: a. Sheet A.8 — This sheet includes a streetscape elevation of the buildings along Garden Street; b. Sheets C.2.1 & C.2.2 —these sheets provide information on the specific changes planned for the historic buildings with photos, floor plans and elevations. C. Garden Street Terraces Historic Analysis Report (April 2011)—This report by Chattel Architecture is consistent with Appendix G of the Final EIR which identified the historical importance of the various buildings and their character- defining features. The report has been updated with more specific information on modifications proposed to incorporate them into the project. Sheets C.2.1 & C.2.2 are also attached in a folder at the back of the-document to have the historical preservation information for the buildings consolidated. 1119 Garden Street The Master List historic building located at 1119 Garden is one of the most prominent and recognizable buildings on the block. It is known historically as the Union Hardware building and is now occupied by Downtown Brewing Company. The main building and its character-defining features will be retained with some minor cosmetic changes such as the replacement of the PH1-55 Attachment 6 Garden Street Terraces Piot(ARC 124-06; 8-15-11) Page 5 canvas awning with a structural steel canopy with expressed tie backs. A smaller steel canopy is also proposed to be added to the Garden Alley side of the building. The only structural change will be to remove the 14-foot deep, non-contributing concrete addition at the rear of the building. New "compatible" windows are proposed in existing openings within the original masonry wall. The design of the new windows is depicted on the Southwest elevation, but specific information is not included to confirm their appropriateness as a compatible installation. The Historic Preservation Program Guidelines discuss the prominent architectural features of buildings constructed in this area during this time period and indicates that windows are typically vertically oriented, double-hung with wood sashes and symmetrically arranged. Condition No. 6 is recommended to assure that window specifications are consistent with these design guidelines and are reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) with their review of project plans and details are included in working drawings. 1123 & 1127 Garden Street The adjacent Master List historic building at 1123 & 1127 Garden is known as the Smith Building. With development of the project, this building will serve as the lobby area for the proposed hotel. To accommodate the new use of the building, the basic structure, openings, and decorative features will be retained. On the Garden Street elevation, improvements include new windows and storefront systems in existing openings including the replacement of the central doorway with a window. The main entry to the ground floor (hotel lobby) will be at the rear of the building to be accessed by those entering the parking area to check in and have their vehicles valet parked. The storefronts will be replaced with folding glass doors that will also allow access at different times to the lobby and lounge area from Garden Street. Existing transom windows above new folding doors will be kept and refurbished. The existing canvas awnings which currently hide the transom windows will be removed. Restoration of the transoms and replacement of the aluminum sash windows on the second floor will be a huge aesthetic improvement and more in keeping with the original historic construction. On the alley and rear sides of the building, all of the existing windows will be replaced. On the alley side, new windows will be installed in existing openings. The windows and doors in the rear elevation will in some cases be installed in existing openings and in other case will be expanded versions of existing openings. This elevation is currently the "back of shop" service area and the existing doors and windows are considered to be non-contributing, The windows and doors are not identified as contributing features for the resource, but the proposed replacements could better fit the historic ambiance of the building. With development of the project, this elevation will have a much more significant public presence since it will accommodate the main entry to the hotel. For this reason, it could benefit from a quality and historically accurate treatment. Condition No. 7 is recommended to assure that the changes to the rear elevation of 1123-1127 Garden are sensitively treated with input by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC_) with their review of project plans and details included in working drawings. PHl-56 Garden Street Terraces of(ARC 124-06; 8-15-11) Attachment 6 Page 6 1129-1137 Garden & 748 Marsh Plans indicate that these remaining buildings will not be modified with development. However, Sheet A.8 indicates that these buildings will be repainted.. Normally the repainting of structures is not a significant issue, but in this case,it warrants some discussion. Currently the small storefronts that comprise 1129-1137 Garden are painted in a variety of bright colors. The color and variety of these building colors help highlight architectural detailing, create individual identity, and add to the fun and vitality of the block. Elevation notes indicate that all four tenant spaces would be painted a charcoal slate color. This dark color tends to blend the multiple spaces into a single form, losing their individual identities. i 1 t 3/ r r 9031 748 Marsh 1129-1137 Garden The Historic Preservation Program Guidelines (3.4.1 d), Community Design Guidelines and Land Use Element section on the Downtown stress the importance of downtown buildings maintaining a regular facade rhythm that respects historic development patterns and contributes to sidewalk appeal. For these reasons, the existing variety of color with the tenant spaces, or a similar new proposal, should be maintained to reinforce the character and interest of the block (Condition No. 8). The building at 748 Marsh is painted a salmon color and was previously a light tan. Sheet A.8 shows that the building would be repainted White Dove, which is a brighter white color. The color depiction on the elevation shows the color to look more like a light tan differentiating it from the White Dove color also shown on the new structure beyond. Staff's recommendation to have this building painted in a color hue more like the depiction on Sheet A.8, rather than the White Dove called out in the legend, to give more distinction to the building and differentiate it from the new construction within the project.(Condition No. 10). PH1-57 Garden Street Terraces Pt.,,cct(ARC 124-06; 8-15-11) __ Attachment 6 Page 7 2. New Construction in the Downtown Core The proposed project has been dramatically scaled back in size to be about 60% of the floor area previously proposed and all buildings are now below 50 in height and four stories. The buildings along Garden Street previously discussed in Section 1 are in the designated Downtown Historical District. The new building, which is proposed to occupy the remainder of the project site now developed with City Parking Lot #2 and the buildings at the comer of Broad and Marsh Streets, is not in the Downtown Historical District. However, given its adjacency to the Garden Street buildings and proximity to other historic resources in the vicinity, the CHC was also directed with its review of project plans to evaluate the new building's appropriateness in its Downtown Core setting with guidance from the following General Plan and Historic Preservation Program Guidelines: • Land Use Element 4.12: Building Conservation and Compatibility Architecturally and historically significant buildings should be preserved and restored. New buildings should be compatible with architecturally and historicall�signi significant buildings but not necessarily the same stvle. • Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 3.3.4 "...New buildings in historical districts, or on historically significant sites, shouldreflect the form, spacing and materials of nearby historic structures. The street appearance of buildings which contribute to a neighborhood's architectural character should be maintained. " • Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 3.3.5 In evaluating new public or private development, the City should idents andrp otect neighborhoods or districts having historical character due to the, collective effect of Contributing or Master List historic properties. Building on the General Plan policy principles, the following guidance is provided in the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines: 3.2.1 Architecturally compatible development within Historic Districts. New structures in historic districts shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with the district's prevailing historic character as measured by their consistency with the scale, massing, rhythm, signature architectural elements, exterior materials, siting and street yard setbacks of the district's historic structures, as described in Figures 2 and 3. New structures are not required to copy or imitate historic structures, or seek to create the illusion that a new building is historic. 3.2.2 Architectural compatibility. The CHC reviews development in historic districts for architectural compatibility with nearby historic resources, and for consistency with applicable design and preservation policies, standards, and historic district descriptions in Section 5.2. New development should not sharply contrast with, significantly block public views of, or visually detract from, the historic architectural character of historically designated structures located adjacent to the property to be developed, or detract from the prevailing historic architectural character of the historic district. PHI-58 Garden Street Terraces Pi ,zct(ARC 124-06; 8-15-11) Attachment 6 Page 8 Staff's Analysis: The new building's architectural style is Contemporary with elements of Spanish architecture in terms of some of the materials like the smooth finish plaster and clay tile roof and details like rafter tails and window styles. Detailing is sleek, rather than fussy, but there is a wide variety of forms and materials that give the building distinction, interest and character. The building does not attempt to create a historically themed replica, but rather provides an addition that is clearly of the current time. Chapter 4 of the Community Design Guidelines (CDG — also used below as the acronym for . individual guidelines referenced) provides guidance to the ARC in terms of evaluating the appropriateness of the new building in its Downtown Core setting and specific elements of the proposed design (Attachment J). Compatibility with surrounding development is provided with signature architectural elements like the Spanish detailing mentioned as well as the brick material proposed on several prominent walls. Key to the architectural compatibility of the new building is its reduced scale,massing and rhythm of different elements. The structure is built generally to the back of sidewalk consistent with Land Use Element guidance and the CDG 4.2-A, but it is not a solid wall plane along street frontages up to 50 feet. Along both the Broad and Marsh Street elevations, horizontal articulation(wall offsets)is created by ground floor entries as well as tiered massing through varied upper floor setbacks (CDG 4.2- B). Balconies and awnings add to building articulation (CDG 4.2-D 5. & 6.). There are also visual gaps created at upper building levels where no structure is proposed such as the exit stairway area on the Broad Street elevation and the private terrace area on Marsh Street. Desired vertical articulation is provided through the varied heights of different building elements (CDG 4.2-B.4. a.). While it is a single building, its design achieves the desired rhythm of multiple spaces by varying colors and materials (CDG 4.2-41). Inherent to fitting into the pedestrian character of the downtown core and remaining consistent with polices and guidelines is the continuous retail presence on the building's ground floor. Consistent with Community Design Guidelines, the building has a more transparent ground floor and upper floor window symmetry (CDG 4.2-B. 4.c). 3. Pedestrian Circulation Given its Downtown Core setting, pedestrian circulation has been a focus of discussion with the development of the project sine the site abuts several street frontages and provides opportunities to move pedestrians internally with connections to adjacent public sidewalks. Sheet C.7 of plans is entitled "Sidewalk and Facility Improvement Plan'; it gives an overall view of the project's pedestrian pathways. The project includes pedestrian access between the subterranean parking garage and the corner of Broad Street and Garden Alley, including an elevator, stairwell, and escalator with the ability to transport shopping carts. A pedestrian walkway that varies in width between 6.8'-7.8' is provided between Garden Alley and Marsh Street, with an 8.9' wide connection through to PH1-59 Attachment 6 Garden Street Terraces Poct(ARC 124-06; 5-15-11) Page 9 Garden Street adjacent to the proposed hotel lobby. Garden Alley is a public alley that is 14.3' wide. Beyond the site, another pedestrian alley, the infamous Bubblegum Alley provides a 6.5' wide connection between Garden Alley and Higuera Street. The pedestrian paths through the project will primarily have a surface of gray pavers that are shown on Sheet C.6. The surface of Garden Alley will also be primarily pacers, but some variety is provided by gray concrete flatwork at the project's overhead door to the trash and recycling facilities and at other selected locations to highlight building architecture. Sheet C.6 is the Garden Alley Improvement Plan and provides a larger scale plan view of the alley along with character renderings and material callouts. Other improvements to the project pathways include lighting and public art. Lighting locations are shown on Sheets C.7 and a detail provided on Sheet A.10. Staff finds the proposed lighting fixture attractive and compliant with the Night Sky provisions contained in Section 17.23.050 of the Zoning Regulations. This fixture will be used exclusively on the new building. Note No. 27 of Sheet C.7 notes that the existing sycamore sculpture on the wall of the closed City restrooms adjacent to Parking Lot #2 will be relocated to the alley wall just off Garden Alley. Sheet C.6 provides a character rendering of the approximate placement of the relocated sculpture. 4. Garden Street Improvements The project includes innovative improvements to Garden Street, between Higuera and Marsh Streets, which are generally consistent with the City-approved Garden Street Improvement Plan (see Sheets CA & C.5). Plans include one-way traffic heading north between Marsh and Higuera Streets. Angled parking is proposed with parking spaces on the east side of the street. The surfaces of the parking spaces will be decorative gray permeable pavers. A unique element of the design will be to have flush curbs before the planted parkway areas. Bollards are proposed to keep vehicles from entering the parkway area. Staff has worked extensively with the .applicant on the street design and improvements. Generally staff is supportive of the design included in plans, but there are still some lingering refinements that are outlined in Condition No. 25. Public Works staff will also be at the meeting to assist in answering any questions about the proposed design elements. Conclusion The revised project in terms of its scale and mix of land uses creates an attractive and viable design that addresses many of the concerns and issues brought up during earlier public hearings on the project. The current project plans through their reduced scale and preservation of the historic buildings along Garden Street are consistent with the Reduced Development (environmental superior alternative) and Project without Public Parking Spaces alternatives reducing or eliminating many of the aesthetic and cultural resources impacts previously identified in the Final EIR. The revised project will provide an exciting and attractive new project within the downtown core which respects the character and pattern of surrounding development. PHI-60 Garden Street Terraces Pi-,.xt(ARC 124-06; 8-15-11) _ Attachment 6 Page 10 Attachments: E. Vicinity Map—not attached F. Reduced scale project plans G. Table 2—Changes in Final EIR Project.Impacts with Revised Design H. 7-25-11 CHC minutes—previously attached I. 4-19-10 ARC minutes J. Chapter 4, Downtown Design Guidelines, of the Community Design Guidelines K. CHC Resolution supporting revised project design-not attached GXD-PLAN\PRICCI\Garden Street(124-06)\ScdT Reports\GST ARC(8-15-1 I).doc PH1-61 f a 1 i hm t 6 {, y t i1= hill, �,►�����: a en z a -Attachment F. qq e 4E AY $7 f{ x e 9 { E } } E ZZ!y P kAEY ppI kat 6 p N • Yfc � gkpf`� Y; �2 d 9i °� a 9 E F y P a 2 gg55gg �� AL R'� c ly g� �yy sg4€snP fi4Y 45�Ey.. Q • { yA s p'FE g o�t73e ss s 9E�A3s 1 CL fill, gEpq6•__°iY-Li �pp•�$8" -N�Q�Jp u � $fggpb5p�1 2 q 4 YQ5,� 8+y& v,•g' 9 !g 3Rl� a § = $ S.A 39§ �Rs9 E asa 6 g $Y2 a8p a iFpl� yf Y� ! ° lilt EM CM 16 19� mC8� 4P 1a ! Ilk e L_ ffiolr { J CL ;� � C L d J > UL9 kk gk HP gk gP gF qF aF � UUU G6i € diEL € CL ae3Bd � e S ? O Q� y a AE r`� �-+ � �FR k5f tR� @°�9Fu'. ,•, g� � c c7 a �� d'i €� G.:- 6" Yg �3t gg G�Q� i r-4 9e .iJ t0 C y 5yy' aj 2' $e p y �q p gyAap � g°yapx V1PA r , N m O GG tM � R6 to L a y '^ j � S iS_e 9S 57 Ee"? a9a fE_6 ° -" S ^ � R S_ R {.951L `t • >. $ aaa�`. Cu (13 0 N C N i. •_ �t 11 " e^^ kL � N {Cf B88 8 8 Qa d ti • gg � ; �§ > `L u a �� B 3 Y ( �Fi=•• z d' Rf3 9 S ! I � tP ! 4-J CL of m N ;i s LMITI E `' °'f 5 9"f E f�� ai9 'b •"p IST LA /� C c a c �f/ l - u o a L7 5n � PH1-62 8 L ichmeX. fill jig �r ,ifC�'r�0 "s� U IIIuv n ,`iB fi3" ,A` sYd1 §�a a.l.i�.l[ `63ai !t a, C Y'• . i 3[ 4 tl � 9 z _ . 1554c,uapieg .oC OR: LL.CMS g c poll n .ay.. L N —_ .h �0 J O CL sem_ G jf, aIL ,. �' � , off' _ � • ! .00, i J" ♦�� N g 8 r, m _CL6 \N TIL. �g iG5 ` ♦ - « E i 1 14' anc C4 42 IX li Y r 4aalls Pea _ a �,ZP2CC 1.64SCM 5 � -p s_ - PH1-63 fill Iii # # Ii4- F N r� C °'� Z �{�Ie :. .. 'e k k # k k s 'q # � _ e p .^ a �•_ �� q� A 6�fY e�6s6 of a 4F e 6 Y ? F R '. b R k :_ R .. L b ,. •. s, k v pJ � qqYg v ��,Lp]AEpp �� � EEgY � 7p• e�� p �n Aj j = j i i j ) g q �- p&f Sap 4 � • e Y Y o B 42 a+ �' cu .. .. .� c • �•� t O nn y� ,6f M1BL 3.Ir,rS.rCS R tooali i8 ' ......... _ y QFG v e N ... qq x oil x— { an Q} \z. w li ••$h�� p ° : 6 c • OoFs ;ro.or.rrs` `.ez er`.x.`�..i.sr.` 4 ; r 5 / (D Ln / e O \ 0. \ ,ore ;61,9LrCS + JA z on co on 0 LU • � b � 6 "221t884o __ �. Q G. G° Y �' 3744 a+ gp�rf PH1-64 oil C�QY ti 1:11:11 i3:e V a 9 __. cc CL — E�> eee3m all I a it I, m' O 00 O w00000 d C �t y I O N * X W J M /(13 V` v a m A wt c O C R N d W L ° ~ L rz C C7 v C7 a p 4 p �7 Q Q PH1-65 �IIILLH I 11101 5 CL on6 ep Fe C:D 0 hip 11 11 0- --ES N en r 3c CD A Ell --- T7 C-4 1E, EE GJ an Ln OJ O CN + ig CL 9 co PHl-66 •Y H a tgghmptl 6 :I ��—• _� ����®© . 111 ��€ <,®0.1 - " 5'{ 9y g Y• IV C e C� ° dpA!r5" � � � :r er 6j i- i ' i i i�e$_ e _ y ��3 i � S� te r •Y��' r 4v's i a t.�Te � 1 Y 7 S :.. 3^ Y- g p q a@6a,EE G qr s � a S i • 'v i :n _nx . a i �`u Ol S;,%y p��i Y i�pp e.i ¢ 8ggS '® F x@ C !.7 lu� B { 5 ZlSg6H� 3iY:�i•aY CJ Y12 FTrS S2CiY9 ! .D F � iwT6 �i .r P $r rT nFb� • Y FaCw Gd YY' L �," L Y UI.IY P r - Y G Y •.! i Y Y Y Y{ $Y' C } '� S tltltl GI I S I Y ] ! 621 Y" ' II! Y 1 , !Ir FP.t 1O > YY CL t £ S QJ to y P L�.9 S6 E 1� ! F dy-! Y 6 3 I .Y Y `t� Y � T a s d a Y$Y Y YF�� Y•Y Y S Y Y S K K x S�E3L?Sad• Gl�� �a C'4 0� Y•, rr �dsi pip .. Y r YnF . a"•2bD P..,y d� � ;Gg � gg � � ii S3tlE Y�..i c. a y�"r. a a.+ a .. •� Y-k..1.4 LYS]k Y i y p� � yy ,YR Y (( 8. i � �!+'!Y{). p3 �d C!••yy� � ' �R py. Y �G •I ce .:T li'�'i > [ - [9 >Y] .•y. 3ii DiFYYY132! [ 9Y [ YX `BaLFge 988 YY• S q YY � �' itl3e9 r YY%add �+ ay. oc000cr-;c6a()ax�c5o a666Moeg®co© Y , 2� E yr I I I I i I �"• 4 �y`,V J ✓ _r� r ��7.�,',✓« „� ''�,� 4 J1*�!•T�"�r � � n L k...,+fir —I �. '},. Y $ acaCisu4 --.. .. i.� • u �.1 Ll_ .L �' `..� �.,= '..I..� o� ,I i 1 :,�tl DRY{:.:.T,.. a - s t.'1 3a� - _ q �1 �_,_ �.:,_. i0_ • —'t II I e; GiD':'�i95't'i� t ' I r g L • I .s I i `r.. �' I y on T. ,...c. I E ul A t ,S� p LY4YYYs j I • PI• '.�' I� � I i ;�': •3 3 YELL En KiIJ .. .�.. - ` II I (� ^ .. Qj lq , 3 VI - Cr N � p _� I 1 iaaii5 ipeoig X Ip Y yy q 5 ii a5 I �7� si i iii rY `%1=' PHI;67 ' -- �jdj <• - 433 u n �J xi ' t •, ;11 ;2. Fll Jim NIS ill la'� dpfi fl F�fl � }' p $ 'st tddiji g E P° 9 'Z !� ilfEjgt4 S 1aaJIS 45Jew _ y HIE ------------ �i8a �dd ia8� %s�•afl 14aia5 4siaw t_'�.# asa' flfl"g flai le { d am ty -------------- -17 f p'. g L 1 f / - �g q t .� ! .--At t i• pji .p4} _� p F7 I It a.,ag i co O i co 00 .� � i r aaC y z 1 > 0 CL Cf E9 + : d 3CL lip 1 --� � L � � : 9 : �li dod�SgcS �• 4 0 BsEt n Q ° dill 72aJIS eaan8!q 124J1S eaanH!q p j PH1-68 e 1'it li hnAnt _ ppgiq OFf P �` C r.s � DI1 N e '� 6I i = i I'll, yy I a 9s (COD. C .a Qj m u r c0 y �G � I e v ' aid � � �� e�e��il � ➢ � ^ ~? iL 000000000 7aaas 4s.ew 77 O 0- 9 fd f -- ❑ * G 8 &I% o ¢p \ Ulf IN, 111 GI1ai � k O •. r din 1IR l Illild P•i o '' c CLg LA mro Ln J ` R4 CL pp on i�r � �giiS�i`sEEy ''a�'a�• 2 _ R ' G1 14 � > Lon jj E{'� -��Ef li i .. �4, F �. • laa.75 vial 81H •- o --- PH1-69 h -Lent n ic IT r! IS UaPJeE) LMJ V, IL _15 (13 ca a 1� - Ark c JaajjS Peoia PHl-70 s hment 6 q ii x.:r _.o y d• © -�3� ,�+��_q , e P P: " 3p �� � � 3• �1 v 2 w yp yk +A `v C v v U0 $ ' ] 1, 2! p"J rtj Y ° r Gl } �.I 5 ?:p Y geg ¢¢ r e • F:4 - f e Y•Y¢ S 5 V°t. �In y Y 6CF6 o9 oF oi o5 ofJ 0k 0'r 0X 0n 0Y 10E�oF oio� ©vo� c�' 9r 0ar �i��ia�} ®p 9p �o(- i i)S'9 0000 � I I1 63�C3 j X3 3 1[f� p�I �k� � P� 1' Y �r y c r • — cm ; cu . . C 1 L� I a.x �e� � �� .r. ♦ � _ ~__ � 131 +� . = E N 1 E� F • N O m a 1 r )7 �br •� - LA IV e �y T ul� r17 7aaj75 Peoig 1 - -- - - to wi PH1-71 0 cement 6 'MII FRi 00 I Elt 4 Hii, 4; cu 0 000 oe&e,;o z rl:K 1\01131 No �� \\ \\\ L _ \\\\T C EM an 11. rz E MR. PHl-72 6 $ `'1 get 6 ©© k • � � ^, u° 6 �,R t�•��� ��` `r.�®aI® 5e�l�n,ff:i i�aE� .E 0 Y6 g6 5 l •£ u9 3 sltl5� :. E C FN5 ail l�C £ y a ` �� d Y•r � � Y y .a4o� `� a3 ¢ $ '% � �o�,F4 1:..�.. �� C pgxe ii3b .Y Ak 4j P3C3 SyM d y]]] TYp Y G kC £ �dY 3 � t k ! F f �P}`F d Yk F§ YSY 63 f 5�d 9Y" S Ed§...ap:'�F P4E.e". o c 3 E i •5 1"S,r 7 Yom_ T CYC Y`� 4 'YY. A Y'o' YR 1. Y^Y o R 'S"N5 £ YI`YC yy"S .•Y �.i �.„ ok C C! ^4 C Y Y n Y tt �Yi:Y"� Y Y Y X 3 inng "�"� „ G`:,Ey WSy •tl 35 e`r9 i8 ill A i` a'G dl - y' a' 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 000 ©(D I x --C /1 X11 E > - �-- �—' uaPYe!)1111 AM, O e IF r i 12 _ mn -4�------------ ~ I i ,• -- -- C ; J ry/ rr CY m 'rV� r V • • • • F 6' ` I1� r' T , l •=a _ � ._.'s.-,mss. .�_•_-- � I I O �m ja I i Q . �t i �r ails peolg PH1 73 e ,3j3aghmmt 6 l' lIK61 I o ;� oe � _—.� _ _ i IS 20 CH "�J � S� IIP c3i3j.Iit�•k ��u � � s y ;;g 9 :i 'e C�g�g 8 � C GG n 'roY N y� p E �a• �� igg € C ���?t5i?Ei; C 0 Op 0 8 000 V 000Q 050(f) I I a ©: c 18ajf� 0 d o r _ y E g i T PH1-74 e-hi A tophm Fj Sa LU a UJIRul LLI 0 133d1S N3CbW ul at W I Fi, 0 ............................ LU LU LU > w us uj Eli LU 2 z PHl-75 ' hmeN Tit _r�. 6 , $ Ma IsZra 1 2 1v U-1 I tit 1 Q w �\ s � F pig N 2 atl� F °5 lip i w Sd� See 0 F- LU a A O � m m r io C p •e 4 z LU fi_g I ire W O Og O z w GGqppY - g 3 Y J W ee E� 3CN tlgg :S P m N J i w w o ovv I / U n d aa, miLL � a xI'll, a s la .. H w i = I 3 > t F L : e W t e C>O�r 1 Z ¢# - - - ¢ IL U® PHl-76 z° f s fft 71 E I i. s 2 F a�a LEI M jigs I i � � 3 f 7a �.