HomeMy WebLinkAboutExh C_ 10.2.06 ARC Staff ReportCITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCffiTECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM#2
FROM: Kim Murry, Deputy Direct~
BY: Michael Codron, Associate P1an6"" (7s1-n1;S@
FILE NUMBER: GP Afr A/ER 50-06
MEETING DA TE: October 2, 2006
PROJECT ADDRESS: Downtown Core
SUBJECT -Overview and discussion of Council direction to consider alternatives for
moderately increasing Downtown building height and intensity limits.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Consider the staff presentation and· public testimony and provide feedback to staff on the
following discussion topics:
1. Discuss current building height and intensity limits for downtown and consider alternatives
for a moderate increase to these limits, including potential increases to current Floor Area
Ratio (FAR) and building height limits and a revised FAR definition.
2. Discuss the components of a possible "landmark" building use permit process.
3. Discuss current Land Use Element policies and Community Design Guidelines requirements
for view protection and pedestrian amenities and recommend a strategy for clarifying policy
inconsistencies.
4. Discuss the Community Design Guidelines for Downtown and direct staff to return to the
ARC with recommendations on new guidelines to promote the use of architectural
transitions between buildings as a way to integrate new development with existing, small-
scale buildings.
BACKGROUND
Situation
On March 14, 2006, the City Council held a study session on the issue of Downtown building
heights and intensity limits and directed staff to:
1) Revise the City's floor area ratio (FAR) definition to exclude basements and parking.
2) Confirm policy inconsistencies among General Plan policies and development standards
for the downtown.
3) Bring back alternatives for moderately increasing the downtown building height and
intensity limits, in order to achieve other General Plan goals and objectives, including
design amenities, housing, and retail land uses.
GP Alf A/ER 50-06 (Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limits Discussion)
Page2
4) Review alternatives and recommendations with the Cultural Heritage Committee,
Architectural Review Commission, Planning Commission, and Downtown Association
before returning to the Council.
The minutes from Council's study session are attached (Attachment 1). Also attached is a recent
memo from the .Community Development Director to the City Council that outlines the process
that will be followed to implement Council direction (Attachment 2). In short. the process will
be broken up into two steps. First, a policy context for changing development standards in the
downtown core will be clarified. After final policy direction has been determined by the City
Council, staff will return with ordinance amendments to implement the policies.
City Coundl Studv Session OVemew
Several factors Jed the City Council to hold a study session on the issue of building height in the
downtown core. These include increased construction activity due to seismic retrofitting, recent
development of the new County Government Center Building. the Court Street project and new
City offices at 919 Palm Street, and proposals for additional multi-story buildings such as the Ah
Louis Building, the Chinatown project, and Garden Street Terraces.
Council is considering the possibility of increasing building height as a way to encourage
additional housing in the downtown core, to accommodate rising construction costs of
redeveloping properties, and to maintain the economic vitality of the downtown. The Housing
Element, adopted in 2004, requires all new downtown development projects to include housing.
Increased housing would help achieve many important City goals, but input from architects,
developers and economic professionals indicates the feasibility of new housing downtown
requires additional levels of development above the current three-story standard.
Allowing taller buildings could infuse the downtown core with additional residents, adding to the
vitality of the commercial district. As stated in the Community Design Guidelines, "multi-story
buildings can increase the numbers of potential customers for ground floor retail uses and assist
in maintaining their viability." A recent economic study also indicates that an important
component for successful · downtowns is large-scale rental housing suitable for employees
(Attachment 3). The economic analysis and testimony provided to the City Council both
indicate that allowing for additional stories, or increased Floor Area Ratio (FAR; the ratio of the
building floor area divided by the lot area), will make such housing projects more financially
feasible and, therefore, more attractive to developers.
Increased FAR is also important to property owners to generate the income needed to support the
cost of construction. The prices of steel and concrete have risen dramatically in the past few
years, leading to property owner interest in increasing leasable square footage with new
construction projects, such as projects associated with unreinforced masonry building retrofits.