� ��g{bgae "� i EEE �E�gg �� ��99gg ■ gi 3 4 $ � # €e 9 § 5 ' r o o O ® m ® ® C7 o M I X 0 ui o m 0` pLL hY� 4T w„ r q�j A Ll O N coo m � UJ m r'n us l mg rJ m �LL M (A 10 m r K ti tr YIY r � d o N W C: 1 N 4 O m L. 1 � Z J � � 5 is me W l roaa'I•go asnOquawl > W 0 r Z LU N LL !"f LL <LL to LL PH1-77 13 3 i s Z 3S� r p iyg O y ggyg9 = El P ' N �t I I t I � F i i I cc Y � I I P 1 gm'si S r •� m I K m _ m - � ai w n- a - - o 8 1 � --_ - a —..._.._ .. .......... —_- J LU I I IIIaaIIIIII I ,.::{� 1 ° � _....... — -_.'_.._" --------— amu............ ..._.._.__ ..........; o PH1-78 tI1�Nom,��p�f �` I `alp Fa�3 33 '�'�a.�lLllS1Lddht 6 � 6 � INN I^I tii /o e3 5 rq 39d 3� fu jai e 3 §g�5� § Sg� it qI @0 ��� s � a � 1� � ae: 11�2�� 11 it s5� m il I it it III Z. g5 t 7�tl911 3€ IZ.HIM!; 1 € tltl111 sill i u f !W' :lea sib g € aF }4 ,1 o r .3 a=q 8 § 5� �3 ti3 +� 3 of U-6 � 3 �•s? ��4r L IF, j _ - - �Llffl! ;� I o 0 E �y z ' z 0 o • n a tt y,,•" W W y I > > �w w •� = w Iw iW 9 uj —� m " w 4� m U PH1-79 ��6 C�,� ,! -tachment 6 H1 um, J' Q A�sl CFCa ya �5 K ,� A w K �'RY ,1y • pp 'I y dg A P �6 gg L Ha � aoaoa00000000aoa000a0000000 ooID a0ID El 0000 a a RE \M01\1 EME mom mommu \; a \\\\:� \ I \:\\ Ufa\I� ; I \\ .\ � El q 6fd IIiI y . 11 El • q e , 0-- — i ave •. � e I Fj I A i o , is ° d< �• � , 4 . PH1�80 ' 8 I � I i I P i Ell P a � @ a � 00000000000000000000000000a aa000000000 I 13AUS NRIM E) zo SH x i f -77 Iwo B I 88�p P 1°3 =" j �� d f € :I a.a 1 ------ I O --L- ----�_----�--- --�- -�_ 4 ct ' I ✓\ I I a, QJµ a. � r 1- 11 T 13381SOV089 I I �I �--- --- - - - PH1-81 I 1ju I- eat I � z i j y v y 4 n a J � I ❑ El ooED El El oEl oEl oEl ooaEl oo ® a000000 aoa00000aao I a a I ! h , ! �n ;f I Bs fill I "I .O e I I � , ClJ - - - -+----�--- - -•---6 Ell —�--- - � f x I El I i _ I ! PH1=82 � 6 �E1 ,10rl�i� Y I a = km L�a®® g,iix[ii� [�fi Q A 8 �g� j xxy 3 7 G .i 5 "@@yy�y@yl4 E 3 t arc € moo ❑ oa00000 ❑ 0000000000000000 00000000aoo i I I JR 4 .. 35 it I —T $ZEI ego "° — I I_ Its— El ❑ L -_- El ^� tEl '- �6o 1 •� ail i.zp $I �.o>I i aaI p � 4 �nY I 41-o ' 1= El El aLi n - ado El Tq IL PHI 83 ilk LE AM 5 0 El El El El El El El El E) El El El El El 15 El El El El El El ID El El El El E ID 0 El El El El El E El E l, fil LI-4 'El El uEl s a El T -—-—-—---- ZEI Li�11. El il tE N El "US --ar PHl-' 84 I I ' � I I � tt:�e�� � F E § t � 6 a � S � g�g � � � i ' S � � � P yy g�g � S r r4�'a y� e • 00 7,o,11 1 � II ❑ 00000 ❑ 000 ❑ oo ❑ 000IF] 000aa0000 2oa00000000 a + -L L — -II _ oil 11 fill n i A ' I; �0 O� Imo❑ � I .� rhEl I I I �Plo, a ; z, o' I i I❑, II;� o I I I I � ❑ ❑ p ❑ ❑ f ❑ ° e e I I ie. ❑ 3. San �6, $e�e I — — � � -- � Y El El+ ❑ •— I 3s I I I I • II I PH1 85 hrqgnt 6 At , Fp i gill Bit' it 0 8 El E) 111 13 0 ED El El EI ID ID El El EI El El O El El E1 El I!] El E S F21 El EI E S 0 ID S El 0 E 7 !L 7 7 7 -1!- IX PHl-86 �h� tt nn 3ja ljil l2 �3rd �nF 36IA Sloj ;ic3i �v 3aae ��liDi% li RIT I L J l p j II I m cd = 11 1 4. 172 — IRE _41 C— i — I f DO ! t t e DID �g 1 f q t ! o 7 DX 17 7 I I I_ 1 i �, � —Q A T � 1•� gfj �s a---I —, 1 II I I II r _Q ssss � ss I I I I I mQ jril. i,a �,• jai iii �r OWN I I — ewr+e Dig — — —; —R mS l— s � � � I � —I.' I � � gttt �• FF i �I1 I 1 I 7 I IIk, a ale �Ii iii chi �i rc i �i -a PHI 87 � �, m� { }S » /; I SQ ƒ / 2- § \ %Q! a/ GZ : m5� . � `/` \ \�■� (fizeee@ . £ r t 2 > f } - « [« ( £ essez= ± ` — _ g L > cu ) _ / ! . . . . , !e re £ `sees . _ ! � % ` , . « o ■ | . | � K PH!-88 8 rid (fit 6 � C.L�AY 'B{LJ� § B s�•�lCC+�.jalfl s[��gg r ■O[ _ S .h. Ulf h��y{ hF„ L•J�� ri I[ i r F 000000 _ '� m 000000 ; O EM ❑ W b m m 1i 6 W b N CL L c6 s m I �I. �,I••IL �� � 5 `r v i- I C yqxyqt � ggy ioe L'•�. J - Be9B8 BBS �` 3 s • R RR LLp �L is �' I` a� d° e p �Ia � y}y� � �� p�p i a u 0000 xF��a Ink � •�l� PH1-89 ❑���.._._ 5 uo n�s:,'`A� dBm,`� 5 �� _ ai.l��r1l{ �'i3�i � Q � r I 4 r r N vLi f I ' i5 ' II ;. VIpl,. .I. h'f II.L fi.SN O hi O , aai ! j � kw i T r Cn #: y i ,.�!! i@til!{Al lii ! Via :: :d: 9 1 !! z C :�III� Subs sodo� LX3 Pa d c c I'+'•r •..ti. >t cu N A N k n 111{iI _ C C ® IaU Gln l it ZE I Su.4 V3 pasodOld •`•� c fi4�` ' c on I on c c Y In N f,✓ { !� O O ! • 3 ^- 3 !ZE { Imo` I .1 Pal Jd Sufism !' pasodod PH 1-90 g 8 j '-- iii� 99 Mh t U p Y e a A nl 7 gtle� yy ®®� gia Y N 6E' gg& g � v gp CL an an a, ate, r�-y1 CL O F- d O L a �p [ a YNYNM D!6 W % do lis'JW WuO 1 � 4 f m w Q E, R� .. caC3L ASE �.. r E 9 4- ami � EttL � w Y r 6 m G q PH1-91 ,dchrfibn I it it I I � I � r I s yl Y I - it • �6 3� I i I I O O I , , I � �I � I I i 9 1 I ' S I � PH1-;92 g OC Ibh Et� - 4�' eft J F;l =• a - �- dpig Id/��I{ 5 r y � o unv L O -` '^ct l' �j N Q� 6- (A ( � G1 dCu Cu L L N -4 i Y I S G y e yy qq d G rru i. V L. U / y Gl ' N 0 PHI-93 aq fl �Ul [e Qg I I 17 I I I I I i I I I I II v v- •9 ' II. ________________� \\ ________________� II i i 1 � SS S5 :{ E v v °16h 56 _-_----__—_ - _ -- -� \, I \ \ \\ ' XYt '...h, J`•. � 1.. l v ti S I:A.S`a V��� adv v.er.�,rN�� h- :,v�`�'.�•. I sn� 1u e � A � ,) v \ .4• ryl 4 ¢@55 PH1 94 G � M m UQU V zL.1�31.. CP11 i 00 I 2J w mw a 133M N30we -= m I ! I I I I I I 4{ I � 1 i I I I i I l.'- ui --- - -- --- --- -- -- '-i-- W 0 - - -T-- g I I Pc� p -'Qj• I I I I I I •I= R I I I I I I -I, i33ius ovoae -I, •. I I I`- - - - - --------- -PH 1-95 Attachment 6 Attachment G Table 2. Changes to Impact Evaluation (Final EIR& Current Project) Impact Statement Final EIR Current Project 3.1 Aesthetics and Visual Resources VIS-1 The height of the Broad Street faeade would Class H No Impact—The create a potentially significant impact to the character building has been or quality of the site and its surroundings. reduced in height to not exceed 50 feet; building setbacks vary from 2-26 feet above the second story; a visual gap occurs in the faeade where there in no solid building(exit stairway). VIS-2 The height of the proposed project's Garden Class H No Impact—The historic Street faeade would create a potentially significant and visual resources of impact to the character or quality of the site and its Garden Street are now surroundings. proposed to be retained with project development. VIS-3 Construction of the proposed project would Class I No Impact—The historic significantly alter the character of Garden Street, and visual resources of eliminating many of the visual and historic elements Garden Street are now which make this street.representative of and an proposed to be retained important contributor to the historic small town with project character of the City's Downtown Core and the development. associated Downtown Historic District. VIS-4 The height of the proposed project's Marsh Class 11 No Impact—The Street faeade would create a potentially significant building has been impact to the character or quality of the site and its reduced in height to not surroundings. exceed 50 feet; building setbacks vary from 2-110 feet above the second story; a visual gap occurs in the faeade where there in no solid building (private terrace). 3.3 Cultural Resources CR-2 The proposed project would result in significant Class 11 No Impact—The project but mitigable impacts to the historic Union Hardware has been revised to retain Building(Downtown Brewing Company Building) the building, including all located at 1119 Garden Street, a historic resource on identified significant and the Master List of Historic Resources and considered contributing character- eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic defining features. Places. PH1-96 Attachment 6 Attachment G Impact Statement . Final EIR Current Project CR-3 The proposed project would result in Class I No Impact—The project significant and unavoidable impacts to the historic has been revised to retain Smith Building, located at 1123-1127 Garden Street, the building, including all a historic resource on the City's Master List of identified significant and Historic Resources. contributing character- defining features. CR-4 The proposed project would result in Class I No Impact—The project significant and unavoidable impacts to the historic has been revised to retain Laird Building complex, located at 1129-1137 the building, including all Garden Street, a historic resource on the City's identified significant and Master List of Historic Resources. contributing character- defining features. CR-5 The proposed project would result in Class I No Impact—The project significant and unavoidable impacts to the building at has been revised to retain 748 Marsh Street(San Luis Traditions), a historic the building, including all resource eligible for the CRHR and the City's Master identified significant and List of Historic Resources. contributing character- defining features. 3.7 Land Use and Planning Policies LU-2 The proposed project may be potentially Class III No Impact-The project inconsistent with several of the policy objectives has been revised so that established for taller buildings under Land Use all buildings are less than Element Policy 4.16.4 and Chapter 17.42(C-D zone) 50 feet in.height. of the City's adopted zoning ordinance. Legend for Hierarchy of Impact Classifications in California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) Class I Impacts- Significant, Unavoidable Impacts That May Not Be Fully Mitigated to Less Than Significant Levels Class II Impacts- Significant Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels Class III—Less Than Significant No Impact Links to Final EIR: http:/hvww.slocity.org communitydevelopment/download/unifie_dgeneralplan/JDavid/Gar den%20Street%2OFinal%20EIR.pdf hLp://www.slocity.org/communitydevelopment/download/unified eg neralplan/JDavid/GS T-A.ppendices.pdf PH1-97 Attachment 6 SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES Attachment J 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, 8 -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 projecf 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. PUBLIC COMMENTS: PHl-98 ARC Minutes ( � Attachment 6 April 19,2010 Page 2 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. PHl-99 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. 2. Staff a. Agenda Forecast: • Pam Ricci gave an agenda forecast of upcoming projects. • Greg Wynn volunteered to serve as the ARC's representative on the Tree Committee for the next 6 months. 3. Commission: a. Minutes of April 5, 2010, were approved as amended. b. Recent Project Review— Lessons Learned Commr. Hopkins commented that the sculptures installed at Monterey and Buena Vista were a nice addition and looked good installed on the turf.. Commr. Wilhelm mentioned the blank wall facing Marsh Street at the newly- remodeled service station at the corner of Higuera and Marsh Streets. Staff mentioned that the Pegasus logo was removed because of its affiliation with a competing oil company and that they are working with the architect to add some additional articulation to the wall along with enhanced landscaping. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Janet Miller Recording Secretary Approved by the Architectural Review Commission on May 17, 2010. Ryan Betz Supervising Administrative Assistant PH1-100 U Attachment 6 San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines 4.1-Goals jor_Residential Project Design Chapter 4 - Downtown Design Guidelines Attachment .T The San Luis Obispo downtown is the heart of the community in several essential ways. The downtown is the city's center for shopping,cultural,entertainment,social,and governmental activities. It is also the area that most strongly defines San Luis Obispo in its national reputation as a livable city, and in how residents and visitors describe San Luis Obispo to those who have not seen it. Many downtown buildings date from the late 19'h and early 20"century. The plaza around historic Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa,including open portions of San Luis Obispo Creek, is the venue for a variety of special events. Nowhere in the city is design more important. 4.1 -Goals for Downtown Design The primary goal of the following downtown design guidelines is to preserve and enhance its attractiveness to residents and visitors as a place where: people prefer to walk rather than drive; and where the pleasant sidewalks,shading trees,and variety of shops,restaurants,and other activities encourage people to spend time, slow their pace, and engage one another. The design of buildings and their setting, circulation, and public spaces in the downtown have,and will continue to play a crucial role in maintaining this character and vitality. Another principal goal of these guidelines is to implement the vision of the downtown Conceptual Physical Plan wherever feasible. 4.2 -Design and Development Guidelines A. Street orientation. Buildings in the downtown should be located afthe back of the sidewalk unless space between the building and sidewalk is to be used for pedestrian features such as plazas,courtyards, or outdoor eating areas. B. Height,scale.Multi-story buildings are desirable because they can provide opportunities for upper-floor offices and residential units,and can increase the numbers of potential customers for ground floor retail uses,which assists in maintaining their viability. Multi-story buildings should be set back above the second or third level to maintain a street facade that is consistent with the historic pattern of development, maintaining the general similarity of building heights at the sidewalk edge. Different building heights may be appropriate as follows: 1. The height and scale of new buildings and alterations to existing buildings shall fit within the context and vertical scale of existing development and provide human scale and proportion. Some tools to achieve this include: a. In no case may the height of a building at the back of sidewalk exceed the width of the adjoining right-of-way(see Figure 4-2). b. New buildings that are significantly taller or shorter than adjacent buildings shall provide appropriate visual transitions. —One goal of the Housing Element of the General Plan is to encourage mixed use projects in the downtown that provide housing on upper floors above the commercial street frontage. c. For new projects adjacent to buildings included on the City's Inventory of Historic Resources there shall be a heightened sensitivity to the mass and scale of the significant buildings. PH1-101 C '� Attachment 6 San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines 4.2—Design and Development Guidelines d. The project provides upper story setbacks from the front building fagade along the street consistent with LUE Policy 4.16.4. Portions of the building above 50 feet should be set back sufficiently so that these upper building walls are not visible to pedestrians on the sidewalk along the building's frontage(see Figure 4-3). The City's General Plan Land Use Element includes policies that explicitly call for upper floor setbacks for downtown buildings. Specifically: • Policy 4.16.4 is intended to insure that new buildings fit within the context and scale of existing development. The policy says new buildings"should be set back above the second or third level to maintain a street fagade that is consistent with the historic pattern of development." • Policy 4.5 says that"new buildings should not obstruct sunlight from reaching sidewalks on the northwest side of Marsh street,Higuera Street and Monterey Street at noon on the winter solstice." • Policy 4.13 says that new buildings"nearby publicly-owned gathering spaces such as Mission Plaza ... shall respect views of the hills,framing rather than obscuring them. The objectives embodied in these policies are able to be realized through appropriate building setbacks. The policies are implemented by Design Guidelines Section 4.2.13 and are further illustrated by Figures 4- 1,4-2 and 4-3. These policies and guidelines work together to insure that setbacks are provided for upper stories,consistent with the General Plan. 2. New buildings shall not obstruct views from, or sunlight to, publicly-owned gathering places including,but not limited to,Mission Plaza,the Jack House gardens,and YCLC Cheng Park. In these locations,new buildings shall respect views of the hills,framing rather than obscuring them. 3. New buildings should not shade the northerly sidewalk of Marsh, Higuera or Monterey Streets at noon on December 21 s`. 71 ---- Information demonstrating this I i objective shall accompany all / applications for architectural review as j detailed on application checklists. Figure 4-1—Solar access at the sidewalk level. Along Marsh,Higuera and Monterey Street,upper floor setbacks may be required to insure solar access consistent with guideline 4.2.6.3. Chapter 4—Downtown Design Guidelines May 2008 42 PH1-102 Attachment 6 San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines 4.1—Design and Development Guidelines ax Height=26(x+y) Y k Max Height=2x X l Figure 4-2-Building Height to Street Width Ratio. This figure illustrates guideline 4.2.13.La. In this figure,`x' is equal to the distance between the centerline of the street and the building face at the back of sidewalk(usually the property line). 'Y'is equal to the upper-floor setback(measured from the building face at the back of sidewalk to upper-level building faces as shown above). This guideline uses the width of the adjoining street to determine maximum height at the back of sidewalk and the minimum amount of setback required for upper-level building walls. Figure 4.3-Visibility of Upper Stories from the Sidewalk. This figure illustrates guidelines 4.2.B.l.d. and provides setback guidance on the amount of setback suggested for upper floors, per the following examples: setback= w x s p-5.0 sidewalk width(w)= 12.0' secondary(s) primary height(p) ; 35 50 10 2.7' ; a 25 10.0' 6.T e 40 16.0' primary(p) In all cases, consistency with this guideline will be evaluated based on a sidewalk width of 12'. The table above provides examples of suggested setbacks for common primary building ; heights. The suggested setback will be based on the actual ; primary and secondary heights of the proposed building,which must fit within the context and scale of existing development. Primary building heights should maintain the general similarity _. of building heights at the sidewalk edge. sidewalk width(w) Chapter 4—Downtown Design Guidelines May 2008 43 PH1-103 Attachment G- San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines 4.1—Design and Development Guidelines 4. Tall buildings (between 50 and 75 feet) shall be designed to achieve multiple policy objectives, including design amenities,housing and retail land uses. Appropriate techniques to assure that tall buildings respect the context of their setting and provide an appropriate visual transition to adjacent structures include, but are not limited to: a. For large projects that occupy several lots,variable `• �' roof heights and architectural features that penetrate the ` roof plane are encouraged to ®� diminish the mass and scale of the taller structure; p ° fl �4Q o n 0 Bulk Bw Roo I� Qo® 04�I Figure 4.4—Articulated ®®� roofs. Articulated roofs pC �B©. should be used to provide interest and to diminish the mass and scale of taller buildings. MioulaW Root b. Reinforce the established horizontal lines of facades in adjacent buildings; Inv- I i s a • Figure 4.5—Horizontal lines. Reinforcing established horizontal lines is one way to provide a logical transition between adjacent buildings with different heights. C. Maintain the distinction between the first and upper floors by having a more transparent ground floor.On upper floors,consider using windows or other architectural features that will reinforce the typical rhythm of upper story windows found on traditional commercial buildings and provide architectural interest on all four sides of the building; Chapter 4—Downtown Design Guidelines May 2008 44 PHl-104 C' Attachment 6 San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines 4.2—Design and Development Guidelines d. Larger buildings(where frontages exceed 50 feet) should be clearly expressed at the street frontage by changing material or setback to respect the historic lot pattern and rhythm of downtown development; e. Abrupt changes in building heights and/or roof orientation should be diminished by offsets of building form and mass; € Use roof overhangs, cornices, dentals,moldings, awnings, and other decorative features to decrease the vertical appearance of the walls; g. Use recesses and projections to visually divide building surfaces into smaller scale elements; h. Use color to visually reduce the size,bulk and scale of the building; i. Use planter walls and other pedestrian-oriented features on the ground floor such as windows, wall detailing,and public art. j. Consider the quality of natural and reflected light in public spaces within and around the project site and choose materials and colors to enhance lighting effects with respect to available solar exposure. 5. The following guidelines are established in recognition of the particular service demands of buildings downtown. Planning for the following considerations must be done early so that proposed building designs correctly depict final construction. a. Utility boxes for phone,cable,electricity,natural gas,information systems and/or other services should be located along service alleys, within the building, or in a sub-grade vault. b. Location of backflow prevention devices and the fire sprinkler riser must be identified on project plans submitted for Architectural Review and shall be located inside the building, consistent with County Health Department requirements. C. Minimum sidewalk width should be 8-feet clear of obstructions for pedestrians(furniture, news racks,street trees etc.)across 100%of the project frontage. Minor deviations may occur where necessary to preserve street trees,or where right-of-way limitations reduce available sidewalk width. While wider sidewalks are desirable,they may not be feasible in all locations where on-street parking,loading zones or travel lanes are determined to be a higher priority, and where building setbacks are considered architecturally incompatible. d. Service access to the building for loading and maintenance functions should not exceed 20% of the project frontage on any facing street. Chapter 4—Downtown Design Guidelines May 2008 45 PH1-105 C, Aftachment 6, San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines 4.2—Design and Development Guidelines C. Fagade design. New structures and remodels should provide storefront windows, doors, entries, transoms, awnings, cornice treatments and other architectural features that complement existing structures,without copying their architectural style. 1. Overall character. In general, buildings should have either flat or stepped rooflines with parapets,and essentially flat facades. Walls with round or curvilinear lines,or large pointed or slanted rooflines should generally be avoided. 2. Proportions in relation to context. Buildings should be designed with consideration of the characteristic proportions(relationship of height to width)of existing adjacent facades,as well as the rhythm,proportion,and spacing of their existing door and window openings. 3. Storefront rhythm. A new building facade that is proposed to be much "wider" than the existing characteristic facades on the street should be divided into a series of bays or components, defined by columns or masonry piers that frame windows, doors and bulkheads. Creating and reinforcing a facade rhythm helps tie the street together visually and provides pedestrians with features to mark their progress down the street. L 14 � a � L 1 �yy 1 I a r Figure 4-6—Maintain storefront rhythm. 4. Individual storefront proportions. Storefronts should not overpower the building fagade,and should be confined to the area framed by the support piers and the lintel above,consistent with classic"Main Street'architecture. 5. Wall surfaces. Wall surfaces,particularly at the street level, should be varied and interesting, rather than unbroken and monolithic,because blank walls discourage pedestrian traffic. This can be achieved in a number of ways including: $ Dividing the facade into a series of display windows with smaller panes of glass; $ Constructing the facade with small human scale materials such as brick or decorative tile along bulkheads; Chapter 4—Downtown Design Guidelines May 2008 46 PH1-106 Attachment 6 San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines 4.2—Design and Development Guidelines $ Providing traditional recessed entries;and $ Careful sizing,placement and overall design of signage. pediment ornamentation cornice corbels window lintel window sash multi paned glazing window sill signboard(fascia) transom window display window pilaster recessed double doors bulkhead I1 1 reveal — Figure 4-7—Downtown building design elements. 6. Doorways. Doorways should be recessed, as described in Section D.3, below, and shown in Figure 4-9. 7. Bulkheads. Storefront windows should not begin at the level of the sidewalk, but should sit above a base,commonly called a"bulkhead,"of 18 to 36 inches in height. Bulkheads should be designed as prominent and visible elements of building facades,and should be treated sensitively to ensure compatibility with the overall appearance of the building. Desirable materials for bulkhead facing include those already common in the downtown: ornamental glazed tile in deep rich hues,either plain or with Mediterranean or Mexican patterns;dark or light marble panels; and pre-cast concrete. Chapter a—Downtown Design Guidelines May 2008 47 PH1-107 San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines 4.2—Design and Development Guidelines D. Materials and architectural details. While downtown buildings have a variety of materials and architectural details,several consistent themes in these aspects of design in the downtown have helped to define its distinctive character. • 1. Finish materials.The exterior materials of downtown buildings involve several aspects including color, texture, and materials. d' x'. Materials with integral color such as smooth troweled plaster, rile, stone, and brick are encouraged.If the building's exterior design is complicated, with many design features, r' the wall texture should be simple and subdued. However,if the building design is simple (perhaps more monolithic), a finely textured material, such as patterned masonry, can greatly enrich the building's overall character. Materials should complement those on ,. significant adjacent buildings. The following materials are considered j appropriate for buildings within the downtown. Figure 4-8—Quality of finish materials. $ Exterior plaster(smooth troweled preferred) $ Cut stone,rusticated block(cast stone),and precast concrete $ New or used face-brick $ Ceramic tiles(bulkhead or cornice) $ Clapboard(where appropriate) $ Glass block(transom) $ Clear glass windows The following exterior finish materials are considered inappropriate in the downtown and are discouraged: $ Mirrored glass and heavily tinted glass $ Windows with false divisions (i.e., a window where the glass continues uninterrupted behind a surface mounted mullion) $ Vinyl and aluminum siding $ Painted or baked enamel metal awnings $ Rough"Spanish lace"stucco finish $ Plywood siding $ Corrugated sheet metal $ Corrugated fiberglass $ Split face concrete block $ Exposed concrete block without integral color Chapter 4—Downtown Design Guidelines May 2008 48 PH1-108 San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines 4.1—Design and Development Guidelines 2. Remodeling. Storefront remodeling often covers original decorative details,or retains them only as visual "leftovers." Existing details should not be wasted in remodeling efforts. If enough remain, they can be restored as part of the original design. If only a few remain, they can be incorporated as design features in a new storefront. In either case, the design of changes to a fapade should grow out of the remaining traditional details and create a harmonious background that emphasizes those details. 3. Doorways. Doors and storefront systems should be of materials and have details and ornament appropriate to the building wall M materials (for example, an older brick ' — k building would more appropriately have wood and glass doors with brass fittings than aluminum-framed doors). See Figure 4-9. $ Storefront entrance doors should be recessed within the building facade 4{ to provide an area for pedestrians to transition from the interior space to the public sidewalk. The appropriate depth of the recess will , �. • ' '' depend upon the storefront design ti - z and available space,but should be at least the width of the entrance door. :" $ Doors themselves should be � p�•-��- •:..:�:�-;===� primarily of glass,to avoid conflicts between entering and exiting Figure 4-9-A quality doorway for upper floor uses patrons. $ Door and entry designs and materials should be compatible with the other storefront materials. Terrazzo and tile pavers are attractive and appropriate paving materials common in the downtown, while indoor/outdoor carpeting and wood planking are inappropriate materials. 4. Windows. Windows that allow pedestrians to see the activities within the ground floors of downtown buildings are important in maintaining the pedestrian orientation of the downtown. Ground floor windows adjacent to sidewalks encourage pedestrians to linger, while extensive blank walls do not. $ When windows are added or changed,it is important that the design be compatible with the themes common on the same block. $ Use of clear glass(at least 88 percent light transmission)on the first floor is recommended. Introducing or changing the location or size of windows or other openings that alter the architectural rhythm or character of the original building is discouraged. $ Permanent, fixed security grates or grilles in front of windows are not permitted. Any necessary security grilles should be placed inside, behind the window display area. Chapter 4—Downtown Design Guidelines May 2008 49 PH1-109 Attachment 6 San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines 4.2--Design and Development Guidelines $ Traditional storefront transom windows should be retained whenever feasible. If the ceiling inside the structure has been lowered,the ceiling should be stepped up to meet the transom so that light will penetrate the interior of the building.. $ Existing windows should be maintained,and not"walled-in"or darkened to provide more interior wall or storage space. 5. Awnings. Awnings should be retained and/or incorporated where feasible and compatible with the storefront. $ Where the facade of a commercial building is divided into distinct bays (sections i defined by vertical architectural elements, 1 such as masonry piers),awnings should be placed within the vertical elements rather +a��:� . than overlapping them.The awning design a ; '`" 4 should respond to the scale,proportion and r 1 rhythm created by the bay elements and fit into the:space created by the bay. ;' $ Awning shape should relate to the window or door opening. Barrel-shaped awnings should be used to complement arched windows while square awnings should be ''t"'" used on rectangular windows. See Figure 4-10. r; $ Awnings may not be internally illuminated. $ Awnings can be either fixed or g .'°'Y .. ' retractable. $ The materials and color of awnings need to Figure 4-10-Awning shape relates to be carefully chosen. The use of second opening floor awnings shall be coordinated with lower.storefront awnings. Canvas is the most appropriate material for awnings. Metal,plastic(vinyl),or other glossy materials are not appropriate. $ Awnings should be functional and at least four feet wide. $ A single building face with multiple tenants should use consistent awning design and color on each building floor, unless the building architecture differentiates the separate tenancies. See Figure 4-11. Chapter 4—Downtown Design Guidelines May 2008 50 PH1-110 San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines 4.1—Design and Development Guidelines Lj r e pp I r Figure 4.11—Same awning style on upper and lower floors 6. Other details.A number of other details should be incorporated into exterior building design to add a degree of visual richness and interest while meeting functional needs. These details include such items as: $ Light fixtures,wall mounted or hung with decorative metal brackets $ Metal grillwork,at vent openings or as decorative features at windows,doorways or gates $ Decorative scuppers,catches and down-spouts,preferably of copper $ Balconies,rails, finials,corbels, plaques,etc. $ Flag or banner pole brackets. $ Crafted artworks. E. Public spaces, plazas and courtyards. Public spaces on downtown sites should be designed as extensions of the public sidewalk by providing pedestrian amenities such as benches and fountains,and by continuing the pavement treatment of the sidewalk. $ Plazas and courtyards are encouraged within the downtown. $ Primary access to public plazas and courtyards should be from the street;secondary access may be from retail shops,restaurants, offices, and other uses. $ Shade trees or architectural elements that provide shelter and relief from direct sunlight should be provided. $ Courtyards should be buffered from parking areas or drive aisles by low walls, landscaping,or other features to clearly define the edges of the pedestrian space. $ Ample seating should be provided. $ Bicycle parking should be provided. Chapter 4—Downtown Design Guidelines May 2008 51 PHl-111 Attachment 7 From: Alex Gough Sent: Saturday, September 24, 20115:27:15 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US &Canada) To: Council, SloCity Cc: Steve@CaCoastalRe.com Subject: Garden Street Terraces Dear Council members: 1 attended the ARC hearing on Garden Street Terraces project last week and came away feeling that despite a litany of shortcomings brought to the podium and laid before the commission, that what we have here is essentially a "done deal". And while it certainly is the case that there have been many fundamental changes in the project since its inception, I would hasten to add that most of those have happened because of community input, not because the developer would necessarily have chosen to change. Persistent public pressure, largely from the Save Our Downtown group(perhaps abetted by the present economy), have resulted in a number of positive changes, including the downsizing of the project,the lowering of heights and the retention of the historic stores on Garden Street. It's good as well that the mass of the project is now concentrated in the interior of the block rather than on the perimeter.. No question,the project has been improved. I think, however, if one steps back a bit, it's easy to see that there are still a couple of key missing elements. One of the unanswered questions we need to again ask is this--where are the public benefits in this project? In other large-scale local projects we have seen downtown in recent years these have always been included: walkways, plazas,gathering spots, corner walkthroughs and public art, resulting in vibrant meeting venues as well as plenty of commercial activity. This project, however,appears to be focused on patrons, not the public and with the exception of the charming existing alley, presents itself in bunker-like fashion. Where are the bulb-outs and gathering spots?Where are the places to sit? Before issuing a final stamp of approval I would ask the council to remember that the public will be giving up something here—50 parking spots or so—as well as several view corridors and user- friendly downtown circulation,and to assure that something is given back in return.You're selling our land, make sure we get something back besides a few sales tax dollars. The other remaining issue is design. We're still not there. Despite instructions to soften the hard edges of the project,the architect made mere baby steps in this direction. In one of the elevations,to give the appearance of change,the background was simply faded out. Yes,there were minor changes here and there, and the hard edge and stark colors of the project were softened just a skosh—but not nearly enough. Looking for the changes on the ARC projection screen was like trying to find Waldo in downtown LA. Make no mistake,this is still a massive project that will have major impact on one of the busiest and most important parts of town.We need to take the time to get it right and make certain that the impact that results is beneficial to us all. Let's make sure the deal is well done. Thanks, A¢ex igoag8 Alex Gough,broker Adobe Realty"In the Old Adobe Across from Mission SLO" 964 Chorro St.,San Luis Obispo CA 93401 Cell(805)748-5952,(805)543-2693,Toll Free: 1 (800) 827-1434 e-mail:adoberealty(a).charter.net Web Page: www.adoberealty.net(search all local MLS listings) PH1-112 C A tachment 7 From: Allan Cooper[allancoope@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, October 08, 201112:11 PM To: ANCARTER@aol.com; Carter, Andrew; John B. Ashbaugh; Ashbaugh, John;Jan &Steve' 'Marx; Jan Marx; Marx, Jan; Dan Carpenter; Dan Carpenter; Carpenter, Dan; Kathy Smith; Smith, Kathy Subject: Garden Street Terraces Project Review October 18, 2011 Honorable Mayor and Council Members- Regarding your October 18, 2011 Council Meeting: I am recommending that you return the Garden Street Terraces project to the Architectural Review Commission with direction.. The developer, planner and architect have made a good faith effort to address many of the concerns that were brought before them over the past several years of public testimony and I think that you could approve the Garden Street Terraces Project IF the following additional considerations were incorporated into the design of their project: 1) Provide more public amenities...in lieu of no public overlook spaces AND in light of public amenities ALREADY provided in similar large-scale projects such as the Downtown Center,the Court Street Project and the proposed Chinatown Project...in the form of more art in public places, higher quality paving and vandal-and tag-proof wall materials at the ground floor level, more public seating and recessed entryways. Relocating the recycled "Sycamore Tree"art piece should not satisfy the developer's requirement to enhance the project with art.Why not ALSO provide art in the form of decorative(i.e., artist-commissioned) paving along the Marsh/Garden Alley pedestrian corridor, in the form of decorative (again artist-commissioned)grille work along the Garden Alley openings into the parking garage and artist-commissioned gateway elements leading into Garden Alley and the Marsh St. pedestrian corridor? 2) Incorporate into the lower floor elevations a "human-scaled"and pedestrian-friendly color palette: i.e., incorporate a much lighter color palette in order to enhance LIGHT reflectivity, which is particularly needed along Garden Alley. 3)The normally required "continuous retail presence"on the building's ground floor is not carried around to the Garden Alley side. The developer/architect shall make up for this by requiring that the arch itect/developer incorporate lighting, public art, illuminated sign boards, more landscaping and a variety of colors and materials into the north facing wall along Garden Alley. 4) Require that the City in collaboration with the architect/developer place border planting and seating at intervals along all four sides of the project. 5) 1 commend the architect/developer for attaching a steel canopy to the Garden Alley side of the Union Hardware building. However, urge the architect/developer to further break down the massing and scale of the Garden Alley elevation of the Union Hardware building through the use of additional public art, murals and/or pennants. I am in concurrence with the conditions that have already been attached to this project. Thank you for the time and consideration that you have devoted to this very important and very large project! Allan Cooper 756 Broad St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 PHl-113 Attachment 7 The Architectural Review Commission's approval of the Garden Street Terraces downtown project on September 19th by a four to one majority greatly disappointed me. Many interested citizens attended the event. The City Council chambers were nearly full. Numerous people spoke against the project, including a local architect. The gateway to our historical downtown at the corner of Marsh and Broad Streets would greet visitors with a 40 foot high charcoal brick, boxy building resembling a Gestapo-like structure. The color is depressing and has no relationship to our beautiful earth=tone Mission style structures pervading the core of our town. The project architect was commended for reducing the height but he insists on using dark brick extensively throughout the project which is dark and dreary. Join with me in convincing the architect to redesign this project so it fits seamlessly into the historical context of San Luis Obispo. Ivan Cliff San Luis Obispo PH1-114 Attachment 7 Lori Slater P.O. Box 1147 Cambria,CA.93428 lori®lorislater.com 29 September 2011 Mayor Jan Howell Marx Vice Mayor John Asbaugh Council Member Kathy Smith Council Member Andrew Carter Council Member Dan Carpenter City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo,CA.93401 Dear Mayor Marx and City Council Members, Regarding the Garden Street Terraces project I urge you to reject the current architectural proposal. The proposal which renders structures along Broad Street between Marsh and Higuera streets is worse than mediocre: It shows a heartless contempt for the character of downtown San Luis Obispo. As a 20 year resident of San Luis Obispo County I frequent downtown for cultural reasons and enjoy it as a meeting place with other non residents. It is the character of intimate and welcoming spaces, indoors and out which draws us. As a professional artist for over 30 years I have a sense of design and aesthetic proportion. The new mixed-use development must be interesting for pedestrians. It should include step backs from the street,window openings at the street level, set backs at the higher levels,a good use of natural light and an integration with natural elements. Don't settle for a cheap generic design. If you want people to frequent downtown, preserve its rare welcoming charm and intimacy. Downtown San Luis Obispo can be even better than it is. Sincerely, Lori Slater PH1-115 Attachment 7 From: Charlotte Alexander Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 1:47:18 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US &Canada) To: Council, SloCity Subject: Art in Public Places and Garden Terraces To the Mayor, Vice Mayor and members of the City Council: The City of San Luis Obispo has developed a stellar, much revered public art collection. The City's public art guidelines require private developers to include pubic art in their developments or pay into the in-lieu fund (an amount equal to the value of a public art piece). We believe that the developer of Garden Terraces, Hamish Marshall, should be strongly encouraged to choose to install a piece of public art,rather than opting to pay the in-lieu fee. When one considers the scale of this particular project it seems compelling that there is a strong need for a creative, stimulating, tasteful adjunct of public art. This need not be in the form of aestheticart(although such would be wonderful and exciting) but as the guidelines provide, it could also be in some form of artist-created architectural functional art elements. Some of the public criticism of this development has been that it is not consistent with the downtown architecture and that it is flat and dull by comparison with its surroundings. A strong piece of public art could completely change such an appearance and make the development more consistent with the adjacent downtown area which is abundant with public art. Upon learning that Mr. Marshall had opted to contribute to the in-lieu fund, the ARTS Obispo/SLO County Arts Council Art in Public Places Committee attempted to contact him to offer assistance, feedback and ideas. He has failed to return our calls. His failure to respond does not bode well for the City receiving a pleasant, vibrant project that is consistent with the highest standards. Even though Mr. Marshall has previously posted the in-lieu fee it is clearly possible that such can be refunded and an art piece can be purchased. In that we have been prevented from meaningful exchange of ideas with Mr. Marshall,we very sincerely urge the City Council to encourage him to reconsider his decision to exclude public art. from his project. This project sorely needs the vibrancy and visual interest of a piece of public art. Mr. Marshall's decision will speak volumes about his vision and commitment to the City from which he has handsomely benefited. The Art in Public Places Committee remains ready to assist in any way possible. Sincerely, Ann Ream, Chair Art in Public Places Committee ARTS Obispo/SLO County Arts Council PH1-116 Atta&meht 7 Jan Marx, Mayor 26 September 2011 City Council Members City Hall 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401 RE: The Garden Street Terraces Project: Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members In writings by James Duenow, August 2007, he states, the group Save Our Downtown has the purpose, to attempt to preserve the historic character, look, and beauty of the inner core of San Luis Obispo. +++++++++++++++++++ In 1999, The National Trust for Historic Preservation honored San Luis Obispo with one of its five 1999 Great American Main Street Awards, which recognize the nation's best effo its in Main Street revitalization through historic preservation. They stated, "San L uis Obispo is thriving today . . .because its residents cared about their city's character, their rich cultural and architectural heritage, and the livelihood of their central business district". We want to continue to receive this award from the National Trust. It appears that neither the STAFF, the CHC, the ARC, the architect nor the developer have respected the guidelines set down by the CITY for new structures built adjacent to the historic downtown_ The Staff should have stopped this project from proceeding through the system once they were shown the colored elevations and perspectives. At the corner of Higuera and Broad, center of the historic district and our Main Street there will be a complete view of the entire Broad Street elevations of this new structure. As well, this will be the first entity viewed by arriving visitors of our so-called historic downtown. PHI-117 C-'` � �� Arta hment 7 We need to attend to this now in order to keep this precious environment. +++++++++++++++++++ There is real concern that the new proposed project with all elevations contiguous, immediately adjacent, to the historic center as it just does not respond properly to the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines as stated in the General Plan policy principles for a transitional building. It is not compatible with the existing historic atmosphere. Section 3.2.1 of those guidelines describes the scale, massing, rhythm, signature architectural elements, exterior materials, siting and street yard setbacks that are so prevalently missing in this project. 3.2.1 Architecturally compatible development within Historic Districts. New structures in historic districts shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with the district's prevailing h istoric character as measured by their consistency with the scale, massing, rhythm, signature architectural elements, exterior materials, siting and street yard setbacks of the district' s historic structures . . . 