Overall, testimony provided to the Council during the study session was supportive of increasing
allowable building height, with qualifications. The concerns expressed were varied but can be
summarized as a desire to have a balance between strict policies and overly permissive
regulations, to consider fiscal issues carefully, to consider setting, views and increased traffic and
to encourage housing development downtown.
OP Afr A/ER 50-06 (Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limits Discussion)
Page3
CBC Reconppenclations
On August 28th, 2006, the CHC held a public hearing to review and discuss how changes to the
City's height limits downtown could impact historical resources. A summary of public
testimony provided and the CHC's discussion is attached for review by the ARC (Attachment 4).
Several members of the public provided testimony, and the CHC held a brief discussion on the
issue before continuing the meeting to September 25, 2006. Points of view expressed during the
CHC's discussion are also included in the evaluation below. Staff will report verbally to the
ARC on the results of the September CHC meeting.
The ARC'§ Role in po1ey Clarification
Engaging the advisory bodies in a discussion of key policies and potential changes to the General
P1an is essential to establish policies that articulately describe community desires. In
establishing city policy, advisory bodies represent the community and advise the City Council.
Advisory bodies are tasked with helping create c1ear, unambiguous policies that will guide the
creation of quantifiable and objective standards and regulations. It is essential to have clear
policy language in the General Plan to identify appropriate height limits and design objectives
that are detailed enough to result in buildings that look like what is described by the written
policy.
The ARC is being asked to contribute to clarifying existing policies with consideration given to
all of the City's goals and policies. The ARC's recommendations will reflect their experience
using the Community Design Guidelines and the General Plan to review new development
proposals. The ARC' s recommendations will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and the
City Council.
EVALUATION
The Council has directed staff to propose alternatives for moderately increasing building height
and intensity limits in the City's downtown core and to review the recommendations with City
advisory bodies including the Downtown Association, Cultural Heritage Committee,
Architectural Review Commission and Planning Commission. Staff is relying on input from the
public and the advisory bodies to help craft alternatives for revised General Plan policies and a
recommendation.
The following evaluation looks at several key issues for discussion, as directed by Council.
First, current General Plan policies and Design Guidelines are evaluated to help define a
moderate increase in the allowable building height for the Downtown Commercial (CD) zone.
Second, staff discusses a revised definition for Floor Area Ratio (FAR), and a possible increase
to the current FAR limit of 3.0. These two issues relate directly to Council's direction to bring
back alternatives and a recommendation for a moderate increase in building height and intensity
limits. Third, staff provides an overview of the existing policy that envisions a few, tall
"landmark" buildings (about five stories or 75 feet tall) and discusses how the existing policy
might be implemented with a new permit process. Fourth, policies for view protection in the
downtown core are evaluated. These policy issues relate directly to Council's direction to clarify
policy inconsistencies among General Plan policies and development standards for the
downtown. Finally, staff discusses potential updates to the Design Guidelines to insure the
GP Alf A/ER 50-06 (Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limits Discussion)
Page4 ·
successful integration of taller buildings with existing, lower scale development. Background
information attached to this report includes the policies on downtown from Chapter 4 of the
Land Use Element (Attachment 5) and Chapter 4 of the Design Guidelines (Attachment 6).
Alternatives for a MosJerate Increase to BuildinK Height Limits
The Community Design Guidelines say that at all buildings downtown should be at least two
stories or 30 feet in height to "enclose" the street so that it provides a pleasant space for
pedestrians. This concept is detailed in Fundamentals of Urban Design (Hedman and Jaszewski,
1984), which says that providing a sense of enclosure helps pedestrians become comfortable in
public spaces and allows them to focus on details of building design, storefront displays, street
furniture and other pedestrian oriented features (Attachment 7).