3.2.2 Architectural compati� The CHC reviews development in historic districts for architectural compatibility with nearby historic resources, and for consistency with applicable design and preservation policies, standards, and historic district descriptions in Section 5.2. New development should not sharply contrast with, significantly block public views of, or visually detract from, the historic architectural character of historically designated structures located adjacent to the property to be developed, or detract from the prevailing historic architectural character of the historic district. COLOR The architect's insistence on using the Dark Charcoal Gray for many of the elevations, especially following all public comments against 2 PH1-118 Attachment 7 C this color at the last ARC meeting, is questionable. Also stating that white mortar would be used with the dark gray brick or tile and that it would lighten the gray is highly questionable in terms of effectiveness of attractiveness. We do not want DARK GRAY used on any of these buildings. This is our town and we should have a right to be involved in what is to happen, especially to our downtown. ++++++++++++++++ We believe that the Garden Street Terraces Project should be denied by the City Council until it complies with these General Plan Policies. Respectively submitted, Kathleen Ruiz Vincente del Rio Linda A. Groover Elizabeth Thyne James Duenow Russ Brown Diane Duenow Ivan A. Cliff Dixie S. Cliff Sara McIre Sandra Lakeman 3 PH1-119 Attachment 7 From: RON MALAK Sent:Tuesday, October 18, 2011 10:13:31 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US &Canada) To: Council, SloCity Subject: Garden Street Terrace Project City Council, I am not in favor of the current design for the Garden Street Terrace Project. I believe this city so special because of its small town values.We have Farmers Market,the Christmas parade, Halloween events, Mozart Festival, Friday evening in the park etc. The downtown provides the venue to provide these events. We have sidewalks,outdoor seating,shade trees, both local and national businesses and an. architecture that reflects the small town values.The current architecture of our downtown is warm, friendly, inviting, relaxing and a great place to meet family and friends for activities. The Garden Street Project does not offer any of these benefits in its design. It is cold,faceless,without character or substance. It has none of the charm that the rest of the downtown area displays.The color of the building is dismal and unfriendly.There aren't any pedestrian friendly areas welcoming the shoppers and strollers to visit and sit, read or people watch. This architecture is in line with a hip, urban community like LA, not the small town environment of SLO. I realize it is very late in the approval process, but please send this back to the architect with instructions to have the exterior of the buildings reflect the values of SLO, not a nameless,sterile environment of a big city. Thank You, Ron Malak PH1-120 Attachment 7 From:Judy Jones Sent:Tuesday, October 18, 20114:36:54 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific.Time (US &Canada) To: Council, SloCity Cc: Council, SloCity; Council, SloCity Subject: GARDEN STREET DEVELOPMENT ARCHITECTURE Mayor and City council: Like many others, I am disappointed that the architecture for this VERY IMPORTANT DEVELOPMENT is lacking in real creativity. I agree with the editorial in the Tribune that the project needs some more work to add softer colors on the exterior, some added embellishments that would give a distinctive look to the whole block and one half. The project is called GARDEN TERRACES, yet I don't have a feel of a terraced look to the exterior that would feel warm and inviting. Like many other people we are giving up city land and the Marsh and Broad side is boxy and totally unfit for our lovely city. There is a building on Santa Rosa St near the freeway on the right side that has balconies and used to have hanging vines. We need more creativity like that for the Garden St project. LETS ALL GET IT RIGHT....DEVELOPERS, ARCHITECTS, THE ARC AND THE CITY COUNCIL. Some additional time, effort, and looking at other award winning developments in other places could produce a wonderful, wonderful addition to our lovely city. Lets not just be "the happiest city in the country", but one that has fine architecture, public art and so much else that will make the downtown so unique and not just like other places.. Please do not approve the latest plan. Keep pushing for that which will excite us all. Judy Jones San Luis Obispo PH1-121 Attachment 7 From: Elizabeth Thyne [ethyne@sbcglobal.net] Sent:Thursday; October 20, 20118:46 AM To: Marx,Jan; Ashbaugh,John; Carter, Andrew; Smith, Kathy; Carpenter, Dan Subject: Garden Street Terraces Project Dear Mayor Marx and Members of the City Council: David Brodie,who serves on the Save Our Downtown Committee, is currently abroad, and asked me if I. would forward his comments on the Garden Street Terraces project as it was presented to the ARC recently. Knowing that this project will come before the Council before he returns, he felt it was urgent to add his voice to those already urging changes to the project, particularly regarding the colors. His comments follow. Liz Thyne Save Our Downtown Dear City Council — I want to communicate my major concern for the Garden Street Terraces Project. At the ARC meeting I spoke on the issue of high-contrast in color in the urban environment. The greatest contrast is black with white. This then would only be used if one wanted an element to completely stand out in a setting. As Downtown SLO is an historical district the need is to keep it unified. Black and white would completely isolate forms from the entire downtown setting and would disrupt the visual language of a cohesive backdrop. While on a vaporetto in Venice, Italy we passed a new (maybe temporary) construction in the building landscape along the canal. It had a strong black-white component of simple geometry, and this drew exclamations of horror, disgust or anger from the other passengers. This only proves my earlier statement. I think there should be a requirement of documentation of the proposed construction in its setting of surrounding blocks showing the basic color coordination before approving a project. A by-product of black surfaces at street level is the reduction of reflected light which is a necessity for pleasurable human activity, safety on the streets and general lighting needs. These conditions are fundamental requirements in any introductory program in urban design. Thank you, David Brodie 873 Chorro St. San Luis Obispo, CA PH1=122 ATTACHMENT RESOLUTION NO. XXXX(2011 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE FINAL DESIGN OF THE GARDEN STREET TERRACES MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT IN THE C-D & C-D-H ZONES (ARC 124-06; 1119, 11234 127, 1129.1137 GARDEN STREET AND 712, 720, 722, 728, 7369 748 MARSH STREET) WHEREAS, the applicant, Garden Street SLO Partners, LP, on August 8, 2006, submitted a request for architectural approval of a proposal to develop a mixed-use development project in the downtown core known as Garden Street Terraces; and WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) conducted a public hearing on July 25, 2011, and determined that the revised project design is appropriate in the Downtown Commercial Zone and Downtown Historical District, and recommended final approval of the project design to the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) and City Council; and WHEREAS, the ARC conducted public hearings of the final design on August 15, 2011, and September 19, 2011, and recommended approval of the project design to the City Council on September 19''; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on November 1, 2011, pursuant to an application filed by Garden Street SLO Partners, LP, applicant for the purpose of considering ARC 124-06, final design review for the Garden Street Terraces Project; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that was previously certified by the Council on June 1, 2010, along with the Addendum dated September 2011 prepared to update the EIR to be consistent with revised project plans reviewed by the CHC and ARC; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff,presented at said hearing. BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Final EIR as updated by the Addendum dated September, 2011 adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City's Environmental Guidelines, and reflects the independent judgment of the Council. The Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in this Addendum in its consideration of the final project design and finds that the preparation of a subsequent EIR is not necessary, based on the following findings: PHI-123 Resolution No. (2011 Serie Page 2 ATTACHMENT � Findings 1. None of the circumstances included in Section 15162, which require a subsequent EIR have occurred, specifically: a. The project changes do not result in new environmental impacts. b. The circumstances under which the project is undertaken will not require major changes to the EIR. c. The modified project does not require any substantive changes to previously approved mitigation measures. 2. The proposed modifications to the project description are consistent with prior Council direction to update plans to be consistent with the Reduced Development and Project without Public Parking Spaces alternatives included in the certified Final EIR approved by the City Council on June 1, 2011. 3. All of the updated mitigation measures are reasonably necessary to reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels and become project conditions. 4. The changes are consistent with City goals to promote the intensification of infill sites, respect the context of the site's setting in the Downtown Commercial Zone and Downtown Historical District, provide a project scale compatible with its surroundings, accommodate pedestrian flow through the site and onto adjacent streets, and bring economic vitality to the downtown core. 5. The proposed scale and design of buildings will be compatible with surrounding uses as found by the City's Architectural Review Commission with their review of project plans and are consistent with the City's General Plan, Zoning Regulations, and Community Design Guidelines. SECTION 2. Action. The final design of the Garden Street Terraces Project (ARC 124-06) is hereby approved, based on the following findings, and subject to the mitigation measures listed in the attached Exhibit A and the following conditions: Findings 1. As designed and conditioned, the building materials, style, character, and form of the new structures within the project will promote the architectural character, style, form, and materials of the Downtown Commercial Zone and Downtown Historical District and complement the architectural character of the surrounding buildings and area consistent with the City's Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. 2. The project is consistent with standards contained in the City's Community Design Guidelines for the downtown, which encourage projects to be pedestrian-oriented, and to have proportions and design details that complement surrounding structures PHI-124 ATTACHMENT � Resolution No. (20 11 sen ' Page 3 3. The project's design is consistent with the design principles contained in Section 4.16 of the Land Use Element including providing pedestrian-oriented spaces on the ground floor of buildings, continuous storefronts, and upper floor dwellings and offices. 4. The project is consistent with the mitigation measures adopted by the City Council on June 1, 2010 with the certification of the Final Garden Street Terraces Project EIR. Conditions 1. Final project design and construction drawings shall be in substantial compliance with the project plans reviewed by the CHC & ARC and ultimately approved by the City Council. A separate full-size sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that list all conditions, and code requirements of project approval as Sheet No. 2. Reference should be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed. Any change to approved design, colors, materials, landscaping or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Director or Architectural Review Commission, as deemed appropriate. 2. The final design approval shall be valid for five years from the date of City Council approval. 3. The project is subject to all of the conditions approved through City Council Resolution No. 10183 (2010 Series) for a modified use permit and tentative tract map. If a previous condition is modified with this latest approval, the latter condition shall prevail and supersede the former wording of the condition. Any phasing of the overall project, shall receive Community Development and Public Works Department review and approval. 4. All applicable mitigation measures contained in the Final EIR shall be included as conditions of approval and are included in the attached Exhibit A. Building Design 5. The new project building through its lowered height and design which includes wall offsets, tiered massing, and visual gaps at upper building levels meets the intent of the parameters included in the Reduced Development Alternative of the EIR for upper floor setbacks eliminating the need for Condition No. 2 of City Council Resolution No. 10183 (2010 Series). 6. Historically accurate window specifications for the buildings at 1119 and 1123 & 1137 Garden Street shall be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) with their review of project plans and details shall be included in working drawings.. 7. Changes to the rear elevation of the building at 1123-1127 Garden for new windows and doors shall be a quality and historically accurate treatment. Specific details shall be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) with their review of project plans and details and specifications included in working drawings. 8. The existing variety of color with the tenant spaces within the buildings at 1129-1137 PH1-125 ` Resolution No. (2011 Serie3)` ATTACHMENTg" Page 4 Garden, or a similar new proposal, shall be maintained to reinforce the character and interest of the block. 9. All of the significant and contributing character-defining historic features identified in the Garden Street Terraces Project Analysis prepared by Chattel Architecture, Planning & Preservation dated April 2011 shall be retained and incorporated into the project consistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards and Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. 10. The building at 748 Marsh shall be painted in a color consistent with its Spanish architectural style that differentiates it from the new construction beyond. 11. The central portion of the Marsh Street elevation of the new structure shall be finished in a compatible color to differentiate it from adjacent storefronts. 12. Plans submitted for a building permit for all project components shall include window details indicating the style and type of materials for the windows, mullions, their dimensions, and colors. Plans shall also include the materials and dimensions of all lintels, sills, surrounds, recesses, and other related window features. 13. Plans submitted for a building permit for all project components shall clearly show details for all railings, balconies, decorative architectural features, and storefronts. 14. The plaster finish for buildings shall be smooth-troweled as noted on plans. Planning 15. The project's required archaeological monitoring report shall be reviewed by the Cultural Heritage Committee. 16. The specific art proposals for the project shall return to the ARC for review at a later date once developed by artists and approved by an art jury as overseen by the SLO Arts Council. 17. Details of lighting fixtures shall return to staff for review and approval, either prior to, or along with, the plans submitted for a building permit. The locations of all lighting fixtures shall be clearly called out on building elevations included as part of working drawings. The lighting schedule for buildings shall include a graphic representation of the proposed lighting fixtures and cut-sheets shall be separately submitted for the project file of the proposed lighting fixtures. The selected fixture(s) shall be shielded to insure that light is directed downward consistent with Section 17.23.050 of the Zoning Regulations. Details of all exterior light fixtures, including site lighting and service area lights, need to be included as part of plans. A note shall be included on plans that "Lenses of exterior wall-mounted lights may be modified or shielding devices added after installation if the Community Development Director determines that they emit excessive glare." 18. A specific sign program for the project shall be to the review and approval of the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). The sign program shall include information on the sizes, locations, colors, materials, and types of signage proposed for various buildings and project directional signs. Project signs shall be designed to be compatible with the PHI-126 r pA T Resolution No. (2011 Series7' ATTACHMEN i Page 5 architecture of proposed buildings and to complement the site's setting within both the Downtown Commercial Zone and Downtown Historical District. Once adopted, the sign program shall contain provision for the Community Development Director to approve minor deviations to the approved sign program if findings can be made in support of the exception being consistent with the intent of the program, and in keeping with the design characteristics and historical context of the building(s) and/or site. The Director may refer signage proposals to the ARC if there are concerns that a particular design is out of character with the sign program. 19. Mechanical equipment shall be located internally to buildings. With submittal of working drawings, the applicant shall include sectional views of buildings, which clearly show the sizes of proposed condensers and other mechanical equipment to be placed on the roof to confirm that parapets and other roof features will adequately screen them. A line of site diagram may be needed to confirm that proposed screening will be adequate. 20. The required fire risers for buildings shall be located internal to buildings. Other fire department equipment shall be located internal to buildings where feasible. The externally mounted Fire Department Connection (FDC) for buildings shall have a chrome or brass finish to the approval of the Community Development Director. Trees 21. Tree protection measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. The City Arborist shall review and approve the proposed tree protection measures prior to commencing with any demolition, grading, or construction. The City Arborist shall approve any safety pruning,the cutting of substantial roots, or grading within the dripline of trees. A city-approved arborist shall complete safety pruning. Any required tree protection measures shall be shown or noted on the building plans. Contact the City Arborist at 781- 7023 to review and to establish any required preservation measures to be included with the building permit submittal. 22. A tree protection bond or surety shall be provided to the city prior to demolition, construction, and/or tree relocations to the satisfaction of the City Arborist, Public Works Director, and Community Development Director. The surety amount shall be established in accordance with current standards for evaluating tree value. 23. All new or relocated trees shall be installed per City Engineering Standards. Existing trees to remain shall be upgraded to include a tree well and grate per City Engineering Standard #8130 where determined feasible by the City Arborist. 24. Any required off-site compensatory tree planting as required by Mitigation Measure VIS-5b shall be 24" box stock. Said plantings shall be completed prior to acceptance of the public improvements or prior to occupancy whichever occurs first unless otherwise approved for deferral by the Public Works Director. PH1-127 Resolution No. (2011 Series) - A 1 1 ACHMEN d v Page 6 Public Works 25. Plans submitted for a building permit shall address the following items of the Garden Street Improvement Plan: a. In-ground pavement lights across Higuera Street at Garden Street. b. Final loading zone design/placement. c. Public art proposal, if applicable. d. An increase in height of the parking bollard to improve its visibility. e. Inclusion of one on-street ADA parking space. f. Use of the four existing Peak bicycle racks. g. Final parkway designs. 26. The Garden Street Alley plan shall include a decorative pavement treatment for its entire extent between Garden and Broad Streets and show all existing and proposed public and private utilities. Improvements to the public alley, including final bollard design, shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director. The proposed grease interceptor may be located within the public alley. A separate encroachment agreement shall be recorded against the property. 27. Final street furniture details shall comply with the City Engineering Standards in effect at the time of submittal or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 28. Disruption to pedestrian or vehicle traffic and/or property access shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. The contractor or sub-contractor(s) may be required to provide written notice to any affected properties prior to commencing with work. A list of properties to be noticed shall be approved by the city and documentation of delivery of said notice(s) shall be provided to the city. PH1-128 Resolution No. (2011 Series)-" Page 7 V ft O oHMENT ATTAC On motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of 2011. Mayor Jan Marx ATTEST: City Clerk Elaina Cano APPROVED AS TO FORM: f4z -I'ee City Attorney J. Christine Dietrick T:\CommunitvDevc1opm2nt\CARs\GST CC Resolution(final desein review 11-1-11).doc PH1-129 EXECUT IE SUiMNW � � Attachment a z R d s c = y y •y ° Vl m C Q V L CC 0. 0 o O v m 0 R G p 'O U v C •� A 'b ai R �.. m s O C Cr 7 p F m Cd o � °y' o w a 7Q3 _ a7 o x � aozQ .°= _� v c .,ya H c m v u o c o $ p 3 y 0 � � ,v o a) ,F2 @x = C 3: t m «, c., ;g o o M N . F o w ° x .0m G m ❑ asLac m ,m, a^ C° 0 •� 2 3yw � a o ° s0 y 3 0 N > C vl y N F, N C -0 Ca Z: .y+ .� 7 .0 p .0 G YC-.Q X � r N cUC •_` '!� ,� 'VO C ti R N u :� P.m v .° „0 .D ` ti aJi a o U ¢av oa =6 ms 3 r. ! ' p >,C 0> Con U �cc E N c a' Q x ° pp — >, ° nt - mm o a oi7o OL 1Q a� ."•' .C. V m d ^ .1E " r ° d .. �.. m .°. m E Q i r - O R CO'� .0 C Cc* i.. _ = a aCi = L y 00 > v 3 3 ami ° c o C N y y C m a � m m c .� ed o > y � . E a ° >1 � .V °= 0 o e R o v aai E ^ 3 3 a ° �a ; ° � �.; rx 2 r � 'o O w aY cC m V b V eq .O m m m a> .� �umi �U 7 a'q a°i R a^ CL CL > c ooyvc . ccc y y3 � on � � . = > w ° w00 Crm ER U O C cv p, E .� .4 > � b U � N C O v m .. m C a+ '" d .� 'fl i..p N m �. ° 'C C ° a r' C a d ie G 0. Q C Q. y p..ami R .L m N 0. ro N U OA :: A C p. CO E N r- 0 3 ° 2 °�' 3 aw o`ow i d o .5 ° ti Q ouF �a °�' a. v E .° O Q cn° �+ A •C G N N O • • • • • • • • • a+ U z C C R ra N 4 C m V y O O y � a cU ° o s . .^ Cn � d)di v O � C,U T V V] O .r C .Cl C4 ie U Q. .. m C CI. . N o C ww c > V C p > p L Ca 2� � R '' O c � .3 [r d U > � � Jt: v" N ao C � � o M Q a o m O U u ES-14 Garden Street Terraces Project Fina!EIR PH1-130 EXECUTTAAVmS Wnt 8 Y v m A F � W w N y O Ii� b +r cu 3 ..0F Sc :°d 4 .0 g p mrA UmpsrR v 1>1 S Q CR 55 '°op= o.... v. pL c 0 y °' zQO n8.Q u u u >R .D u 'p R mw N ° N .:�°3:, •o L0OR y = t p m E03 C 0."u V = U (� ..E ,y . y Xm Qc p ° a at N My o CO y"' „ ° wo � . g .. C Os u c „ occ > x mo U R u a' M V CuV] 'O > .L.. m 'a .. UdC V p= a � WOCLO V y EO =V O � A C C` = e) z Q L m C a N cC ° F• = v3 su$. pa y ° o U 0 L0v0 = 00-C3 � m m9 .0c ` z.0LU _ C U _. � Cm u y mti y ..— m CLO .. p yvR ?• ° vo O Q uc ° v, wu � 3u _U y L 3 .me^ y= u o vOLya`o Ca > 0 M N .O ao R u uF .0 6 Q 0 _ 'O ° po 0. C O L.U vO$ E V v @ p. Vw u CoUO Q) IX 0. m mQOps20 mQ u CI 0.z Uro u6) C. 3 $ .� � v v y 1 � Ly+ � CQ a a E � v7 rA C u � m U �n E w a, R F'F Garden Street Terraces Project ES-15 Fina!E/R PHI-131 EXECUTIVE SUMMM Attachment a r V � E ,p r F � 0 6� y .a a S ti R on ;To y � � 3 'O C .y. � 00 C 0 C R y O ;O > N V u C O y y C b L C 0 u N L t0 1 i C •� O L E G .7 y. O 'p £ O y N y L b Q L y .2 .0 ai Ll O c N w y m m N 3 s Q O H O OM .0 romv o L eV G Q _o a y _m _ U � ?U u ° ❑ .E R . v� L .0 N p > c; E NE = O A O _ W Z5 00 C C G E 'O O C: = G Q «• O y .� `' ❑ m tQ to .C. C aLl .� Fo° aU c Eoo m me .0 .0 *6 ° a`> aci °' .Y � a.E 5 _ y3v W y O tv u L 'N E > Zvi O �: 'p t V .r W. R ° v a.t O c = aroi api .� •aoC 00 p. � •� s yt ao °L' `� °y' ,_ R C G. 3 G V w N O aO.r R wC y C y O 'fl U C ly O. C y y m, «. y > L ° to �..� 0" N N �'L N fOr- �V 3 N pD c�tl cc y N y c0 p 3 QO�i p O = W. U. 0 = o u y OQ u o °' ° s ., E m " •y ° x R� a ° n00 u a c 8 ¢ Rc ° "` � R � `o � � y �° � ami °= aui =pp ° Ooc ° � � 0E � o � tyoo .0 G O N C W N '� _U ... X L W r O � -0 t' R O U C..p �.r „p„ t0 O 3 N V O U 3 N .� X O G R d y O C y O, O 'C t O = w iC is y 5 R c/ •�' 'C .�. .uC m G L O, y •U O O ]., O C y O O .�b t... > u L y �. 3 G - 0. k 9 L Y ' .. v y ,7 L L"R R p L m c u U o to 'n m .0. v = y 0 v-. y " to y > C m u ou U b o to .p ..3w `° 3 « 'm � G'.0�. 7 t6 ❑ y T V) O yta � 7Qiy 'C >u 0, U -0 (U .CEO 3 > p c e = c, 0° = m °' ? " Q o e a o s .S'0 u v o " u o O QC R 0D" Co ce : O r. d5 u 'O d _ i = dd 0iy IL noL°. C oQ eaQ w op wby° r. Ju aci u g a - a o s s a L r. p y U ]a o °= o U 06 y CL1 � y � R � C C ■. u SCE bD u U � m E r rl 1 W R F ES-16 Garden Street Terraces Project Final EIR PH1-132 Attachment 8 i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY y L cY.. p 'Ca y 'fl � � C 'F L C C' C 00 C R O y 0 0 Ca 00 F vU � e F e o .ono y m o 0 y 'O R v 0. 2,, ° U .a v roc a y y O a d n c o O = O m 6 D a4z, CS p E 0 6 00 � � 0. OQ C C Q L � C O C d s D y R m a y m ° „ y w oto oOvo to °' ^' O .> y^ .d •ss O y � u O '2 y C s is 'O c• 0 t ° c '9 0 C en p � = � 3 y C m d 3 • 0. a, to Z Cu s � E Y c o 'o a0 M o a a0i �yaU .al ? zu ° � � a� °' :° o aw CE `° e d oo0.a " o ° y ° �, ° ° ° 0. trE m 7J o ee a o a :3 n 0. a a, . os d o ff C -, > p R y 7 A c ° ° A +° CL 0.o m °'00 t'O c o Ia 7r o ff p 0. � aEsb a °o E E ;; a, 0. oto o a+ y '00 'O .= C y' 's: T.Y C y :� 'O 0. 0 cC9 m DA C — C U " 'C. i"' N a° o e U `o °= 3 = _ '" m .> v � •oQ ; � .5 v on•� Cu ° u L C V p .0 •y Q O O Cr O aCi o0^D',C7 ° i7 y p 0. .� C Ca Lv >, E cn a,. C G—p ,0 Y ?� r/i O .ptu 'D vi p .� o� Y +-' O^ 'N O E C y A L U Cy O = 7 C = ... y � 'C! 3 O.•— G. ca y y O '. y 91 o o° a� ��qeqJJRD e.: y O E CuEc°� G s N L O 7 Z C y V N C N':-� w 0 < O N C O ° a w ooss y N to a 3 ° o Os CQ ° p p y � ° a uV o ._ — ° A b ° ° 5r •: a � � ^� oR � � ?? y ati 'c0ca° o O 7 0 t L A 7 y r' S7 C .'C... �•, O L ' R .:? >� U E •� w C .C+ C >> d0 asi w 0 U 0 C 0 '- O C y a) L O .cc C n ° sv d E m ? o •? v_ m H o aCi Ca a °E' " .v H C C 0 0 Cr 0 7 . vi y 0 O C ' 7 17 .� O y O m y y 'o m �,, Ca s d N 3 7 .� Z y y R Q i,,, C O C A a) M 0.'C = s N bD 4—. W ^aOj M m .0+ p y pp M = N arcs 7 t " . N ° aai ,o ro E to d C to Z R u m d O u v m d,0 'C U N c v C 3 : a '� v El v a, aEi aci c o ai s 'y A s d Q U j .. y y a✓� d m o u Q L.. :. d L O 0. o r- ° cCa cCa p h • • • • • "Z' U C y • • • 0. a, L 00 a) p o V v W1 I w > O CJ V o n w o m u m p axiutzU ,CD C7 wJ ,L p y O c a? 0 m y E ° O C C � C ^ cy ,y a) O a BOJ a . v� = � oz � � w a :3 0 V 3 c d � eEo � a Q c. 7 d U O Garden Street Terraces Project ES-17 Fina!EIR PH1-133 EXECUTIVE SUMMA Attachment 8 i ° O _ U � b 'T0 zb � = Q�)z ° � .0 0 F m ° aNU ,moo, 0 w "O Y m••tz � O � N � y y > it EGc�sconQ1 � = O G? om .0 c r o E a° o 6o3vN o v N O W = 0 E O s r�rJ Ca=Yi or E C6 O C G RO =Co. d r� cc = = E C EN O E o Ya`° . vn E Om U m ^ . so R0 = a = c.� Ewy = oWU ^ Om�o > w p = 3 O 14 00 . N •• NT gg . ycy+ .RNN O U R _c t .52 M_EfG 02 = OE _ y -,:ryl yG O � �"O C m p, = = a iC^ E NY aRO OOA a OE 'O C O iN 0 e° ° aeo o= c i II to 'Doyo F d O. 0U. 00 E ' ' Ouc ^om gEdti = ° O =0 v 0 m W. tcOA .m oDU� O ccV p >> 41 o cGwOU 'b YE CA a '° C 0. a ° g m ° N wEy •00X C C ^ ubaW. c CLO y 60 Ta C " Yd = fi� O •' OA g. = aYL= F. � C °o v EA Y U cC a c > 8, W, v , ° > E aA o >, , oc d Q -o .c do; 0 o c Lo Y Lm, v C r7 O to 0 N !� E U v o ° m v N .= 3 a ° ° O F a m °tu ?? Vl CJ R r� C r CRS H R pCp u Cc r � rl OA 1 W O N R I lieu F .o _ ES-18 Garden Street Terraces Project Fina!EIR PHl-134 A � ExECU (lt w u m R E Z 7 y � a � 0 w -o R y y U p ._ 0 .> c o m po b U U .0 •y ° .R.. U V C b 6o A S R v O N to m 00 ° c' y >1 N U 4t N L y W O R b �OD to " EEQj- nc rn V > Q O. 7pi 0 N C p 0. Jb O 0 O L Cr .0 G 7 p O p L N W ym a � _ y ° Q ° u is C aUi y 0 'O E 'ti ,L 0 '� U o > = p � ,C 'C aUi ami y tb O G"`° y R w C 8 R c y h LV m o a� u 3 .a y y m o Q v .X . N c o .+ y ¢ � = `m „ '= ' £ u e ;; 34« 0m y � y � 4y � U cab CJ = ai - = u o v > ° 3 '= E ° m V 0 = m 0 y a> AC °o ow 9 R a � s = ° o � '� ° Cu o > pr ? E O c ' [� H 4 w y U L U y :a r 00 C .� Co U _ O1 `� �' �' x1 06 v amu+ m _ m -� E c o r. v '� °_' „ o V > U �. y y t C p V rn ^UV U V '3 ..'. w y N ta"o .� T.O •� R C U .p °> G y � d .= R .O .0 L a>i aV1i ai ~ tr ^ w .0 "O 7 0. •� �. [� /C d °-.. c = v o = ° a^ s b o o a .Y. a s t m A " - y e E _ o c E `" yQ ° m ^° °o y Cr (u 0 . 4c ° u u „c0, ° v m M y � cC 4 rn rn N U rn i Ca U 4 Ip = m p 3 .o „ c c `° ° i c 3ti `0 3 0 v m.a Q :: ° .o ° ti ' no'.- {°.' •o w i B �- V .� ° C '- 'y v r U '1r p rn w y 0. '!7 y p 3 y U tU O > •❑ ❑ ' O W' 0o �. > •m '3 U p T3 R A O > O .0 'F 3 O y " C c O E 3 7 'N c - a 'o C O ° 4•£ w C Opi y I.U. C e.0. U 4 .y Q U >. 3 C 0. 3 '� y 4. `7 00 r ix.. 0 0 0 O X O L10 M N C U 3 a t ie 0 v s `° = p u cep G. y ea, c t0 U O m U y t y ca C •C N U •V C O O U R O v 3 T ° C 3 w F 7 ai c ay c a 4F- ° wo £ °' c n A _ 3 3 400 °y' oI,..� a� y O o F os O DO V) y y O y 'O 04 w y 0 C ° 0 00C: CU ar •fl 'O G 'O a� .L .�, y U V C 'D 0 R a ° 6 � 4 ° ya � o tic .S 'aoc 3 ° s =° v00i > '� m3 a°ioacm OE .0 o v C c E u Q o. a b = R V V R o m Q Q q y .7 W y W Q W O C 0. 3 U 1� -5 'fl c'.,Z..a 7 R; .-1 y N '�' U a' 4•� toC • • • d o • • e • • • • • e c 3 ¢ • • u VJ y 1 � y � c R — U y h R u U �n 06 E 1 w a, R E■ Garden Street Terraces Project ES-19 Fina!EIR PH1-135 EXECUTIVESL!!H � Attachment 8 cEas as -0 E c °L' o .ao-C L U' 3 Q w R y > V N U R U �IM R � E c7 O ~ s7 ., U 'b u c o F Aas3m W!s al L O X 4 C M as U C O .O OJ i R a L 00 > 3 E > b y a as a ml 00 O O ,.0R .Oy+ C m p. ❑ FU O U ''OyUNC rLn �y pN6T 3 O kR A0Qr N M O -0 >, aU as 4) � ° -o > _ O E� urC t; w ' iyNU N_ b N G N R y Y aA y a• °" L ai O _ p as L R C �a a: 0y w° b> � C 'G rR/J O 'O R N V A. y C VOC YV / O >1 O 20 E mi CU y 0v y r. f>A y+ ca.q «_ O y >r. 00 OU R" cc yOGR O - R as CO° O MRy ca " G . a m .0O mv Ey > ° o >,'a M. ai .14 Co. 0 s U> aM@? tiy a al ° 7 •EL 3 as p m L u Ca y p p ° C s = E Q is ? c m F Ja u d ° ,�, c (u � a ° a o N E :E o o Ex a°>i > o c > °' ° ° ba ~ r U E O U w C r 0.b M �. ^ 'O fA y V '0 y0 U U C U L rn �' '— y Q p C '� v �: ° U I.R. aGi U O U R �, •7 �' O .0 w C O p 'O R y R b = > s Ca "Z$ = xs �.y E •� c « .S v � c� � � 3 ° aRi 0 coP' c °' $ a ° 3 o c o ti t� ° 8' R n ' o ;; Q ° C7 w o L V E • t C ti :v rn U R = y o ❑ T w •� O•v y = = R •N w -� ca 0.0 R O .E N ,�, 7 R W �"'. b '� F. y C W •� L .� ."�'" -c. sU, G.,% CC c ° :_ O. °. "� N R 0 'd > C �o U. C y n w i N W 3 m a c c C U g Zi R Rn C O .d '_''C Q �.7 C. R U 'O I.U. w E... " w C? O OD L h C .'7 r 7 s ti . ° v Llu o C „ [ c o c ao •• o o z . ° E y c. C Ci •O v .a G' O .� •o ' •N ,U. „p m •M �;i y S ., � o a 7 N •a • Q asur Oai Q G. y as y 00 U " V � = E ,�C:U C� '=pU .E 7 as • • • e • • '�" k „r C E O U U h y i LE ►� O U O N R _ � O o v R W a a as � L .0 �•` 3 C CQ 7 C >R M CY, E U en U n s axi ES-M Garden Street Terraces Project Fina!EIR PHl-136 Attachment 8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ° >, e: NCCN`m .dioV U�xC NEL �cD ve0 y= � yO4 L'Q `Od° e .� ❑ ° � RR O eV•'Ep[L7 FO5ONE.A .�>°�Ch"' •„UoCaN c E � ._ i QL. Q ao ^ N p S ••Q G O W > O p . E 00'OEe � dp°Oka) N [ F u o ° ss v c c o C `>c i Q � �> _ � � o � c ^ �..� 'cyRi ° o. F' 3 e 3 N o p «r3 E C ° 'oabi oN o i ca C E .� uc ❑ > am` t � ° oc = � 0mv � ._ oo � a E ° v s° N Qo ti = u > : L > v 4 X ° w 0 3 m > � N oe � ccEs > c°, ° ° yE ° s E ov � OEr. c =Ca C3p-, R T� or. ° To N o d c c � s _ ° p ° E N R o 0 0 •° ° y E L s U > N C a y v c Q w 4 o C v R ° ° ° o L a) p aJ = �. ti 0) ...t = Q C N '7 = .� 4] 7 �. s a4i w aEi L ^t O O >, Chi " d R O •t = 0 0 > O ayi O C a+ O O v o v s [� a = o o E= o L o L W E L w . 'E s N C = C y C R V O C R C d p GCr>uCC. ca? . .. C c V^ o o vE L yO C O .NU4 c^ c0O a o Cdm v E a) Oz zr 7 z > C ^� ai s•EEpoiC 0" r- Cri M o cd � ° c •o y E d w ¢.CC:o o Co„ R . E �e 0 M R o 0 y n E 'C' > ca E °o b °' o o ° � 'ti ° ° � xo. s .� ' solo u .0 dos o a¢i m � : o ° ° � ° a u_ = E > ° Eco y � .R o F. N y ? a°i c r _" 7 = `� uu — m E ° C E o E 3 � s °' = v aa)i c W v e N 0 R U eu = s c p A id o o ^> R 4U co _ ° ♦+ 0 7 = N rZ a) ._ '°-' R W R N E O p U u o a) d O O U N U y b > L N 'y � d p CC) `'r" C it c.pR, C O = s y V U >, N •° = N U c. C C L R a) 3 -0 Ra° 4 0, ca R Rt ..� � s w �y = a o y o o v c R y =O ...: v yid 4O w ° •O 'O b O b E da b N GOO'O p aEi X >, >. v X vi. o � oxCDo � a' - 4 E ° CC to LOs' _ � ° cwLrb ' 3 ° s 'O .= C C OO yC R td S N = a7 C C a=i .0 'O y=+ R p 4 y z a) •fl A O C 'N VEw L 'N C E "C .E a) V a.' E O N ._C ❑ C ?`oa=iya = 4•° ° °? n R> h0LRd' t=^:' N °a°'bQ o= :6 - or, O ° R °J °'o RL v '^ EO oiip • i R ,o = G rz Lc 'fl ca Leu7 +:CQC °dV: 'LR .�:°°�'.a> •eOdyv --3.myR V a: rxR as rxsp N E�E p o U o A= •LO id aOE oUL C tCa"" ' cyR°. O On zon o E 3O R p M ° C -0 tu vo R a 3 .E > t = ° �00o e0 o s T ° 0N N � 1 p V a o Q z � u VJ N � C• �+ > Ql U "• y R 04 'j axi h v R r L: c y° 3U fo u U .�. .•y .y ^' L° rJ U A R c E a°=i > � � az v m c a u as s Ez N ? m C o ^ o` ea z F 00 0M zz cu Garden Street Terraces Project ES-21 Fina!E/R PH1-137 EXECUTIVE SUMMAC • Attachment 8 W m E F y O .h a a 0 w R d0 w i R 7 = 3 °o o °J m ° _ y c � ° E > 3 � ° H ° � aEi W W ° C:4 CL ;, b ° ao _ aoi s aoi o o o amiAsc o .o °' c: ; O ,R 3 a :' g ;, a Z � U opH .° 4b 3 ° V Z i C .y a 00 >a O. > o` E V V y V .y i, O .0 c6 U Z U J U 3 7 'O O 0 a .+ v . Fb cvy =° s Hcc 'gao .0 e i 3 c appy UC0 CU r- 4 0 > o CA �v a. c � F m Ny O� U O ° pp C -N .- 0 r- - =03 C C C y Cd 10 `"" Z, O W m O C V V 4000 V r. Q y. sOW ° 705 C R Qr UuL. V Yd CpO s7 .p 0 ' . Eu.a0 U O. y . y U L rz cGd° ° a ° mAW ' ° i OwEAC !+ y�. oA p y R i E •0.c y o a O c y 0 .O > Q °°�' ..� C A. O .a.'a0 p_m y ani .0 .00 y C 8- c - " n E' ° or c' m o H a R a>i o m i V > ° o y A O O b 0 > F O W .O .N.. .>'. D c > V °U' cs poE O p R r L. r- U •o m 3 Q m F axi y Q o ::F v z y E on 0 U Z y 1 � bN+ � R a ~ U v7 R ri V U � W E 1 w Z R F+ ES-22 Garden Street Terraces Project Fina!EIR PHI-138 EXECUTIVESUMM Attachment �J �J fN/1 fNAE yO N 7) N .Li ° R Co •n R 0 0 N 7J N V o• R .O f U c a 0 0 C o b. c N .° V '3 Q � b aD v7. - .b C -0 aN aN w 0. O O.t O V ai c •E c c 3 o yw ++ �' 0 V e0e •0 V m 3 ti 0 O C > u ami c a0i C aci = N o C 7 3 E3C 7 C � R EEda = � a R y ' >' O d .°NVk a z > w zz m OQ 0 O 0. U 0 .0 ° rEca' N CN $ R = V >C C 4 cc .5 R O ' 0Co O O _ °GR RH bo a bA V CDO O -o� : � ' N °. O jt: °� VF♦m+ o.R.+ �-'.O,GOaoiva � w^ :Eo .o° °oC �v wcai pCHoR�°'.�b0 oE..° a V R 'A� yE ai oo w ° o ° V - o3 Ro'O N V . C >Jo pao Q ? ^O C N Cd 0 Oo 'O ° � 0 0.yo. °= OC p R 0 N „ u yO b U O NW O C* > V 3OCy0 p T � y0. b V V d Y � .�GREo7 ... R o N C Go 0 N •0.'U 'b O U 0. N R V >.V L A oq,.^ �+ w V V O V Q V NE .r m > VN ° V ° E � R ,�, va : ° N 'Ero > ORc � y3 � 7 Cd 0 'o � ai ° � � � ag anEy � .o � : o ° :° Q � bcymNo x � O. a ° c •'�' °' o ° y VC X'C C ° O °' ^ o o N c° u ° a y o E- `� y ° b C r ° c. V Ca c ° r- y ao o N O ^ w �tV ��>" yaN y.. NV r°d >i�r .yC .OE = " R >�c•. NL_ °"o ^ ° a p m 'Cu • o ut , c Z mNO O > ° oo d V O C V C w R iG U N F. Ny 'O V own � .NO ° otE3y > ^ .Eo° � oo° o � � e e ' E _ U 0 (A y O {y V Fes.8 tl� y O O QED _ � 'y o ° N = cC3 :: R V V G. ti "a > ti ❑ O °R o X L ° n o x N ° o vii .V M. ti 7 Y m cVo U > N . R 3 O a c S O R O O .a C C N U U y u Vtz N m V O N V •O 7 ,fl. Oy � V ai p u W = °;. R Co V 3 ° ° co R ° U N y a o 0 8 H c 3 ti d E 0 o 0 b R U CQ d > E O R .� V C L .0 d0 ., En ; t SNR r r4 Q a ° c'❑ e•i > 0. y > v 00 di t� A.w 'O ES-23 Garden Street Terraces Project Final EIR PH1-139 Attachment 8 EXECUTIVE SUNK. N U � R m CL 0 a+ u td y .�. E U o M y > � > 7 W R a _ .E y a s „ > v ° b fr V y R c o to 'v� � 3 •N a AOA O C v �. � ° O > N ca E" _= N N w. w C v° „ C U W �.. 0 'O �0 OV O � yR GyCjLA ¢mc _ ? O yk y y° N wROrNOV> 0 7 = y � N v u a 'pCq . NVptO to A CO OA Op.= .a O N C co U v C w R O -y ^ '•C- C yC O O .�7 C .= � a i ° ° c U�+ C ❑+.. p�.., OOy "C°�� >C> •��+ 04 M tovOcs o $o E� wm u q. u W aU ° C 0 4)i L 0 R Ou O .a O 4 7N LUap to 0y UC XCo oya s .a C PoycC R O tu R = Cd • C ° .RC LC .0RC .Oh O R O CLO> CrN0 O °C 7 v a R - ❑ V F U a-0 ..NN R W N C y N .b _N '.-. C. 0 0 ._ .� W N C Y .O C. R R .0 'O 04 �.� 'C a) .y O V O q y j+ R r+ O C 4) OD C C .0 ° .YR. O ° 'O lu r. 3 >q., O �., C v N > t;rfldRD U.NR LwF Ur .ti�. n a Na v-,•c � ' e C ? Cj � •,� Am R° pc ° .V Cm p O ° O > Vo 0 "0 O= ° °R ? cAo F 0 Cai 0 � C C p C 10; C N to O a OW 5 O .0 00 4) to CO Oy > 0O C 0. b R 0 r— UR a S ^ 5 . � m MmX L ' aeoC aO W. C C N C 7 > " � w'a ar Ra..o a 0 0 Cd As a F > > v Q N C R W3 + N O 00 to > I..1 u N f EU y tii a) O V p ° . N O V N p �1 0� S1 R R �•+ U C/1 CL O CL R^ w C R a p 'o F- U c s £ rn c� aw ° N ° U ES-24 Garden Street Terraces Project Final Th., 1_140 Anacnmem b EXECUTIVE SUMMARY U o y C R 0 v 8 U y r h w 0. > a _E a N G lu GO �. n Es GM R y C 7 L C 00 '° G = yCai s o o a� w° •: 'n Gc o — y m m°' ' G¢o Vy] �Op C440 NRO ca 7 u o ` tiz oEc oE y oa'O se �.y L 0 a U m E o a ay y a 3 y R m v o = o L L � o y � coG > s � �' b •? o ao ,oT'� b 3 `0 3 ° q. p�.p yL Ryayi a A , yoNE w o = '?Cc ° ca y > o > vEEC v 0 = O O a= ago C O RhG Ray .•iN�=Rtl° �EN�=oQ." mO>XGU°' b.�E0y .0 .0 OOo. � 0 m U U C = 0 U y . yC A = 4- 0 a •- r OO -0 E o Ty —Sd to w 0C - .0a R C VT y $ O0 - � VOW CO y u - -5 023 to O .Gom i tu � ° ° o 0 � wWcg -- v On G. O .m m G7 R 0 O O. y 0 co oo y > y 0m m m 0 ? Attachment a EXECUTIVE SUVI11. i 'O 7 a �+ u O R v E rA R G7 0 a c 'a ao a R r m u 5 rn <„ R >' vi O O. V � N � � C � .R O 'NO v w d L 7'.�.. :: EL C O I.R. V V O L t O L V 0 L O 'C A ..0 O. O 0. V 7 oq O 'O R y -00 V E■ E °L' o m` = 3 C a> o . L 'N a w a"i C V 0. y C �' s 0 o O C R ts m 3 uo a 9 o o 'E V s° m no o v °L' ° 0 o VLa ao N "Me � ao � O ° .N � � coayyRn °o' � o � g o 0 „�., C.v T 7 i ° • .n > y o � N 03 U °oV w R m > o'o . oU w � QAo .04r 0-0Rn 0 0 0 0 RO b .N.•• U l` U .O dl s y 0..� ° N r R V ..+ T R R o ° U — a Q.= UL ++ R o a aRi «OW ° e .c s m c z y Fr T ° o` > �° 3 N = N y = aLi n y .� e? t 0ami '3 a c C ° o u y Ud m s m 3 0 Cd I."LRV�e.Q'I,I '.'��3V3 LL1Nvvi CmNyL .0LCo r:rI:n. F.I •.V'O. b„",,,.«CV°' wOUwO°V3 •yr�v,. fR0 R . 3 E R0 �to °C = r� 0 0 CV .y N � N ° lLCCQ erOL V C m _ O V O0 O 0 .V V M U Rs Vy .C > CC R O UR3 o m y 0 .0 =0 C C V L y. L: aoRLoC � mCIS Cc n � � w Uo �ava � ° ° cc L A 6W¢1«� wao � R R o R c s03 d °c oe > rL Vx U OIn P Y U R a 8 QM ro N a U P N 1 R ES-26 Garden Street Terraces Project FinanHl-142 iRnammem ?i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY O y w CO p. X ° y y m X U C o E A O C .0 C �� Uc�ar. a m O O ai i. p .� bD00 O � O b0 N � G N C .. . pOjp ep rn ¢ opo a ^ro> o s EEco y U 7 at y O wC Os 0. a7 . 0C U3 •y U y C w � a COV] + •N NO E roym N ° 0 5. tV y o ° >ao . 4yH ° y ^ ° o onte .; o ^o s ar. •"�OO L ❑ C C. y N 0 0 C U V ,� C E U C UW 'D 0 in v 'C L_ V qu r- OD COw d ai V paAE "N i 0 E" b —� . d a A •y �.? 3UEv°yU 0 v0 Ly M C U N � O CyiO .d C 0 vAa b v ° a > � o > C =aoa o Am . o� a, ° , 03 o r ° tFy��a a E ° aaY ° a ' 2 0 -0 Ca° 0 wd ° Cu f "or- =".E y o Cd 0aai " w O E C O 0y 0 NO E U N N C NN Va mc o A ou � o 0 S Ui c y 'd ai fl a °, `" s .?;E" A a°isx .5 0 V1 as 'O 3 L V a7 .3 0 b0.7 .� .V+ 0 .d U y C C in y. yam' •• v� F- O y -0 vC, C 0 ti.. q .a m .d ca d cC .0 v °O, y.� U OL 0 S a� d s aCi `o o oo 2co .- c = . fl o Cym o v O ° wqu V m LU > rcm = ` ai ° E aOcyv`= vCO > 0 � a = 0 4) Cm ON y "0 o o d ro ° m cV ' oo oO °° a Ai m C%1 r 0 U O 0 'a rn ••Vi y 'r"' t~a C U U rU. v m X u Oa y y 7 N a E oou . G > Ty O .0 O. F u m y C C F o yy O M.0 h t M C7 N y O N Garden Street Terraces Project ES-27 Final E/R PHI-143 Attachment 8 EXECUTIVE SUMN., ,l N N N e. M R M R R �� y Iii y ` bC rz O ° .E ZE .E w t^ Y N y y w N C N G wU O Ey y cRi w d 'O d•p L w ai w A w R = .m w o w ° a = Gw a ' ° 0 ° o ° o E o y 9 c N ° ay ° ° +> 0 "0 010 ov ° TN U a C E R L p N U U >>) O O O 00 O O 0 U '^ y ca C •�.. O Y O Y o Y C '70. i m OW C .0 G C .0 °= cc 3 > o S e c G °-�° a� _ o N R eD o > o > o > E o m O U "O VJ Zx .� y •ti uv R R 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 c m OD O O9 O r L c c = m ` N y C U '>G to V] DA w A R. LV ca w 'N 0 U L N U Cr = [~ a>J u O C M u N C y..� U 'O .ORD,� as U > b .w0. y ..U. C " 0.. 0 '? -^ m N aCi •C ,S d �RR '� u X IG N p 0 G� t;.0.• •p y L U am" Y N R V N v O Y 3 W G N U OD U U U Y 7 R Q 7 ,� O L O O U N M x Z- V � U ° w >c_ v > � � a3iu = 0u 0a� 3 C X C L U 'UO R C 3 u U ° O U C W M14 U R C U �^ OU G E" fC R Y 4n R U > ti0 '7 U0 c C. ao d ti o . o oD c c w ' Q a0i c 00— W —a a0.i m a 0 Q o d on 94 U ^ L o O x o ++ a cRa0.c OiCo F u u y � H„ ` °Ec 4 R O cc V Y ° 0OD c U 'o E -uc 0 ' U w >, R V C ;*1O ?' R .. T w � OD U UY R ° .0 3 t7' aw0+ N C to w w O C .L Co o .U. C O X c' .p L ..V+ u C 3 �V, 0 9 C R O N .0. cue 0 V U C „0 i.r C C m P. E O V y R •� p y w C U O R bD.0 0 R ° Cu o ° s o 3 c °Y' y ” e 30 0 R R u g � a c — U R. ca C L: V y C 'O .n U RC R Vf fti C U O R ~ E U N — FU. U U N R v L N 'J ^ N C L E GA N U 0 U y y H U O U N O R >+ ... 'O U N C R 0 -0 N '0 '> .�• "' L Ly _ 3 Y N o a ' vNc � `m u a3hCL O. V o T> o a°, boa = � au � 3o:= m aXit ° v ° °P. . E o c O 0 - -= u N GJ - U u - N 0 - o " Y C. U R 0 r x y o 3 y ? A 0. N y 0 o ° U 0. N N � 3 3 u a. Cd ° a u T o N 'O 70 0 U b 0 O N E V a' N O N O �" R y i3 U c .b U 0 C.°: > p� C.� 0.0 > c? y � ° R y W o = u R w —_ c s a. C R C U ° O F U C U oV C F" U G U N Tia U u N a'u •C o R F O O 'S Q=) 'R' N NO �" R A. N R O L= U C C C c'OaZi. — 'w is •� O 9:6 CLO ° .UC a o OW x°'.� °o o E c in d a o a3i o 0 E C7 c N a N u C7 U N o o U U C7 U N a a a aD R e% x R u v 3 u ES-28 Garden Street Terraces Project Final EIRHl-144 Attachment 8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY y b 7 H _ U V � r ++ V O y Ca GJ 7 U y O d C E j� E U � L° vw C F cp 'Ca y C N C 1. A CC, N :C R C r vi U y U N a p - a-�, 3 y $ U m. 3 c°o A vi 0 .Y°. -C 'a m C a'a[~ CU 'O00 uUr 0YU R m CR . m O U .p bC ti H •�+ .LO' F.Oj �op..0U C .dCyD M CwoA - cpd O R 00 A C CYcciO ca h Cd. E .3 y E° E O y " ci OA 'C m Q' C C = E V :C C Y O O "a U Y .0 Cu b On Y W ur uJ ' Q CL.� o onA 1-0 (D -0 o s r � o Y+ ti �.0 � � T. s N a i U n v ° U = v .y °' C y m M a f� p a m A C E pQ : .E s o v v cCa ° adi : on i o U c z ° =' w a y to d y C b .? m C bU m w Y 0 C R N V Y 0 C CCa > p �D c F O C O ,> C C Y Cn.. . y 3 O U 'O U > R ca :p C O U O R z E G U U GG a� 10 u o c°� 0 ° m ... 0 -0 3 a � m = .e 3. a C ° E 3 'E E p d C ° d ° aOD ¢c ° y ._ C �, o b �= Ca .E v U c e > u �_ F R O U U '� .N U d v0i ca d 3 C 0 d.0 :: N ,� - = E ° =' C. �n U U U U .� .v-_ ° Esq ° "a==— on to oEodE pyv 3E : - u c .c ° 0 m F m e �C_ o o E h o : on 0 o C ° v o cto o u U C r y 'O yr <..� 'en C y b c" O M �- E ° d- , C OD'a r `� C U U F L^ �°r 3 aOi Ca .a c c m p y •= m b �° c C7 7 C d •^ 3 m o ami .� C m C to ° m 7 .Y R " G O O m N . C YO y CN 'C Cu y = 0 m 03 y y ti Ca d . ,.0 a yO .c axi A M 'ci °n °= u ° a a °= r d y yX E w c b ° � c.0 0 � - s E O ul O ca '..' H C to .«—�a.. N .vCi y •O Y �' ca 'O d ca r0n 'p -. R R 0 CU 0 R tro 'fl .-. ,U m a+ b td 3 i C ca 1C U Y tYa m. ..0 O O > .0 0 r c.. C C V m «'7 C O d 'O O f° > E .0„ q Op N C L+ M L U N G. aNi A " O > ca O 2 m I vi ;; = R cC C � ca U y r? U CQ 3 O •� Q N U 7 y m C x '7 N Q C d y N y Y >. ca E .� E E .�m v, Q U 3 N v� a� Q Y .�4 c a x 3 Y ca ° d m w c m a°i ai o a°oi v m y C� m o x c C •9 a� x o 0 E s a ° Y a U o : 9 Y Y o > p : c m E y C > > = Y U Y p O Y 0 '.0 Y O �+ R wr ^y Y r„ 0..� Y O C E -E ca R w en. d ca R co c... c.. 3 U E G v, m d.. ca m m U U < Gn R A U U .L E O O O N > R � ~ C u C R . m CC h F C r Vr U V C O U y "0 0 7w 5 H o E 3 .0 c p C epi ston myo o o-' C x d �� ,D � 0 m 0 E o m Q R o Garden Street Terraces Project ES-29 Fin at EIR PHI-145 r - Aftaehment 8 ECECu nyE Sum& ! N N R Y C C O N O N N CRD O 000 p a� 7 E u •E U p 0 O E ..N. o 'p C. C CO G O p 10 i7 R N y " F" Y auiC� c Rc ° m '� o oP? oD.E "_' o o c VJ O L -+R'. ._ — R ►O.� C 'Oy p N U cR> yfc RN>d R. to U k O o O opO .- R >> L•s� R .O sO NNR ''O CQ • O $ T O OmC U b R 3 c-7j 'U O :� OL ° A 'v ,O. CO 'O N - boCL cL0 .D C =N. U y N C NUU) g E °p X 3 ° 0. c m °' = .0 R � > >° ° o . a o o � 'E � E N„Lo= NQ .v= up oa oD N^ ^owu- • yA Y 0D.O C = T o N o OaD! NN= O> .= "a o aRi � s y= a U oo rz u O a. O C Z >1 U E bo a ; .= L o £ /y0 .0 imEmv cL _= sat . r. O :: m aL) •C V N O C == C V C N V R O = .0 .y ="O O E u w > O A v p m C O= i •w .RC 3 d,_ `O' 'C y r° CL 0 c7 O (U C O H N E ^ v G C a> O N p ° s O « O ni >. u C 'O s 'y ._ ° Av o � aki 7s = a° d ou c > ? c o a O .?, CL p "IOU A o p c0 .` p N aEi 'i :: rNii .E Q s C bD bCD G cUe O WI y = L Q¢ = R = V C. to—— O N r E YO 'C b Q U R y cC C N L V O p y [� O L p m '� C R 7 R L „U„ i p 'O = r. 'O L (Q VrL R V s 0 7 U O. 0 .0 s L O Co O E L :: 'N 0 cd p 4'. X .O E .N d R c 3 0. t 4 U ^° N :E N o b y = •� V a, 0. c o R.'L 0 4 R u E s 0. .. s s = N = u U N R ca ¢ 'C R p '- y 0. d CC y 0. E- O i- .O C 'N — ,a? y Ct, N O 0.s N «'L. Q E C O R •y C ~ C.7. N C 0 U N ai C aX 0.z t ai 7 axi .Lys 2 V .N. L N i �•� O — � V N 4.. M R '.0 aU.•� � b R L7 y Q. � R R N i ca 'T R ^ p � D p N m s co _ N co 'N s N ° _ ? N u G C .° o A N a oD = N v N E a A X .a _C Q X .� m Y '.��' ,O Q y N 0. Q ao C .° Q u Q 5 p p o n = ” x " H u C o ,; .� = s o no � F u0. y � ° � a .> CobA N �p ? QOp 4- 95 ?? o ° c E Eyd .� .�p o 'c = p Ly+ sm CD > > a y m to .� C O �Cy V O O S W v a) N Oy c3' 7 CL E E 7 C Do COU N :fl = O N N 06 rz t w 0 E of C •O SCJ X cJ L C O W 3 a r m ° ° r ¢� .CO.. ° R T F O N °0. .?; ca «Lp N > o 0 0.a A X Zo n.s .R0E x � axi3 ca ri X ES-30 Garden Street Terraces Project Final Elk Hl-146 \ EXECUTIVE yent S s 6> Q N L' N y O GCO C R O Y V w V •� U OA >r V CJ E'. G b N y 0 7 b C O N E v m N 0 C60 0. v o0.20 0 0 "a O 75 a N O U E c' 3 A U E c c ° ° 3 s ° no Cn E = o o o y a o a b o O N 3 OO p °D 0 s C O a a 3 p s R c >, e m ° m Y c J a; 3 m ami > d X .a ° v y c Fs c C p N o s � L v u ° ro b 3 co G w n " Cd O E 0. v c°i - s °= s m R 05 o°Lo� m - to v ? � v ^ 3 0 0 m �D `o = Via` 7 s y N 3 ° o N o a ° N Y Q "° ° os c c ° Np A ' Ea C N ed oa.) 3 : L ° ¢ U o U .> u o o = m o os .9 s m cR � � v h__ x > � pe2dac UC7 ' gcoc _ 0 L E E i¢ Q) C TQC .V LO ° r Y V O Y N .y U .°. V to m Y Y � 3CN 0ocsv° > c y � yy a.m 000 S. v4 "J ..i 00•:. .0..4: «O. a tE N > L' L Cr V QOO �d -0 C" C -Q 0. y m p o .q o b n c X oO�o O ' a 3 m € � c°i e 3 L; ` ° 3 ' y d p at v c ° O °. ° c m 0 3 m a 3 v 9 .a p n v 3 e o w y .° 3 p A CO b `o m G v c y • U ° Ea) ° 3 m a e 3 .0 � v m o 3 v wo R m m u d 22 n `a n E �n oQ c m o o oa a' °' c > c 3 m a' W > C o° ° m U C. a 'y � C a ti 7 ° O .