This sense of enclosure is best achieved with a building height to street width ratio between 1 :2
and 1: 1. Higuera Street and Marsh Street are 70 feet wide from storefront to storefront.
Therefore, buildings between 35 feet and 70 feet tall would fall within the recommended height
for pedestrian orientation along these street frontages. Building height of 30 feet, as
recommended in the by the Community Design Guidelines, is at the minimum scale ne,eded to
enclose the street and sidewalk. When the ratio of building height to street width exceeds the 1: 1
ratio, the tops of buildings are no longer visible in the pedestrian's peripheral view without
adjusting the head angle, providing a less comfortable environment. If proposed buildings are
taller than the adjacent street is wide, then setbacks may be incorporated to achieve the
appropriate scale. According to this analysis, additional building height could be accomplished
downtown and still provide for an optimal pedestrian experience. In the absence of taller
buildings, the tree canopy is what contains. the pedestrian's vision downtown, providing for a
comfortable sense of enclosure.
General Plan policies strongly support this sense of enclosure and the overall pedestrian
orientation of development in the downtown core by requiring a continuous retail storefront
located at the back of the sidewalk, except for the Courthouse and City Hall blocks, plazas,
recessed building entries and sidewalk cafes (LUE Policy 4.16.3). The following policy also
highlights this vision.
LUE Policy 4.5: Walking Environment. Downtown should provide safe,
exciting places for wal.king and pleasant places for sitting. To invite exploration,
mid-block walkways, courtyards, and interior mal.ls should be integrated with new
and remodeled buildings, while preserving continuous building faces on most
blocks. Downtown streets should provide adequate space for pedestrians. There
should be a nearly continuous tree canopy along sidewalks, and planters should
provide additional foliage and flowers near public gathering areas.
Land Use Element 4.16.4 provides guidance for building height downtown.
LUE Policy 4.16.4 Building Height. New buildings should fit within the existing
vertical scale. They should respect street-level views of the hills, allow sunlight to
reach public open spaces, and defer to a few tall, "landmark" buildings. Generally,
new buildings should not exceed two or three stories (about 35 to 50 feet). Where
GP Afr A/ER 50-06 (Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limits Discussion)
Page5
necessary to protect significant views, sunlight, and street character, new buildings
should be limited to two stories. or about 25 to 35 feet tall. A few taller, landmark
buildings (about five stories or 75 feet) may be developed where they will not obstruct
views or sunlight for public spaces. These taller buildings would be more
appropriate at mid-block than at corners, and their floors above the second or third
level should be set back to maintain a lower street facade. The tall buildings should
include publicly accessible. open viewing spaces at the upper levels.
Based on LUE Policy 4.16.4, a moderate increase to the current height standard for new
buildings, "two or three stories (about 35 to 50 feet)," would logically expand the maximum
height sufficiently to allow for four-story buildings. Such an increase would provide for
valuable additional floor area that would help achieve General Plan goals for housing, retail land
uses and design amenities, as directed by Council.
In previous reports and discussions to the CHC, Chamber of Commerce and Downtown
Association, staff has suggested that building height of 55' can comfortably include four stories,
and would result in buildings that are not significantly taller than some of the new three-story
buildings downtown, including the Court Street project (48') and the adjacent Carroll Building
(50'). According to the Zoning Regulations, these heights are measured from the average level
of the ground below the building to the highest point on the roof. Architectural features such as
parapets, towers, cupolas, chimneys and similar features are currently allowed to extend up to 10
feet above the maximum height limit.
Staff has based its 55' recommendation on discussions with the designers of two recent four-
story buildings proposed downtown, the Bermant Homes project at the comer of Marsh and
Nipomo, and the Ah Louis Building proposed adjacent to the historic Ah Louis Store. Both of
these buildings are proposed at four stories and 50-feet tall. Another recent application for a
building to replace the old Blade Runner salon at the comer of Monterey and Chorro includes
four stories and measures 59' feet to the top of the parapet, but only 54.5' to the top of the roof
of the fourth story.