- V ci N an d C s ° ai i•' m V E.y N O m O _N^... > '> O y .d VJ m w as ap. y C N O L O Q O aV+ > F 'gy p^ a� N .p E V N N :O y 0. y .Nn Y O O >� .N O i.. Y :+ L C L U O C° to V) U ai°i o n " ao a s u '� c_ c c N a°, .o o m Y' ° Z `m y o E 4 = � Noav 'ymc Ua; � � oc n E " 0.s0J CO C N 2 . V y od U o e o c sN :S •V c y y J a° R a :° v °Y' °o U y o 3 .9 Na0.i 3 ° e ao m ' o R n ° u o .sCm y c a°i L° k °J x p O a 0.A $ co R OD aCi '$ uCi d axi • • • • y YM 'O y y >1 m Z .CO..m b °06 . � _ N va N C C ♦+ N tUO U Y C R U O p a y p C o ? 'b C a U 00 W s C ° U C m •= c N o 3 m to '0 -m ca m 0 � 'N .o aac eve Lz7 >, c Y O is O C A - mo 3 O o N F 0. 0 C CO rU3 .Y. .C O E CVS Garden Street Terraces Project ES-31 Final EIR PH1-147 1 Attachment 3 EXECUTIVE SUMD. i b 6� 7 C v� w v p R v E 6l 7 6> v 0 u t.: OD — .L O O O = y 00 y R .t .0 y R. O a 3 T O "' N = L" �" .d. O t .� ,°' o = c c y A ° 3 = R ° 3 3 .a 3 FD IV 0 °_' U A v O d��eo i3 aaEEi tms" =o nE ,Rj Wa ° 9 p 0 ?W° D"R 'c°7 U 9 . E 0 = 0 y R o a Z ° i ati m cN ° x > � 0 d y ° 0 c o io ° e O w d R V —O r1 OL G y w r y y /•�•� .OL 9Ry = :bL •r 0O °a t . m =. Vs S N Q u O = O = R w =bL C • r 0. N - r-A. > O °R 06 r r P. R v 7 O.. t u y d OL H "' .°�, _ O a y -0.,� R 0. R X E . _ W a> a6i a OD ; ° ° o co b L ' Y oo_^ o .5 E ° O a d ° L L = b a L o 'fl _ 0 y Cr MO C1 a ° a R b 3 R C 'y R = ° — = L = v a+ yam, C O 0 E S N A R ' � .o rO i 3 V y >,w R 0 = .-R .: �.fl H am _ .0 N ° a — 0 A o°'o s 3 0 w o 'm •c r- o Wo o .b .T Op y c > E = Y m ° S uR m C. Q E 3 Q y = R F O L O — _ _ O = .E E O E O d y a> O 00 R R 'a P. �+ O a•O OL d 'E R to�'" R O C' O �. O R .0 y V R = V .L N 'C O y .._ ". .� R = R O R Q € o A to A .� ' L •� aLi ° v o v ani y 0 0 7 c > Q y v ° a 3 3 ° 'o C E ° s 0 � — o b 0 o E ami E c e ? C : � �+ y ao = Q y Q V U) a V E- L Q e°n ° S 0° `a --c S H E • v m a E y y R � U � E N W d R F ES-32 Garden Sheet Terraces Project Final EIRHl-148 � I Attachme EXECUTIVE SUMIM RV V L R R c to to v E E R c c R o 3 � •3 = o a � .E � N3 � E ? p N R R 'O �, N o ° R 'WD E -°o '� o° a E M F R ° N L^ O G U L O w y a°i L 0. 0 _ o o e'" 's o ao c .' 03 caRi G. O R C ca O A ,U :r y .N. T.� C E C C 7 C N L tye •R U U U O .M.. E c0 H C F tt U R R R CO N O .L .0 U 0 U ^U p `' ° p, N �° °'�C+ y Y, O R N a `° c ,u N L. co c «. a (� R E'4 .� � 0. U E U 0 a0.i O U Y t b c a E � � h ° � ° s ° s a 3 e ^ � 'R e c N ,� c °° o °_ � '3 O o r y N O G' r R U (�„ .^ w. N to E R 'R b' a y y U C N ' a 0 7 c S p v c°> > o0 o m o ° E � .- CO U N R Oq E L' O �• S N R C _ y •'C• O L vi p y � y E '� > w p w U C O C aai O y `° C R c 0 v Cu N °' a > °: G m °.' oo d R a C m 3 m .E 0 1e_ A oOi E U 0. v N YO .� m y = lC C y O '� O L L C C 7 N .L V U v a°, � N c ° 00 C3 0 a to a o E ^ c � a a3 � E Ej c vw a o > x R S U R �� c - Rb o c ' = L o 0. R on 0. N C o = c R ao LEv � ,_ = acoo a o ° a� y, 00Na.5a •v M to d O U p. '-' �. U R .0 0 O. U O p w 'O � v H m 0 U .R H N R ca 'C O C N rn, OA V U � C y •� m m 2 -0 7 '-' r, u � y L E R F m E ? o E y c '� .�°', oJ o _ a c Q o°o u y L a � L b o o p p c ,o, v R c .o ° y U y c .0 E R o U d O I O` i R y Y ^, .O L 4. . .� y T N ° .; .Sv. N .-Yi U N rC.. U N C R L O N R �R � ° U V R V R b V �o V y°3 0 9:6 Lv en E c ao s E a� aci q -5w o ,E, o Zca 00 °o O E aai m a A aai r w > bD 3N0n. OU .003oa ro � 3N . o .. RL .�'. ° o era E to •c. R 0-4 O a? O O T 3 N p R > U FSI URro) D U U R WD Cu M-C R •' OL OL 'E c 0 o 0 nw .3 C C 00 00 V1 C.•gin Ca A•vi U N R Garden Street Terraces Project ES-33 Fina!E!R PH1-149 M.___. Attachment 8 EXECUTIVE SUM b R U 3 7 a E .a-vn E � Er O o aNi m 0 o y s CO o . w 0 oO o 7 V O E U G U W .fl Guo a C R O R �y U T. R U � U �3G a ^ 0 0 0 VJ Gn .0 3 ,G O .1'7 On > R Y y G:: O 0 r` G U ri t OCM > N Cr Q . ' pc OmU° .MV OR c 0 to > r. ° r. cs at o Zo g O •o >N _ yR O 'O G G ' i C¢ N O N N �C es 00 y V y tea+ Ql ° (.y R (� a 45 0) R A N ° G G �. 4J G G, 0 CO C .D G O R �M A ^ u w O N C U G O R G > U b L :d O R .3 > a E c E N G'; ° y 0 Q O y 0) � ^ a R 0O y Gid � O ° O = a V 00 OL 0 0 •�. G .N .O C D � y O �_ '0 Y 7 'U G MO 3 Z R ti' O N C Ca"' v� C ° N R m •JN G C a� •� O W. OD O L"' ate. .� QO Y .d y .� L E G..., L ° 1y0 U .G = y ° Y G 4a y ° R ^p O it R N Y O O R •«+ OD K rn V y O «. O CR ,g OC " E e E Ra .o 5 ° s ° a`b'2 =W ° > E v ' °' s v L° A v � � c R ° E p v R ° > c v s a3i = = o q v o E o ' 3 G w ewe o a Ga a o � >> AO c ^ y' `oma c°� '> a, y V. a 0 , A ° v � � v o U Q o E y R R R V t � "3 M ° G c 0 R N 'G U R w WU O O > O ' y G O � Y °' ,]E M N O y y C rn G � ;5 en E ° o33 _ ca c++ �= ao uldE ° C ° >C7 d m cp co C vE4c s° N Q) flvyCl) C � F/ O X O O Q > * CO N EN d '3 $ = .c a ° ° O ° > c �°� o , ° > 0o .EoEoS ` z vaU woa zz ° 7 o mRN�cR p '� R o d -' R •- ?� Y � � a L bn a .E > ° E O Q ° 0 G DA R V N wJ ••Ui R .= U .> y .> a LQ U � � � •L a k � G H L N O Vl P d O C _ v w s m •n a' OD > v M O Cu y Q .9 N Z N C A M O 0 :.2s z 3 x v c M Z a > y ES-34 Garden Street Terraces Project Final 1-150 Attachment 8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 'n R m = C aRi� O r" O aRi o E O OL E "0 = 0 � — o R 0 o u 0 o R ,o U = 4n = 6n E � : � y E � : A ^ a a > C a o o = E a d p = op u pp u e o = >1 rz E '- v R a (�wy x o y R N uj N =' Cd 0 o00n ° ° N 7 E RC a R OCGu L �i U u . ° GQ o` s cb v N =D. u c °o °' 0 ° oNN ciU.. .0m Uto Co c > C= _;RO O T 00 y = 5° y R a"N h = _ R U .p LR r y LL Y M �. to 'C m R O yr R00 r. R � G0 "o -0R= wy 0= = __ = U 'p R u > . > E R > eu 0 -0 > LauCOp E7 p Q Oto . .oE30m > o v Cb t OD CS >, , Q = v =° 0 °R XOa � � a � � O O U 0a U Q ed 9:6 U wo m cc = = oop ° > 10 .0 Mo = 0vousc m c o b m i0 0 O Ly:Cubn OUa.=a_i Ua . Acm 3R Zc2 U CC%1 axUi O>'wsu O° 'Dp7 A'.° ,Hd E b = OfVa � o o oc 3C z� z ° � "az 0. p > m 0 rom uw VNw v CQ ` U y e o -='� y ti G O I—I ri O y �; � •— y .3 ' ati o 0 3 a E n c Co U o ° = u � n .5 y O R O 0 u y F ti i o 0 a C = N i v u d 1 '� y y •� >� w U V 7 p •-Uiwo R 0 e > ti ° '= E w o 4 y 0 0 o a 0 c U � y y R O E O N R 0 0 k a zov zo0r y �I R M w 0 y W a 0 .5 Garden Street Terraces Project ES-35 Final EJR PHl-151 Attachment 8 EXECUTIVE SUMN.-.� C w oc c °d c o c c v .. voo •ro C Ru 3 _ po R A O y O p LO a L' y «• Ca R ."' 1 c um 0 to _U A o ao A � 'o c c a u c 0 x 3 o ao- v v u L p c 'fl b p O R C 3 DO y 0 7 y Ca O w $ ao 3 "? m 3 '� v a aTo—.S o Sb v E U 43 m R A 0 3 N y E 7 ^ O u E W .�0. .d U ru 2 — O u N u u b o '•ui C cN0 C ¢, O ro a) V R �.p m e m O u 1 R .0 wo .0 � :d^ v Cu at 4U �, u E b y .E ^sF• � G R p o 0 c nu " = t: 43 � oa � ° � r- ° 0. '021 N ... E 7.L O 3 y C6 E o 3 Cr o y e_u a > -p .O U `� yr EJ.'O U L y v y "a g:6 u .+oR+ip yL yF7poO s Ro EO po v p ca N yd .� ac: • p� Cy pC , v .p O Ca y v c u 0 mo • c a U La W. o A ] y c p cc Ev a o L y = A A d u O p Gq d y .3 `m •E v A = b O v 7 m = gs `m v. 17°° y o o c C o vr, ao'v i ° to ,Q, ° o E o o° m � C s R O 'y � C d X N p y C N p u O. y O y ❑ p X U o c ed 3 p oo ; v a O u :a U O cR Nv N m R R = en CLO 0 L'[i�a:mRQ�v'.,. �G.+ ',".0ovc�pc '�'�.OvNoO..+. c.•O:vC00 4ZWv°Oy°L.•'Ooa_3 .Vmu1 _oO _" 'EO„, -0Nv ca0 •,`�3Ryy 'c ° oO_ ' >+�•ai pOv ty pLp°7'ro , oS mSCOU N RU P. 03 O _ O O > N tw'£dc '•A_yuvN.. w`yNOa1° E � Or �sW�,OyN v v cn amn c , V DD O V p E> c N L v U 'D > U FO C Caw N U Cu OA OOGu p a R c17O = 'DR mOC p omu u E R Sc aE s E E ... nCz '° 2a .o o y o U O C c = N Ccc R m 3 O y L' ti N p O a b O y ?L Q” i o c n m V wJ C a c 3c ° > y ° � .EQ £. . ouq o 't.,. Wo r C �' R v R 0 '— G N C0 .B C O to O > u C tr w v c o4 p v ca > Gz7 n' y '... � oi°o� � ❑ pct a•y � v � E F U °: C au V £ v °° F- m •� R 'yp N p �. C w .E •C L E ._ F- A t� F- U .°'.. 4c0� aU4u aax ES-36 Garden Street Terraces Project Final EM-.- 1-152 - Attachment 8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY -- o t ri G) cE y •� 3 y s a> y '� s L . L N y N V V N N N y u .cm � Eu; .S > E .= A ,tm .a.; 0 b `• 7 ° E o 3 —0 c o . 0 c°� 3� '0 m > a Ev E � R . cabi �.l aQJ > x° as = ° ~ ° � = E U Lp v a, 0 cb ° c - > fJ a ? ° 3 c ° ° c L: O V y V C O Y u 0. qe •° y u a C N y •O04 C .E .E '� Fs- .£ . •y° a` ° C CQ w �s o o • a as° �mLo3 �cwe 5c W c 0 -0 Z,; R y ' ° r.y o w .E Cl) em = afN �L a p ° EE to 14 0 7:1 r. ° "' � °Er O c 0. Ea ° ossF4°py�moncoZ 0MM . o 0 - v = .o ° Ea i y^w-swama�N eo oosm ' > � c � a O Cr o R ° yy U ' do cM . 0 ' =0 c0 c — 'a -0 .0 c E -00'-w IV En w -0 U N u U 0 C yy, i�cs«V C* p > p > c Nd , i Co to .3=o a Nto a >1 f u t ai o Es c c y Cd r- > U O to r. ; c - N � na4 U •� o c0 (oua ° ° ° EDyuE > 03 c x By o° yA w La.c_ ' oH �'•� °o �0 Jt: a tu ° N ° .° LZ 0sto cU ° ocH� "° o ° p 10 C3 rs 00 r c ° °° ca v ° c CD � , w cya o0 O N o $ o a u 11Em U =E ' E0 aE °° O `o o CJ c. o c o L u L o C L aE o N C10 U U ° V Ow N O W C U a .d R R u .0 u s p C on 3 . O w ° 0 °0 o c tu N y 3 0 = .y E E aE o CA to U U N CJ 'O c 'O 3 U) t° O w 0 E :; m .0 L c V `� a� N � c � a � ° � a .E � mwFaxa a a o °' R A O e b •� 3 4 00 o E d iU. V A aN. 10 �"' h p 0 R b ¢ = O > �U. ` 3 a. 0. c w V C G x E O O N U L o o o ti ° E ° 4 °, to o o a • ; y L i p 0. R 10 0. R ° C u L S ° - oo ° _ c O c E Em c C, a.E > .E A o y aA R ° ° c M a s 0 o L 7 a a.. m o a a a Garden Street Terraces Project ES-37 Fina!EIR PH1-153 EXECUUVESUMN. Attachment 8 N L Q 4 R O y Es T d N oA•C O R ayi R L O 7 'V R R O p 7 R t O 7 ae Q V L �. T 4Vn .vi E oRo o o ti d aRi a fl X .° aCi N .° aCi 'O A ` Yoi C7 b C V O > O C U = 'O .O C u G C O D a � == R ' w 3 °a m ' 3 en 7;j r. V y 0 C y C C N y C y C C vi Ocm 0aEiaEi 0 7 W aEi o > > U .c y O 00 H U S C t .0 T V .L O h• C N R ... C y y D 3F to T C V O 4 V O 0 o4n ybD •vE 4 .�a O L : •y V U 4c. Q AoCn °° 4 Q N >y y O wo c> a ° CL QN . Cn Y to o 0 00 .Q ni 4 a N o 0 E 0 E .° E 0 Op N 0 C3 C U U y a L 4 a CZ 7 0 R C' C0 V C .07 y R O •.' A a t •"�' U � A r1 y � Q .y N R y v o0 4 n 03t •0 3 n E E 0 c $ 'u R R 0.� 5 E o `o ACi m ° a r y ,OO = yco c .a oy � '_ ' Ew aQ V '- O�MU ocU . gi .9 .4 —a A a oaR° Q v 0 c a.RtIl ya) lQ °L •2 N > E > � t V C °n Q ^ i.r U=l Lff 'D 'C: O 0 U0 .0 O U 10 ' >A � L °m � o c° E � 00 0UR Qa� Q o o O, Z G" N ca C. R o o T OC t m 3 o Q° 00 o r- ca a 6 .0 ca L• x3�.' c CRaci .0."> Oa NNy .VE U = vNU m oC0 N> p O M a0 .0 E K R N Y Nt .fl v CQ o c:'p R o m C O¢ aV•o-i rFl O N c q 3 •°7 u O p aVi v Li O U on Q N N a N 'y .0 3 :E U � � N 3 _ yU >, m CL Y' E O O L O y 44 v T U N 0 a R GA U U Vl V R Q U E s z a c u > ° E c E Ln o V s L a C O b C R R O Ca Cd 0. yM y O mmO 3 ">'+ C R.U. OL Gz7 0 > N RORc O — C N 0 R N a N •m � M ES-38 Carden Street Terraces Project Final EIR PH1-154 Attachment 8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY N N 00 0 C .` *00 V N � � CYI °u E ov R L O ' L U 3 7 ° z o _ .°O o c R o c G x 3 0. 0 3 0 co 010 M C S a w qn E E � R fn O N = vi .y � 0O C p L- 0N N R03 CS oCu w 0 u E E o° ' E a^Ni E o o 0 v w c E . uvE ENOo C to 0A N O N T c 0.� a T y 0 U L a0 _ a 00 o O ai ou w m .O u N Nis �' " > `'°" a a aaio 'p O, O .a pOOO 000 AG �.E 1°5, ` wc " "> _ 0. ' u 3 4U . — o x 0 u U C o a o a �•E00 ns ° y to n Uo o o o o a> O pa.0 0 0 0 Co O ca N N C Sd N E .1 O w 4 R tr. U[��1aQQ.-+� -'.."--Ca," �>uOc0C>A.VO .•°O.Uua ,f9 .� CC C° s"' C.V ACca °0..�n N . yNN0.EE .GNaEU > s�O 0UN? LNC°u0. 0y wawG� GoO4cGL0.c V° o oCC 'D E o ° ' 0 C a aN 0 NO C C E u 00 e 0 Cp > a Ny C a S u u R uai p BD O 4) 0 u U. ` ° R 0 cac m .c p. OwE .0 0 -0 m ] tc ww�aafNa,+ ' 7v Lu o ya v A a: F o u ❑ n A n c cis 0.e a ° .° R c °CIO F. ~.dC.+ todLo vuai y ai Eua`� N . 3Cw3c ci p o o ` m° = o nc 0E .�0. ua Kxw=ya Co -0OL. � CLO u y z oa u 0. ° > >o = amy ° n. yL , =U icu " Cn c U p to 0 ❑ i 0. rL m0.U _ a>i a e o ami • e CO 0. E N n Cis w C7 w C7 U O O a w 4 aO N L at C a) 'C Tca c? LV d c= u >, = o Cr v 0 0 0 E C u O O .a N v N s Y o p. p 480 A E 0 3: as u L o U 'a Cn •u v -0 0 o E R c o w E t y V E 3 °0 3 O o 3 o E ° ° O u ca u O y 4 0� " 3 oaEie :� o �' a •v `u° w � •v o � u � s 'o u am Z R .E CO ea G y C 000 0 y L U N 0. 0 •_ _ TE o N c u E 3 'E .c v F" CL E v 'C F v a' 0A 0. u Q u 10 0 0 .E m M 0. 0 .5 '0 = .L > Garden Street Terraces Project ES-39 Final EIR PHI-155 ( •, . --� attachment 8 Euc nvE Sumk- ! J _o ^� >1 N O CIO to y y N ° a O C 7 C. 0) N ° b U d 0 a0 0A 0. C 0 x 8 E u a s F Owe_ Go O .° 'D N C-4 V1 L O N cCv O y y c c7 w O C A eaF es ; = d o s ° a.0 L V .°u - uVi 66 0 ° E GQ .t ZQ 00. 7 O L H O w .. O rn C >1 > W C R > 4. a R R 10 tCt a to V R O � ° L G n o N a0i E=i w CcC* 00 'n2 ° o ° � a� °sem o° > = °m 3 0. 0 — : ea ao � " R c _ co . V Mo a3i .E c � d ? Y p u ° c Ca Cd cs '! 7 CJ u 00 a'Oi `o w CO c °' 00 A � � 00 a x a. m R a y Q C o > = Q ° = " o ofl0 a a O 3 Ari O r n c ate'+ C U A CQ O d � U y 3 w � V •� R c V ti u d o � � vv N � � N � e�i oa y c F N ES-40 Carden Street Terraces Project Final EIR PHI-156 '1 Attachment 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY N � 00.10 Cc Cu Cz L 2 C Ea~Vi U 0 >� C' A O 0[�D CO CO .O r � ¢ U Q. V N N N [q L m o E a R C* m Cd °' ° ° .fl — , Q s C U y y y y A _ CQ ° GLV+ •" R y !"' a s E 3 ° R. 0 0 0 2 C 0 >,.°D O O 0 O N >>�U„ Q '� .b R N R c0 ctl cc N4 Q ¢ ¢ C RmE >2Ev .E E E E w a ea u L' C C7 t F W2 H Cr V L N Y N d b 3 3 3 3 3 QN N N N N Ca N L Y V Imo. 4 V 7 7 7 7 N N N N N E E E ea d F 0 0 0 0 0 .+ ° 06o on ao CIO 00 CJ z z z z z i w >1 N C O C O V N c " w � y 3 P,V] ° O C. L ,O 3 . N � .o a i 3r. O R ^� ° cy/1 a� C ea N 'O O � '- O. O U sv. R..^ .=L. 0 � .^u U b ra O .to U U H N A. y � :C Owl o N 0 ° o v o a E > o ° U � � � � o n_ oa no ° R o R .° N � .G . O d v°i .Lv L d u q N � . Nr > 0 .G C,4 .. M Q cp a� Garden Street Terraces Project ES41 Fina!EIR PHI-157 I November 2011 RED FILE To: Mayor Jan Marx and City Council Members MEETING AGENDA DATE ITEM #-F-Ll From: Deborah Cash, Executive Director SLO Downtown Association Re: Garden Street Terraces The Board of Directors at its meeting today voted unanimously to send a red-file recommendation of support for the Garden Street Terraces project scheduled for discussion on tonight's Council agenda. The Board reviewed the project with the principals and once again was reminded of why it has supported this endeavor since the project's inception. The Board feels this project would be beneficial for Downtown and the community and is in accordance with Downtown Association's Strategic Plan goals including: 1. The project offers a diverse use of mixes. With infill development contributing to a dense, cohesive Downtown and offering better use of surface parking property, Garden Street Terraces brings much needed commercial vibrancy, essentially converting `underutilized' real estate to a better, higher use. 2. The project fulfills the goals of encouraging housing and hotel development, balancing housing with commercials uses and improvements that will appeal to overnight visitors. 3. Garden Street Terraces retain and expand on the unique pedestrian character and small town ambiance,particularly in protecting and capitalizing on Downtown's historic resources. Besides the commercial and living areas, the project provides public spaces and opportunities for art, entertainment and events. Furthermore, the developer and the project team have demonstrated their commitment to the community by responding to sentiments regarding massing and historic components of the project and have redesigned and reconfigured the project accordingly while maintaining the viability and integrity of the overall objective. The Downtown Association Board fully supports the Garden Street Terraces project and encourages the Council to consider the above points as pivotal to the future of Downtown and vote this evening to move this project forward. Cc: SLO Downtown Association Board of Directors Hamish Marshall, Garden Street Terraces hard NC ' email 0 OOLRdQL D CDD DDt George Garcia, Garden Street Terraces o CITY MGR D m DIR Agffo PWWDDL CHIEF Carol Florence, Garden Street Terraces o o T[ORNEY AMRM o FDM D CLUMRIG o POLICECHW D PIE o PARRSRRECDDt 0 TIUM E D UMDDI o NEW TDW D HR DM o SLGCIIYNEWS o COUNCIL G QTY MOR o CLM RED FILE MEETING AGENDA From: Chuck Crotser<ccrotser(a,gmail.com> DAT �F 7 �/ ITEM # t� 1 Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 18:01:54-0700 To: Andrew Carter<ancarter(a,slocity.org>; Dan Carpenter<dc4Ment_,slocity.org>; Jan Marx<jmarxnnslocit .ororg>; John Ashbaugh<iashbaug_(a,slocity.ora>; Kathy Smith<ksmithaa,slocity.orP,> Subject: Garden Street Terraces project Honorable City Council members, I am unable to attend the upcoming City Council meeting as I am away from San Luis Obispo this week, however, I'm writing in support of the Garden Street Terraces project. I have had the opportunity of watching this project evolve over many years. I was actually on the CHC when the project was first proposed, thus I'm quite familiar with the significant changes that the project has gone through as a result of staff advice, advisory body review and public input. I applaud the architect and owner for having created an exemplary project, which should be given final approval and allowed to move forward. Although the original project met City goals and objectives as well as nicely conformed to the Downtown Concept Plan, the concems with height, bulk and preservation of historic structures seemed to be a concern to some. Although I personally support slightly greater density and height in our downtown core, I feel that the architect has responded with extraordinary consideration and care to the feedback received over many years of review. He and his team have arrived at a solution, which is extremely thoughtful and well designed. There will always be differences of opinion with regard to the final design solution, and there are some that may never be supportive of the overall concept, or specific details, however, I believe that this project represents a creative and well-designed enhancement to our downtown, which fully meets City goals and objectives. I enthusiastically support this project as presented, and encourage you to grant final approval. Respectfully submitted, Chuck -- hard epyr. email! CHARLES CROTSER Architect AIA c COUNCIL o CDD DUt P.O. Box 12528-San Luis Obispo CA 93406 a CITY MOR o Frr DIR phone:805-546-8484;cell:805-471-5967 a ASSTCM a FIRE CHIEF e-mail.ccrotsetlgD mail com o ATTORNEY o PW DDt c CLERXIGRIG c POLICE CHIEF o PIS o PARMILECDIIt o TRI UNE c UnLDIR o NEWTEdffi o HRDM o SLDCITYNEWs a COUNCIL. o CITY MGR o CLERK Page 1 of 1 J Victoria Grostick From: 'Victoria Grostick"<victoriagrostick@sbcglobal.net> p7>j�L� �O/L2�PoND E Date: Monday, October 31, 20112:08 PM To: 'Victoria Grostick"<victoriagrostick@sbcglobal.net> Cr/1'f ��G�E /7z,-m top MTZ San Luis Obispo City Council San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 gee,' �valz Ai.L Dear Mayor and City Council Members, Regarding the final approval of the Garden Street project brought before you tonight, I would like to mention the choice of colors chosen by the architect, George Garcia and his company. I find the use of very dark colors, which are being proposed, to be inappropriate for our city. The current project that was just finished on Monterey and Johnson uses some of these same colors and I find them to be too "modern" and out of sync with the Mission feel of our city. Hopefully, you will give some thought to these choices and vote to accept the project with changes to the color scheme. It sounds like an insignificant matter but color says everything when you first look at it and makes a huge impression on tourist coming from other places. Thank you for your time in reading this. Sincerely, Victoria Grostick 1730 Corralitos Ave. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805 544-7988 11/1/2011 J From: Astrid Gallagher Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 20113:00:25 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US&Canada) To: Council,SloCity Subject:the colors of the Garden St Terraces from Astrid Gallagher Mayor Marx and Members of the City Council, 70 residents against a black square on a building seems unusually emotional for normally mellower Obispans. Did no one object to the stark white? A geologist would tell you the black represents the heavy black clay soil under the city.The stark white square represents the enormous block of white tufa rock that has slid over the San Andreas fault from the North Atlantic Plate, and supports much of this area. Or slightly simpler is George Garcia's"in your face" addition to his version of a modern building skirted by facades of historic ones,-a really striking example of which is in Wash DC where a huge stark white block-sized Federal office building is skirted by the facades of 3-story brick Colonial walk-up houses. This is an iconic building that the city of San Luis Obispo both deserves and needs to have.The era of pink the roofs is long gone, and your residents need some prodding to change. Actually, George is one of the more expensive architects in town,and that project is going to be enormously costly to build out. Hamish must really believe in this one. Please, consider logic before emotion, Thank you, Astrid Gallagher /�WnOX,4,L L°C : ��i 1etCc 1 t a From:Thomas Jones Sent: Monday, October 31, 20115:45:03 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US&Canada) To: Council,SloCity Cc: ianmarx@stanfordalumni.org: Carter,Andrew;Ashbaugh,John;Smith, Kathy;Carpenter, Dan; Ricci, Pam Subject: Attached letter of support for Garden Street Project I am attaching a letter of support for the Garden Street Terraces project. I wish to be clear that I am not sending this e-mail in any way related to my position and am doing so only as a private citizen. RED FILE hod can: emalk MEETING AGENDA a COUNCIL u CDODM O CRY MGR DFIT= DATE � i ITEM # Z# / ° AIMN ��`L o AT7'GRNEY C o PW DR O CLFBR/GRIG n AW RECQc W M CHIEF o M o TRIBUNE a UTILDIR o NMTIMES cHRDIR o sLGCRYNEWS a COUNCIL a MY MOR a CLERIC C R.Thomas Jones,AIA 232 Catalina Drive San Luis Obispo,CA 93405 October 31,2011 Mayor Jan Marx Vice Mayor John Ashbaugh Councilmember Andrew Carter Councilmember Dan Carpenter Councilmember Kathy Smith Cc: Pam Ricci RE: Support for final approval of the Garden Street Terraces Project I am writing to support approval of the Garden Street Terraces project as it has been presented to the Architectural Review Commission (ARC)and the Cultural Heritage Committee(CHC),with no additional changes. I believe this project has been given an unprecedented amount of public review with evidence of strong support for the modifications made by the sponsor by the final public agency reviews. This support includes evidence that even among former opponents some individuals and groups have come to support the modified project. It is important to note that there is no legal requirement in the City's MOU that City Council hold one final hearing on the project after all other public agencies have rendered their decisions,and neither does our city's Zoning Code provide for any required final approval step by City Council. The code in fact limits Council action to hearing appeals within 10 days of actions by the Planning Commission, ARC,and CHC. However,since various agencies acted to ask the sponsor to return to Council, and there have. been stipulated design modifications made along the process as required by the Council's EIR approval, this hearing does give the Council a chance to see the final project as shaped and improved through the lengthy public participation process that has already occurred. Certainly the scale and type of this project is of great importance to this city. Ands certainly it is appropriate that the Council be presented with the findings and recommendations by the. separate governmental agencies required to conduct reviews and approvals,and to be asked to concur. But I do not think calls for delays and further negotiations and changes are the kinds of actions this Council should be considering given the length and depth of the review process to date and the major alterations already accepted. . I am concerned that the public notice for this agenda item and the expressions by some citizens in the media have led to some parties advocating that the Council not accept the wisdom of the Planning Commission, ARC,and CHC,and that Council ought to impose additional conditions on this project I believe that this late arising set of concerns and requests for modifications should have been more properly aired before the appointed expert bodies,and the type and cost of some of the modifications could jeopardize the viability of the project I also believe the process has been successfully followed over several years of review,and we all ought to endorse what the public commissions,committees and professional staff have agreed is a very good project for our city. To allow late arising demand for changes to move this Council to take some form of action would send a signal to other enlightened private developers and local business people and land owners that we do not stand behind the legally defined due process of our Codes,and that our innovative and very open downtown plan,and overarching planning and architectural review processes are insufficient and flawed. And it puts a Council in a difficult position of having to overrule recommendations of agencies whose appointed public members have been selected precisely because they are considered to have the necessary professional expertise and political independence as non-elected officials to protect the public interest in matters of building massing,scale,design,materials,textures,colors,and details. This city is fortunate to have civic spirited project sponsors who seek to do buildings with public amenities,architectural coherence,and economic benefits under an exhaustively vetted downtown plan for which we all should feel proud and pleased. They have substantially reduced the size of the project and made major design element modifications already. There now comes a time to say that the due process was followed and a strong consensus about a project of great importance to our community has been already reached. The multi-year journey resulted in changes and improvements to the project If there was ever a project that many hands touched and influenced,this is one to be celebrated now. It is time for all to accept the good work that has been done,and not yield to the mistaken belief that giving a few more people at this late date the"right"to try to change the project further, trumps the."rights"exercised by so many more in myriad public reviews already. Former opponents of the projectnow support as shown in the ARC testimony including representatives of Save Our Downtown. I encourage you to consider and weigh the substantial thought and diligence that many citizens, staff,and public representatives have used to bring this project forth for your final informational hearing. And I think this thoughtful consideration would give you the comfort to convey final approvals with no fundamental alterations,so that we can now look forward to having this project secure financing and finally bring its multiple benefits to our downtown. S' e i R omas J s,Al 1 C �. COAL POLY Architecture Depal tm<urt r- San.1:n Ohup,Cf.934C7.0282 October 30, 2011 RED FILE Mayor Jan Marx MEETING AGENDA� ianmarx0stanfordalumni.org I)ATE4l1L., ITEM #�Il Andrew Carter ancarter(o)slocity.org John Ashbaugh iashbaug((Dslocitv.org hard emr. email: c C0UNCIL a CDD Dnt Kathy Smith o My MGR o FITDIR ksmith()slocitv.org 0AMCM a FIRE CHIEF o ATTORNEY a FWDIR o CLERX=G o POLICE CHIEF Dan Carpenter o FIB a PARK4sRECDUL dcaroent(aslocitv.orq o TRIBUNE a UTILDIR a NEWTOM c HRDM o SLOCITY NEWS 000UNCIL The Honorable City Council: o CIryMM o CLERK My name is Thomas Fowler, and I am a professor of architecture at CalPoly. I would like to say that the current design for the Garden Street Terraces Project has my full support. I believe most residents would agree that the City of San Luis Obispo needs a downtown hotel which would allow visitors to experience the core qualities of our wonderful city. I have lived in San Luis Obispo for almost 17 years, and visited the city frequently many years before moving here. I lived within several blocks of downtown for my first 5 years, and now live about 1.5 miles away from downtown. I have been able to see and experience firsthand the many transformations over this period. I help to organize visits to Cal Poly that run the gamut from reaccreditation teams and conferences, to prospective faculty and administrators, and I can categorically state that there are definitely limited options with regards to accommodations which reflect the essential character of this amazing place. And I've grown tired of apologizing for this—San Luis Obispo deserves better.. It would seem that the scales are now tipped towards building design which continues the existing historic fabric of downtown in a rather limited way: bluntly put, if it blends in nicely then there is no controversy. You can imagine the chagrin of educators having to tell students looking to be involved with designing and constructing future buildings to "just make it look like the other buildings around it" when designing. Where are the discussions about human scale, design details and use of innovative materials? The use of the word "modern" as it relates to new buildings can cause negative ripples in any community, but consider this:the word is relative in that all of the historic downtown structures were considered modern buildings during the time when they were themselves built, expressive of the particular time in which they were constructed. My own view is that successful downtowns must be a reflection of the period in which they were constructed, and through good design must provide a means to respect history through contrast of materials, interpretation of details and by carrying key pedestrian scale elements into the new project. Anything less than this does a disservice to telling the story of a place,to opening up the rich history of any downtown. I have followed the Garden Street Terraces Project from its inception, have read all of the criticisms of the project, reviewed the drawings and extensive background research done for this project, and have spoken to the architect about the design decisions made along the way. It is my professional opinion that the architects have done an excellent job of scaling the project from a previous iteration and incorporating numerous pedestrian elements to better connect the project to the downtown area. This is a very complicated infill project which has to bridge a range of different periods of historic architecture. I would refer to it as more of a three-dimensional tapestry, respectful of the historic fabric 1 Page 1 of 31 Professor Fowler's Letter Re GST to SLO City Council 10.30.11 1 of the past but providing transitions to the new. Perhaps what's been overlooked is a simple fact: no other mixed use retail hotel projects like this exist in the downtown area of San Luis Obispo. It is precedent-setting. The architect, himself a local resident, has been respectful of this wonderful design opportunity. Perhaps our local media should lay the project out fairly on their pages so the public could gain a far better understanding of its entirety. Don't reduce it to single small images which do not render well on newsprint. A few comments regarding the project's details: 1. The new grey-colored patterned material connects the infill structure to the historic patterned bricks (see figure 1).A review of the entire project shows that this important element helps to anchor the work. I would strongly disagree with the statements that this is a faceless black box with no scale, or that the grey is much too dark and should therefore be changed. The point made by Professor Lakeman that "...no buildings in the SLO downtown core are gray" is a point that supports its use. There is no place for mimicry in good design. �-- Y Com.-7 qQI✓Q._Q�QJ [Figure 1. Existing Brick Pattern Versus New Material Pattern, From Garcia Architect's GST Design Statement) 2. Scale elements such as openings and awnings that sensitively tie this project to the historic context of downtown have been done successfully. I'm perplexed by the Tribune's comments of, "...perhaps more awnings, cornices at the roofline, recessed windows, decorative arches, horizontal moldings — would add interest and help break up the masses of gray'. Don't know how much more you can add without destroying project without destroying with added elements like decorative arches. 1 [Figure 2. Street Level Views Along Garden Street, From Garcia Architect's GST Design Summary] 3. The comer of Broad and Marsh is a key anchoring point of the project (see figure 3). If you look at this location and the other anchors points (see figure 4) of the project, it's important to note that the integrity of this corner should remain the same. In comparing this project's comer design to some of the more recent downtown additions which blend in more with the historic fabric but don't address the corner well, my opinion is that this design is light years ahead of others. Page 2 of 3 1 Professor Fowler's Letter Re GST to SLO City Council 10.30.11 1 C r- r -r [Figure 3. Building @ Broad and Marsh Streets, From Garcia Architect's GST Design Summary,] 14 Iwo fel, [Figure 4. Anchor Points of Project Along Garden Street, From Garcia Architect's GST Design Summary] Conclusion San Diego's Little Italy section, even with its scale differences, offers a look at successful best practices for mixing new design with historic, and it may provide some helpful context for projecting a way forward with San Luis Obispo's downtown. The new structures are designed to respect the historic fabric without copying it—to the onlooker there is a clear understanding of history and the passage of time. I would hope that the City Council and we as a community would not let this opportunity pass us by, to finally have this much-needed hotel in our downtown. It is a thoughtful, well-considered project, and I think one that will go a long way towards establishing a design vocabulary for the city's buildings as we move into the future. Regards, kW \ ! Professor Thomas Fowler IV, AIA Director(CIDS) Community Interdisciplinary Design Studio Cc: George Garcia georoe anoarciaarchdesion.com Pam Ricci pricci cDslocity.oro Page 3 of 3 1 Professor Fowler's Letter Re GST to SLO City Council 10.30.11 Mila Vujovich-La Barre 650 Skyline Drive San Luis Obispo, California 93405 RED FILE MEETING AGENDA Mayor Jan H. Mars and the San Luis Obispo City Council PATE/4 _1t ITEM # L�1 City Hall 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Dear Mayor Marx and City Council Members, As a concerned citizen, I am writing to you about the current proposal for the Garden Street Terraces project. The concept of the mixed use and boutique hotel is a great fit for downtown, however it is the current design that I am hoping you will remedy on Tuesday,November 1, 2011. Many constituents have spoken out about the fact that Marsh at Broad is one of the gateways into our downtown commercial area. A new structure at that location should ideally invite visitors to consider parking and spending both time and money. The current design evokes a sense of claustrophobia,appears woefully unimaginative and does not meet those aforementioned goals. Please encourage the architects to redesign the exterior of the building to be more in keeping with the"neighborhood character' of downtown since it is virtually right in the middle of our historic downtown. A structure with a Mediterranean feel with brick, marble or travertine with light plaster would be more in keeping than the modern starkness of the current design. There should also be setbacks, colonnades and pedestrian access. A simple water feature using sustainable methods would also be stunning on the corner of Broad and Marsh. There have also been discussions of the allure of a roof-top restaurant and bar in that location. The view would be phenomenal and with greenery and light would provide a warm, inviting atmosphere rather than the angular, geometric coldness of the current design. Again, if this same structure was in the outlying area near the airport or Los Osos Valley Road, it might"fit" - at this location it does not. The spirit of our award-wituung downtown is precious and should be preserved as it is improved with new construction. One of the goals in new development downtown is to encourage residents and tourists to come, explore the area and to spend both time and money. The current design for the proposed construction does not meet those goals. Please encourage the architects to redesign the Garden Street Terraces so that it will seamlessly dove-tail with the surrounding area. a;ely hardco email:a COUNCIL a CDDDIR a crNa MGa FrrDIR 9- a AWCM a FWCWF D ATTORNEY a PWDM Vujovi h-La Barre o CLERKMG a P�M DIR a TRIBUNE a UMDM a NEW711M a IMDM a SLOCTIYNEWS a COUNCIL a W YMOR a CLM RED FILE From: Merrill C. Gaines [mgaines@kcbx.net] MEETING AGENDA Sent: Thursday, October 27, 20114:57 PM To: Marx, )an DATE// / 1 ITEM # PlAf 1 Subject: Garden Street Terraces Dear Mayor Marx: Having lived in San Luis Obispo for 35 years, I have seen our built environment develop and improve with each passing decade. It has been enjoyable to see the changes in our downtown. Now, however, I have concerns regarding the proposal for the Garden Street Terraces. The following is excerpted from the "Journal of Architectural Education", Vol. 33,No. 3, Teaching a Contextual Architecture, Merrill C. Gaines, Professor of Architecture (deceased), Cal Poly State University, San Luis Obispo. My concern is for an architecture that accommodates change through a process of continuation, moving into the future by finding its order in both the present and the past. ...formal contextual patterns are the most commonly observed, and in some ways the most obvious means architects have of relating their buildings to locale. Specifically, these pattens are space, scale, mass and proportion,pieces and details, and material, texture and color. They constitute identifiable micro and macro physical characteristics within the environment- the elements of buildings, sites and settings. It is through the continuation of one or more of these variables that designers seek visually to unite their work with the surroundings. It is my opinion that this project misses the mark when it comes to meeting any of the above mentioned contextual patterns. Walking Garden Street from Marsh to Higuera, one can't help but focus on the wonderful gem of a building, The Warden Block on Higuera. The Garden Street project has absolutely no compatibility with the Warden Block or any of the other structures nearby. The hard-line design with no welcoming softness and the off-putting, actually depressing, grey color encourages one to say, "what were the architects thinking?" Garden Street... the name alone suggests color! It has been stated before, and I agree, that this building design can be found in any city. San Luis Obispo, its residents, its visitors, and those who will live and visit here generations from now... all deserve more than this ho-hum project. Sincerely, bard ca • email: a ODUNM a CDDDDt a CITYMGR o FTfDM Lois A. Gaines a AWCH a MECHW a ATMRNEY o PWDIR San Luis Obispo o CUMMaro a PoC W a TRIMM a UmDIR o NM TSM a n Dat o SWCMNEWS a coUNcL 0 MY MOR a CURK c From:Judy Lang Sent: Friday,October 28, 201110:17:01 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time(US&Canada) To:Council,SloCity Subject: Garden Street Terraces: Require Re-design Dear Council Members, Please send the Garden Street Terrace projects back to the developer and architect for re-design. I support the project in general but am concerned about the color palette and the boxy building on the corner of Marsh and Broad Streets. The color palette is very dark, i.e., mostly charcoal colors in the latest version of the project. This is not in keeping with the environment of downtown San Luis Obispo. A quick walk through downtown San Luis Obispo reveals few dark buildings, i.e., most buildings have warmer, more inviting colors. I think we can conclude that over the years, city residents have revealed a preference for warmer colors(not black or gray) in order to keep the small town feel appealing to both residents and tourists. Second,the boxy building proposed for the corner of Marsh and Broad Streets is not only dark but also appears massive and institutional with its severe straight lines. A color change with some corner re- design would make this building a more attractive entrance to our downtown. This new building will be with us for many years, long beyond my lifetime. Therefore, it is our responsibility to ensure that we approve projects that maintain the appeal of our downtown not only for ourselves but also for future generations. Requesting color changes and minor re-design changes will take the developer and architect a small amount of time, but the rewards will continue for many years. I thus urge you to send the project back to the developer and architect for re-design. Thank you. Sincerely, Judy Lang SLO resident From: Mark Cabrinha Sent: Monday, October 31, 20119:29:44 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US &Canada) To: Council, SloCity; Marx, Jan; Carter, Andrew; Ashbaugh, John; Smith, Kathy; Carpenter, Dan Subject: Support for Garden Street Terraces Dear City Council members, Please see my attached endorsement for the Garden Street Terraces project. I understand that these letters are part of the public record, and may be made available to the public. I look forward to the vitality this project will bring to our downtown core, and I hope you will approve the design as it is presented. Warm Regards, Mark Mark N.Cabrinha,Ph.D.,RA Los Osos Resident October 31,2011 RE:Support for Garden Street Terraces Dear Mayor Jan Marx,Andrew Carter,John Ashbaugh,Kathy Smith,and Dan Carpenter, As an architect that designed public schools in Chicago,I am well aware of the public review process and at times the contentious debates that can develop across several years and multiple design itera- tions. This is no different for the Garden Street Terraces project. In this case,as I have witnessed over the last few years,I believe the public review process has served this project and the community well,in particular bringing down the bulk of the initial program between 2006-2008. Furthermore,the design revisions on both the Marsh Street and Broad Street elevations as approved by the ARC again reflect a careful if subtle response which is for the good of the project. While there will always be dissenting views in any public project,there is one thing we can all agree on:bringing vitality to the downtown core. I recall in the.late 1980's and early 1990's a downtown that was depressed and inactive,and with the major retail developments occurring in that time and just after,bringing a new street life to downtown. I still look with a smile to see the active and pedestrian street life in our small city. Clearly,the Garden Street Terraces will add to this urban vitality both in its programmatic scope,but also particularly in the vitality of its design:appropriately scaled and pro- portioned massing,play of exterior street-level facades and recessed sitting spaces along with exterior balconies to bring life to the street, and especially the vitality of its appropriate mix of tradition and modern life. This is not an easy task,and it is something that Garcia Architecture+Design have clearly achieved in this design. To this balance between tradition and a very nuanced modern aesthetic,not all may agree,and in fact a retired colleague has been a vocal critic. My views as an architecture professor at Cal Poly do represent experience and a professional perspective,but both of our views should be seen as those of experi- enced individuals,not the endorsement of our highly regarded Architecture program. I certainly see in this design a healthy balance between old and new,and see it as the appropriate vitality to express our downtown,not in 1772 when the Mission was created,but for today and in the future while respecting this heritage. Finally,to perhaps the most contentious issue of the Broad and Marsh Street corner,I fully support this design and am pleased that the architects have.remained firm that this is the appropriate anchor in- corporating a pedestrian scale,appropriate brick pattern,and great proportion and depth in the facade. The architects have provided a more subtle grey tone in the brick from contentious"black",and here again,I could not agree more with the architects choice of this brick color. This is an essential element which ties into the texture and material scale of downtown,while its color subtly marks the difference between the corner anchors and the stucco facades,and clearly addresses the relationship between old and new. I urge you to support the design as it is,and I greatly look forward to the vitality this project will bring to downtown. We are lucky to have such a careful,considerate,and talented architect working on this important project. Sincerely, Dr.Mark Cabrinha,RA Assistant Professor Cal Poly Architecture Your Name: Keith Hamilton Address: 1128 Garden Steet RED FILE City: San Luis Obispo State: Ca. — MEETING AGENDA Zip: 93401 DATEi4 1L 1 ITEM # Pk 1 Phone: 805-541-2065 Email: akhslo@msn.com Message: To: City Council Re: Final Design Review, Garden Street Terraces Concerning the final design review of the revised Garden Street Terraces project: We all seem to be in agreement with the final design concept--the only thing I would ask City Council toconsider, is the original agreement with the developer, wherein they told us there would be no disruptionon the Garden street traffic flow. We are expecting full to moderate use of Garden Street for customer use, with the work being facilitated off Marsh street, except in those instances where it is mandatory to close offmaybe one-half of the street for things like sidewalk installation, etc. Basically, we want Garden Street kept open for business as much as is physically possible for our clients and our own well being as thriving merchants. Thank You, Keith Hamilton Hamilton Estate Jewelry akhslo(a msn.com hard co email: o COUNCIL a CDD DIR O CITYMGR o FITDIR o ASSICM o FIRE CHIEF o ATTORNEY o PW DIR a CLERKIOR1G o POLICE CHIEF o PIR o PARKS&RECDIR O TRIBUNE G UTILDIR O NEW TIMES o HR DIR o SLOCITYNEWS o COUNCIL o CITY MGR o CLERK Marsh Street Associates, LLC 1301 Chorro Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 hard tour. email:. . . October 26, 2011 O COUNCIL o CDDDIR RED FILE ° �MGR G RTDM City of San Luis Obispo o AroRRNNEY o PFDIR City Hall — MEETING AGENDA C CLEM10PIG a POLICEcmu o PID o PAW&MCDIR 990 Palm Street DATE/ H ITEM # L#J o TMUNE o UTp.DIR o NEW TIMS o HR DIR San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 o SLGCnYNM a COUNc L o CnYMGR a CLERK Attn: Mayor,Jan Marx and Members of the City Council RE:Garden Street Terraces Project Dear Mayor Marx and Members of the City Council; Recently there has been a lot of discussion in local media about the Garden Street Terraces project.This coverage has focused mainly, but not solely, upon the "look and colors"of the proposed buildings.The purpose of this letter is to present our perspective on the project. In regard to the project as a whole we are very supportive.The developers have bent over backwards to respond to concerns of the City and local citizens.They have reduced the height, scale and size of the project. We are concerned that any further reduction of the scope of the project(height, size or uses) may result in the loss of the"vision"for this project, ultimately leading to it being an "OK project" but not a project that is a keystone to a vibrant downtown in the 21"century.We believe it contains