The Chamber of Commerce has formed a subcommittee to address the issue of building height.
Testimony from the Chamber to the Cultural Heritage Committee indicated that building height
of 60' is necessary to comfortably accommodate four stories. A graphic that shows a typical
cross-section for a four-story building is included in Attachment 4.
For reference, the height of some existing buildings downtown is listed below:
Anderson Hotel, 955 Monterey Street: 65 feet to parapet, 90 to top of finial
Pacific Ben Building, 872 Morro: 64 feet to lower roof deck, 80 feet to upper deck
Palm Street Parking Garage/City Offices: 54 feet to parapet, 77 feet to top of tower
Manse on Marsh Expansion, 497 Marsh Street: 45 feet to mezzanine ridgeline
The maximum building height and intensity limits for other jurisdictions in California are
provided for reference in Attachment 9.
GP Alf A/ER 50-06 (Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limits Discussion)
Page6
ARC Action Item #1: Staff suggests that an increase in building height from 50' to 55' would
represent a moderate increase in building height limits that would accommodate four story
buildings and facilitate housing development. The ARC should discuss building height in the
context of LUE Policy 4.16.4 and recommend changes that would implement Council direction,
in order to achieve General Plan goals for retail land uses, design amenities and housing.
Revised language for this policy will be provided to the ARC during the meeting to facilitate the
discussion.
FAR DeDnition and Alternatiye FAR <Intensity) Limits
Intensity limits are primarily governed by the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) standard. FAR is
currently defined in the Zoning Regulations as the gross floor area of a building divided by the
site area. Council directed staff to revise the FAR definition to exclude basements and parking.
A revised definition consistent with this direction follows:
Floor Ana Ratio. The floor area of a building or buildings on a lot divided by
the lot area. In calculating FAR, floor area shall mean the conditioned floor area
(as defined by Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations) of the building,
excluding parking garages and basements, provided the finish floor elevation of
the first floor is less than 30" above sidewalk grade.
Currently, the maximum FAR in the downtown core is 3.0, per LUE Policy 3.1.6. An FAR of
4.0 may be permitted for downtown sites that receive transfer of development credits for open
space protection.
When considering an appropriate height limit for buildings downtown, the ARC should also
consider how intensely developed four story buildings should be. The Design Guidelines and
LUE Policy 4.16.4 both say that new buildings should include setbacks above the second or third
story to maintain a lower street fa~ade. A four story building with an FAR of 4.0 would not
include any setbacks, therefore an FAR somewhat above 3.0, but below 4.0 could represent a
moderate increase in intensity limits. The following figures represent a typical mid-block project
site in the downtown core and illustrate different building configurations necessary to maintain
the specified FAR limit.
GP Aff A/ER 50-06 (Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limits Discussion)
Page 7 ·
A four-story building with an FAR of 3.0 would generally require the upper floors to be set back
and minimized in comparison to the first floor, which is expected to cover the entire lot to
maximize retail floor area. In this scenario, the useable floor area at the upper floors is
minimized, resulting in a loss of potential dwelling units. It is important to remember that all
new development projects in the downtown core are expected to include dwellings. If floor area
on the upper levels of buildings can be increased, then additional units and affordability are more
likely.
The following illustration depicts a four story building with an FAR of 3.5.
It should be noted that FAR is not the sole determining factor for building design and intensity
limits. There are some projects, particularly those in mid-block locations and on smaller lots,
where the FAR standard is a major factor for determining building intensity. On larger lots that
include plazas, paseos or courtyards, surface parking at the rear of the site, or other ground-level
setbacks, the FAR limit would not prevent an overly massive presentation to the street. In these
cases, the Design Guidelines and General Plan policies would control to insure architectural
compatibility. The following illustration depicts an FAR of 3.75.
GP Alf A/ER 50-06 (Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limits Discussion)
Page 8 ·
ARC Action Item #2: The ARC should discuss the alternative FAR limits presented above and
recommend an appropriate maximum intensity limit. The Commission should also discuss the
revised FAR definition that is proposed.
Policy Consistency: The Landmark Building Use Permit Process
LUE Policy 4.16.4 establishes the City's desire to allow for a few, tall, landmark buildings in the
downtown core, about 5 stories or 75 feet tall. This policy is not currently implemented in the
Zoning Regulations and the Council has directed staff to propose a resolution to this
inconsistency between the General Plan and the development code. The implementation of this
policy should recognize community concerns regarding the character of downtown. To insure
that there are ample opportunities for public input on tall buildings, staff recommends a
discretionary review process that would be in addition to the City's nonnal design review
procedure. In addition, specific performance standards could be developed to insure that taller
buildings provide exceptional urban design features to achieve other General Plan goals for the
downtown. A use permit process with mandatory project features and required findings could
accomplish this.
A use permit to allow for taller buildings downtown could achieve a range of features in new
projects, such as affordable housing, energy efficiency, mid-block pedestrian connections, public
plazas, public art, and economic benefit to the City. The process would also insure that these
projects meet specific performance standards, such as minimum sidewalk width, solar access
requirements, and minimum lot sizes.
Under this scenario, the use permit would only be approved for buildings that include substantial
public amenities, meet established performance standards and are found to merit "landmark"
status, consistent with LUE Policy 4.16.4. Therefore, any revised language proposed for Policy
4.16.4 will be the basis for the ordinance that establishes the use permit requirement. If the ARC
does not support an increase in the current building height limit to facilitate four-story
development, then the Commission can recommend that the use permit process apply to all
buildings proposed to exceed the current 50' height limit.
It should be noted that members of the Cultural Heritage Committee have spoken in opposition
to the concept of landmarks being defined by building height. Buildings such as the Mission and
the Fremont Theatre are rightly consiqered landmarks, although they are not particularly tall.
The CHC was also opposed to setting a limit on the number of landmark buildings, as there may
be three buildings on one block that would rise to this level, while other blocks downtown may
have no landmarks. Regardless of what terms may eventually be used, the purpose of the
process would be to insure that any building asking for the entitlement of increased height would
have to include significant amenities to qualify for the permit process.
ARC Action Item #3: The ARC should discuss the concept of establishing a use permit process
that would require specific amenities in exchange for an entitlement of increased height, above
the prevailing standard. Staff will present additional information regarding this concept during
the public hearing, and will present revised policy language for LUE Policy 4.16.4 that would
enable a use permit process.
GP Alf A/ER 50-06 (Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limits Discussion)
Page9 ·
Policy Consistencyi View Protection
The Conservation Open Space Element (COSE) includes goals, policies and programs for view
protection in the City. COSE Policy 9.22.1 says that the City will preserve and improve views of
important scenic resources from public places. The COSE defines public places as parks, plazas,
the grounds of civic buildings, streets and roads, and publicly accessible open space. The
particular streets and roads that offer views of important scenic resources are identified in COSE
Figure 11. COSE Program 9.30.6 says that blocking views from scenic roadways will be
considered a significant environmental impact. In this way, protection is provided for these
views. (Chapter 9 of the COSE is included in this agenda report as Attachment 8.)
Chapter 4 of the Land Use Element (LUE) includes policies that apply specifically to
development downtown (Attachment 5), including additional guidance for view protection in the
downtown core. Unfortunately, the language in these policies presents an apparent conflict.
While LUE Policy 4.7 is consistent with COSE view protection policies, LUE PoliCy 4.13 is
inconsistent with the COSE, vague and therefore difficult to implement.
LUE Policy 4. 7: Open Places and Views. Downtown should include ma.ny
carefully located. open places where people can rest and enjoy views of the
surrounding hills. Downtown should include some outdoor spaces where people
are completely separated from vehicle traffic, in addition to Mission Plaza.