uses essential to the continued vibrancy of Downtown. We also believe that the current scale of the project is essential to completing the vision for Downtown. In our opinion further reductions in height or scale or restriction of uses are misguided and will detract from, not add to the project and its role in Downtown. In regard to "the look", our perspective is that one of the essential ingredients in the success of San Luis Obispo lies in the variety of buildings that are concentrated in this small area of our City.Within a few blocks one can see building examples ranging from relatively austere(but none the less handsome) buildings of the WPA era (renovated Old County Courthouse)to the brick buildings of the late 1800's (Sinsheimer Store)to the wildly florid Art Deco period exemplified by the Fremont Theater.There is— "Authentic Variety" present in this mix. We believe this is a good thing. We do not believe that every building downtown needs to pay an aesthetic homage to the earlier era building(s) by incorporating similar materials or colors. Downtowns can be successful in a variety of contexts. Santa Barbara solely in the "Spanish" style, portions of Miami Beach solely in the "Art Deco"style and in San Luis Obispo through the presence of a variety of buildings reflecting the past and present,enabling people to appreciate how the world has changed from the past and where it may be going in the future. In regard to"the colors"we do not believe that colors are best selected through debates in the media. Much has been said about the gray color, but nothing has been said about the white color that is also present on large areas of the building. Is gray somehow intrinsically inferior or less in character with downtown than white?We believe this was a decision best left to the architect and the Architectural Review Commission and should be considered resolved. The developer of Garden Street Terraces selected a talented, local architect knowing the-contemporary direction he would likely chose to pursue for the design of this project,based upon his other completed. designs for local projects.Their(builder and architect)vision was clear and was clearly presented.The City Architectural Review Commission (ARC)which is delegated the responsibility(by the City Council)to review the design of projects in the City has approved the project including the look and colors.The Cultural Heritage Committee charged with Historic Review has approved the project. We believe the City Council should now approve the project including the"look and colors" selected by the architect and approved by the ARC. Sincerely, VictISt 7Aiates, MarLLC John Rossetti Marsh Street Associates, LLC C 1336 Sweet Bay Lane San Luis Obispo, California 93401 October 26, 2011 hard CO . email. o COUNCIL a CDD DIR o CITY MGR o FIT DIR o ASSTCM o ME CHEF City Council o ATTORNEY c PW DIR CLEWORIO City of San Luis Obispo n PM o POLICE REC IR o TRIBUNE a UTILDIR o NEWTOM cHRDBi SUBJECT: Garden Terraces project ° SIO CITY NEWS o�MCIL a CLERK Dear Mayor and Council Members: As a former member of the Architectural Review Commission, I recall early versions of this project and appreciate the extent of changes made to date. I also sense the difficulty the project architect has in meeting City policies. I continue to be quite concerned about the modernist design in this setting. I am not surprised by the indifference to City policies by staff and commissioners in favor of"liking"the proposed design, which is an important problem; personal taste usually trumps the community's taste on the commissions. I would appreciate if you would require the architect to make dramatic changes to meet City Design Guidelines and policies. I support the suggestions by Sara McEre and Sandra Lakeman as a starting point and encourage you to require light colors, detailed articulation and decorations that are counterpoint to the proposed modernist architecture; the exact opposite is needed in this setting. The location within the Historic District needs to be respected and strengthened, and this project should render a deferential and contextual theme that references historic styles. This should not be a place to abstract from the past with entirely modernist features; upper Monterey Street—yes/here -no. Several recent retrofit projects successfully applied"future-past"hints of modernism, but that should be the extent of modernism in the downtown. Famous architects Michael Freedman and Andres Duany have complimented the downtown's classic pattern of regular bays of shops with varied window moldings and doorways. In a presentation, Mr. Freedman asserted the importance of a deep texture to buildings at eye level to create a human scale. The Design Guidelines include these principles, which should be followed by the project architect. The City has sacrificed a valuable public open space for this project; not only parking spaces but also a loss of potential plaza space, having a tremendous view of iconic San Luis Mountain. Somehow City staff and decision-makers neglected or refused to include a quid pro quo to obtain some direct public benefits to mitigate for the loss of this space. At the outset the City could have required architecture that meets the Design Guidelines. For the applicant, a reciprocal benefit would have been to engage an architect who is not a proclaimed modernist but one who has a clear intention to design within the guidelines. For your City Council, the public benefits that you can provide are to require public mini-plaza spaces along Broad Street to view San Luis Mountain and elsewhere to salvage some degree of this open space, and to require historically referenced architecture within the City Design Guidelines. Thank you for the opportunity to share my concerns and for your consideration. Sincerely, RED FILE — MEETING AGENDA Ze*sPAICP DAT ITEM # Pff I viiscouncit memomnbum DATE: October 19, 2011 TO: City Council VIA: Katie Lichtig, City Manager FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Community Development Director',, BY: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner pR_ SUBJECT: Public Heating Item No. 1; Garden Street Terraces Project at 1119 Garden Street and adjacent�parcels (ARC 124-06) Attached is a memo prepared by staff responding to specific questions posed by Vice Mayor Ashbaugh in an e-mail regarding the Garden Street Terraces Project public hearing scheduled for the November 1, 2011 Council agenda. The first paragraph poses a parking question and the following section is a forwarded a-mail from Allen Cooper which makes comments on a variety of project design elements. The staff responses are intended to answer the specific questions posed and not provide a more extensive analysis. The Council staff report and attached prior Architectural Review Commission reports provide more detailed evaluation of project components. Please call Pam Ricci at extension#7168 (781-7168) if you have any questions. t RED FILE a COIMQ� aCDD DIR o CIYYAlOG a FITDIR — FW CHIU MEETING AGENDA a A OR a PWDM o A770RNSY 0 PWDM D,�,T // / / ITEM #_4/ o c1 Pxa�xlo a PAW&R>P a M a pARICSgRECDlR o MUMM . a VMMR a XMIDff,S a HIRDM a SWaryMMS aCOUNCIL a My Mat cam i I Garden Street Terraces Project ARC 124-06 Red File Response to Councilmember Ashbaugh e-mail Page 2 I was just in Michael's Optical on Higuera and was asked about whether their customers would have access to the underground parking for the GST property,at least for their wheelchair spaces.As you know,we now have HC spaces available in the City's lot for public use,and many of their customers depend upon those spaces.Is there any provision for mitigating the loss of those spaces on site,or are we merely expecting that this loss of HC spaces will ultimately be replaced in the PahnlNipomo/Monterey St.garage,when that structure is completed? Staffs Response: At the 6-1-10 hearing that the City Council certified the Final EIR, the Council also approved a Use Permit 12406. The first condition of the approved use permit required the applicant to revise the project to be consistent with the Reduced Development and Project without Public Parking Spaces altematives included in the certified Final EIR. Therefore, the Council action specifically required the applicant to eliminate the public parking component from the project. The Palm-Nipomo garage will ultimately contain required accessible parking. However., the approval of this project is not linked to the development of the garage. The accessible spaces at the future garage are not considered mitigation for the loss of accessible spaces within City Parking Lot#2. However, an accessible public parking space is required as part of the project conditions. Condition No. 25 which references items to be further addressed in the Garden Street Improvement Plan requires that one on-street ADA parking space be added on Garden Street. Another question: Did you receive a copy of the October 8 letter(email)from Allan Cooper describing SOD'S five demands for fiuther conditioning this project?In case you did not,it is reproduced below.I have asked Allan to send these comments directly to George Garcia,and I will assume that has been done;however I did not end up asking him to forward it to you. I would appreciate your input on these items. If you wish,you may send your response to these inquiries as a red_ file to the entire Council. Thanks. John B. Ashbaugh,Vice-Mayor San Luis Obispo City Council Honorable Mayor and Council Members- Regarding your October 18, 2011 Council Meeting: I am recommending that you return the Garden Street Terraces project to the Architectural Review Commission with direction. The developer, planner and architect have made a good faith effort to address many of the concerns that were brought before them over the past several years of public testimony and I think that you could approve the Garden Street Terraces Project IF the following additional considerations were incorporated into the design of their project: 1) Provide more public amenities...in lieu of no public overlook spaces AND in light of public amenities ALREADY provided in similar large-scale projects such as the Downtown Center, the Court Street Project and the proposed Chinatown Project...in the form of more art in public places, higher quality paving and vandal-and tag-proof wall materials at the ground floor level, more public seating and recessed entryways. Relocating the recycled "Sycamore Tree"art piece should not satisfy the developer's requirement to enhance the project with art. Why not ALSO provide art in the Garden Street Terraces Project ARC 124-06 Red File Response to Councilmember Ashbaugh e-mail Page 3 form of decorative (i.e., artist-commissioned)paving along the Marsh/Garden Alley pedestrian corridor, in the form of decorative (again artist-commissioned)grille work along the Garden Alley openings into the parking garage and artist-commissioned gateway elements leading into Garden Alley and the Marsh St. pedestrian corridor? Staff's Response: In regard to public art, several correspondences reference that the applicant has opted to pay the in-lieu fee rather than providing public art within the project. This is not the case. In addition to the relocation of the sycamore sculpture to the wall of the new building at Garden Alley near Broad Street, there are other locations for public art shown in plans. Sheet C.7 of plans includes two proposals which are an entry feature and decorative pavement mosaic in conjunction with the Garden Street enhancements. These ideas are conceptual at this time, but Condition No. 16 in the Council's draft resolution notes that speck proposals for public art would return to the ARC at a later date once they have been reviewed through the required artjury process. 2) Incorporate into the lower floor elevations 4 a"human-scaled"and pedestrian-friendly color palette: i.e., incorporate a much lighter color palette in order to enhance LIGHT reflectivity,which is particularly needed along Garden Alley. Staffs Response: The project includes a variety of canopy types made out of " different materials including metal and canvas and in varied colors. Storefronts are proposed in varied colors and also vary in their heights and some include transoms(see Figure 1). Figure 1. Broad Street Perspective 3) The normally required "continuous retail presence"on the building's ground floor is not carried around to the Garden Alley side.The developer/architect shall make up for this by requiring that the architect/developer incorporate lighting, public art, illuminated sign boards, more landscaping and a variety of colors and materials into the north facing wall along Garden Alley. Staff's Response: Garden Alley primarily functions as a service and delivery alley for the businesses fronting Higuera Street. The applicant is proposing significant enhancements to this space with pocket planters(see Figure 2 on the following page), architectural variety(use of varied materials including plaster, wood, and brick finished in different colors) and wall offsets created by upper floor building setbacks and balconies. Another benefit of the Garden Alley project design is that it provides a centralized trash and recycling area that serves not only the project, but businesses fronting Higuera Street that currently utilize waste wheeler trash service in the alley. Trash consolidation within the project will have a direct impact on the quality and aesthetics of the pedestrian experience in the alley. Garden Street Terraces Project ARC 124-06 Red File Response to Councilmember Ashbaugh e-mail Page 4 i � 1 R ■■r' J a Figure 2. Garden Alley Perspective Sheet C.6 shows that the alley surface will be finished with decorative pavers. Condition No. 26 requires that this paving treatment be utilized for the entire extent of the alley between Garden and Broad Streets. The character rendering on the following page (Figure 3) shows how lighting(wall sconces and decorative overhead'fairy lights) and seasonal fabric banners will assist in enlivening and beautifying the alley to make it more of a welcoming pedestrian corridor. 4) Require that the City in collaboration with the arch itect/developer place border planting and seating at intervals along all four sides of the project. Staffs Response: As previously mentioned, there will be pocket planters that will provide for planting along Garden Alley. Sheet C.3.shows that there will be three benches placed along Garden Street. However, the Community Design Guidelines (CDG 4.2 A) recommend that new buildings be placed near the back of sidewalk to augment the pedestrian experience. Therefore, the proposal to locate buildings along street frontages without defined planting pockets is consistent with this guideline and also with Land Use Element Policy 4.16.3 calling fora continuous storefront along sidewalks. As the perspective above indicates, landscaping from upper floors will also be visible from various vantage points. Landscaping Sheets L.1-L.5 show there is substantial planting proposed for a downtown project. In addition, several street trees and mature trees behind the Garden Street buildings will be saved with development. / l\ Garden Street Terraces Project ARC 124-06 Red File Response to Councilmember Ashbaugh e-mail Page 5 5) 1 commend the architect/developer for attaching a steel canopy to the Garden Alley side of the Union Hardware building. However, urge the architect/developer to further break down the massing and scale of the Garden Alley elevation of the Union Hardware building through the use of additional public art, murals and/or pennants. Staffs Response: Sheet C.2.1 shows the proposed treatment of the Union Hardware Building at 1119 Garden Street. Three - seasonal banners as depicted in this character rendering which provide for additional color and interest on the elevation (Figure 3). The building is a.Master List historic property and the intent with the structural reinforcement and remodeling of the building is to limit modifications and preserve its integrity. Figure 3. Garden Alley Character Rendering I am in concurrence with the conditions that have already been attached to this project. Thank you for the time and consideration that you have devoted to this very important and very large project! Allan Cooper 756 Broad St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 From: Vicente del Rio Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 20113:17:58 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US&Canada) To: Council, SloCity Subject: Letter from Save Our Downtown—Garden Street Terrace Project Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Please see attached a letter and accompanying attachment on the Garden Street Terrace Project. This is an important item in your next meeting's agenda. Thank you for your time reading this letter and considering our comments on the project. Vicente del Rio vdelrio 1955ey,mail.com p/ Save Our Downtown hard eo . email: a COUNCIL a CDD DIR a CITYMGR a FIT DEI RED FILE a AUTCM a I=CHMF a ATTORNEY a FW DIR MEETING AGENDA a CLKBKIORIO a POLICE CHO a FM a FARKE a REC DIR DAT // / // ITEM # P / a , a HRMR'R a MO CRY NEWS a COUNCIL a COY MOR a CLERK To the Mayor and Council Members, City of San Luis Obispo October 25, 2011 Ref: Garden Street Terrace Proiect— SLO City Council Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members: We represent Save Our Downtown, a volunteer group of residents dedicated to the quality and livability of San Luis Obispo's Downtown, and we write to you moved by our deep concerns about the Garden Street Terraces Project. This project has been recommended by City staff and the three consulting commissions/committees, and is scheduled for your final approval for implementation. As a group, our motivation is to"work with"to achieve positive outcomes rather than merely react negatively and criticize. Although we support the development goals and the overall design concept of the Garden Street Terraces Project we urge you NOT to grant it final approval unless the conditions delineated in this letter are met. We also understand that our opinion is shared by other members of our community as well as by The Tribune, as expressed by their editors ("Opinion", Sunday October 9) as well as by residents in their letters to the editors. The developer and his designer have addressed many of the concerns brought before them over the past several years of public testimony,when our group voiced its opinion. Thanks to this process and a little help from the market downturn, several changes were introduced to the project—such as limiting overall height and intensity-- making it better than it was originally intended. However, quality architecture and urban design are not easy to achieve: they admittedly require extensive considerations of experts, stakeholders' opinions, and public expectations. In the following lines and in the attachment,we express our opinion on the overall design of the Garden Street Terraces Project for the Mayor and Council Members to consider and to include as conditions for final approval: I) Modify the building at the Marsh and Broad streets corner. The project does not properly address the corner--one of the most important elements in urban design. This is one of the most important corners in the downtown and serves as a gateway to the historical core when entering the city from the South. As it stands,the project proposes a faceless dark box: no special treatment, no diagonal cut,no rounded comer,no major entryway, no pocket park, and no difference in height or cornice to accent the importance of that"place". There are many good examples—historical and contemporary-of good corner design in SLO and throughout California (please refer to the attachment). 2) Reconsider and change the choice of colors and materials, particularly at the fust and second stories (most prominent pedestrian view sheds). Do not use dark-grey cement blocks or bricks: a) as this will result in an uninviting and rather depressing environment(according to environmental psychology research); b)and because the color does not pertain to San Luis Obispo's architectural heritage(where bricks are of red or yellow palettes). There are many good examples—historical and contemporary- in SLO (please refer to the attachment). We suggest that a contextual or transitional design for the entire complex would be appropriate in order to fit into the existing architectural vocabulary of our historic �I district better—this is what the General Plan mandates for new buildings adjacent to the historic district. 3) Provide more articulation and ornamentation along the facades and around windows and doors (trims, brick laying patterns, cornices, etc.) particularly at the ground level. Windows and doors have been treated as modemist-industrial characterless components. There are many good examples— historical and contemporary- in SLO (please refer to the attachment). 4) Provide more public amenities. Since the project took over a public area and does not provide any public amenity in the form of pocket plazas and overlook spaces, it should at least provide seating, lighting, landscaping, and public art(e.g., murals and sculptures) along Marsh and Broad streets, and the Garden Alley and the Marsh/Garden Alley pedestrian connections. Next to the Market at Broad there should be seating and space for grocery carts. 5) Modify and minimize the building's massing and scale along the Garden Alley facades through the use of architectural detailing, planting, public art and lighting. Because the alley will be in the shade most of the times, facades there should be of light color. This is a significant and important project that will generate a significant impact on the surrounding area and the downtown core as a whole. It will be a major addition and will set the standard and tone-- either up or down-- for future development. Significant changes have been made,but they are insufficient. We can do a better, more complete job. Our city deserves the best effort. We appreciate your dedication in helping to make San Luis Obispo's Downtown one of the most cherished, distinguished, and livable places in California; one that residents take great pride in and visitors admire. We thank you for your time in considering this letter and our comments,which we hope will help you to make an informed and responsive decision on the Garden Street Terraces Project. Save Our.Downtown understands that this project may represent a taste of things to come in our downtown and, as such, it should be exemplary. Save Our Downtown - San Luis Obispo, CA Russ Brown Allan Cooper Ivan Cliff David Brodie Dixie Cliff Vicente del Rio James M. Duenow Diane N. Duenow Sandra Lakeman Sara McEre Elizabeth C. Thyne . z a }y«Sir �.,�i.' - ° • �r 4. I • loll ._ . tom' ; •�: i � , 1 ff 'a ." P A>. .. it �� � �� •'.o: ., �. h �J�j.yT ;� ti I {�� � M• l WE 1 4 1 -r y • I El I \ - • 1 - • • • • • 1 IfI_-III • • L-m file ZIA e. Av'T-r '^���` � �;� ry: ✓/^'may �r' s-+•i-� ie. � _ o' >„Y' t•.i �r-i. ` �.r e f i a. i S I ��...yy r RU �zn Jg�Cs.' it J`-4 .e• t -'. .. i Ire_ '+. W�?'"�:u., _� �� .--• ar ! 1G 1121 1iYfli �����.� •�• AZ -Y�• Brick Walls Inspirational examples: contemporary projects in SLO i�^ � F"• ' - y r T'� .. i- I •-Y� { Monterey at Courtstreet. Back expansion of Mother's Tavern. Li 670 Higuera y- (Salvaggio Building) 7 5 E P H • R.A °U �L ... e rs',. y1,.�V1 paerti6cae;�t�to„ r— K2 „ �„� Court Street Shopping Center. <. rY LL. *•x* r---rr--ire �. • 4'. �- .✓". fill I.—_f�-r• � •, - - =,.'yam - r, .r Union Bank at Marsh and Morro. ' w � _ J 0 0 Downtown Shopping Center. _ ,e.� fir• 4 Y " 14i rl 1 _ IL -A y 4 c Vlfl 1. ®� ;e + .c I Y � a y l i .. '� •iIr M +j' . � rm �I. �� �s•� Y�. �� �( ' 1. � �.mss. �. Lt' , "' I