Opportunities include extensions of Mission Plaza, a few new plazas, and selected
street closures.
Public open places downtown include Mission Plaza, the Jack House Gardens, the Chinese
Memorial Garden, the Old County Courthouse lawn, the corner plaza and lawn at City Hall, and
the creek walk. There are impressive views of surrounding visual resources available from all of
these locations. Although the downtown core is expected to be the most intensely developed
location in the City, LUE Policy 4.7 establishes a vision for the downtown core that includes
many carefully located open places for people to rest and enjoy views of the hills. Views from
these public places are protected by COSE polices.
LUE Policy 4.13: New Buildings and Views. New downtown development
should respect views of the hills, framing rather than obscuring them.
This policy conflicts with COSE view protection policies, which only apply to public places and
specific scenic roadways. A literal interpretation of LUE Policy 4.13 is not possible to
implement with respect to other goals and policies for the downtown core, such as LUE Policy
4.15 which says, ''To keep the commercial core's sense of place and appeal for walking, it
should remain compact and be the City's most intensely developed area." Furthermore, LUE
Policy 4.5 encourages a nearly continuous tree canopy. It would be counterproductive to design
a building to frame a view that would ultimately be blocked by street tree canopy.
As a result of these conflicts, this policy is not applied consistently to new development projects.
For instance, recent development projects downtown have obscured wonderful, sidewalk-level
views of Cerro San Luis. This policy should be revised to state that ''new downtown
development adjacent to public, open places shall respect views of the hills." In this way, the
GP Alf A/ER 50-06 (Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limits Discussion)
Page 10
policy can be made specific as to how COSE policies are to be implemented downtown: new
buildings adjacent to public, open places would frame views and not obscure them.
Such a strategy would guarantee long-tenn preservation of views from public, open places and
would allow for other locations within the core io be developed in a way that is consistent with
the development pattern in the downtown core.
LUE Policy 4.16.4 also says that new development should respect sidewalk-level views of the
hills. Staff is recommending that the ARC consider alternative language that would be specific
to views from public, open places, as defined by the COSE. Specific policy language will be
provided to the ARC during the public hearing to facilitate the discussion.
These issues may be further clarified with implementation of COSE Program 9.30.2.
COSE Program 9.JIJ.2. Update Community Design Guidelines. UpdaJe and
maintain Community Design Guidelines to address views from scenic roadways
and include them in design standards in plans for sub-areas of the City.
ARC Action Item #4: Discuss COSE and LUE policies and programs and consider revised
policy language for LUE Policy 4.13 and 4.16.4. During the public hearing, staff will present
alternative language for these policies to facilitate the discussion.
Communitv Design Guidelines Update
According to the Downtown Development Handbook (ULI, 1992), the key challenge in
designing new downtown development projects is the successful integration of larger-scale
structures into the existing context. Different communities take different approaches to
overcome this challenge. For instance, the City of Paso Robles has a standard that allows for
new buildings in their downtown to be 10% taller than existing adjacent buildings. The City of
Ventura is working on new guidelines for downtown development and is contemplating a fonn-
based standard that would require an average building height of four stories on each proposed
development site. Other communities have standards for integrating new buildings, such as
requiring new, taller buildings to include architectural transitions between old and new
development. Transitions can include setbacks for upper stories, or the emulation of strong
horizontal features, such as cornices, from the old building to the new. In San Luis Obispo, new
projects in historical districts are reviewed on a case by case basis through Architectural Review
process, which includes input from the CHC. The City's Community Design Guidelines are a
key resource for designers proposing new buildings in the City. Chapter 4 of the Guidelines
deals exclusively with downtown development, and is attached for review by the CHC
(Attachment 6).
The following is a list of Best Practices for new downtown development provided in the
Downtown Development Handbook. They are listed here for the ARC's consideration:
1) Breaking the horizontal expanse of long facades into increments that relate to the
human scale by using fenestration, architectural details, and varying setbacks and
rooflines to define a sequence of bays;
GP Alf A/ER 50-06 (Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limits Discussion)
Page 11
2) Articulating the building mass to create an aggregation of smaller forms as a
means of reducing the perception of overwhelming bulk;
3) Providing a sequence of public spaces and walkways that are lin~ed to the street
grid;
4) Using setbacks to reinforce the definition of the streetwall and bring interior
activities to the edge of the pedestrian zone.
5) Orienting major facades and entrances to the streets that serve as important
pedestrian corridors;
6) Using transparent ground-story facades and retail activity to integrate the structure
functionally with other uses that edge the street; and
7) Designing transitions in height and massing.
ARC Action Item #5: The Community Design Guidelines for downtown provide direction for
street orientation, height and scale, f~ade design, materials and architectural details, and public
spaces, plazas and courtyards. The ARC should discuss whether· these existing guidelines
provide for the proper integration of new, taller buildings. Staff is recommending that the ARC
provide direction to staff to prepare additional design guidelines for the downtown with a
specific focus on architectural transitions. The ARC may wish to consider appointing a sub-
committee to work with staff on this issue.
NextSteos
After the Architectural Review Commission provides direction to staff on the policy issues
discussed in this agenda report, staff will forward its recommendations to the Planning
Commission for consideration. The Planning Commission is charged with making a
recommendation to Council on the specific language of proposed General Plan amendments.
Planning Commission consideration of the issue is expected to occur in November. The City
Council will take up the issue in December or January. Once the policy issues are clarified by
the City Council, staff will return to the Architectural Review Commission to work towards
updating the Community Design Guidelines.
RECOMMENDATION:
Per City Council direction, discuss alternatives and provide a recommendation regarding:
I. A moderate increase to current building height and intensity limits for downtown, including
potential increases to Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and maximum building height standards, and
a revised FAR definition.
2. The concept of establishing a use permit process to provide a discretionary review process
to maximize opportunities for public input and to establish mandatory project features and
performance standards for tall buildings, including ARC direction on revisions to LUE
Policy 4.16.4.
GP Aff A/ER 50-06 (Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limits Discussion)
Page 12
3. A strategy for clarifying policy inconsistencies regarding view protection and pedestrian
amenities downtown, including direction on revisions to LUE Policies 4.13 and 4.16.4.
4. Direction on revised Community Design Guidelines to promote the use of architectural
transitions between buildings as a way to integrate new development with existing, small-
scale buildings.
Attached:
Attachment 1: Council Minutes, March 14, 2006
Attachment 2: Council Memo explaining procedures for building height discussion
Attachment 3: Economic Impacts of Height Limitations (Alan D. Kotin and Associates)
Attachment 4: Council Memo, CHC building height discussion, 8-28-06
Attachment 5: Land Use Element -Chapter 4 (Downtown)
Attachment 6: Community Design Guidelines -Chapter 4 (Downtown)
Attachment 7: Excerpt: Fundamentals of Urban Design (Hedman and Jaszewski, 1984)
Attachment 8: COSE -Chapter 9 (Views)
Attachment 9: Building Height and Intensity Limits, Other Jurisdictions
I
I
I
flOLLCALL:
Council Member•
Present:
CltyStaff:
Present:
·MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
TUESDAY, MARCH 14, 2008 .. 7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBER, 990 PALM STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
Attachment 1
Councft Membere John Ewan,· Chrlatlne Mulholland, Vice Mayor Allen
Settle and Mayor Dave Romero were preeent at Roll Call. Council
Member Brown ·wu aeated at approxlmately 7:0S. p.m.
Ken Hamplan, City Admlnletratlve Officer; Jonathan Lowell, City
AltOmey; Audrey Hooper, City Clerk; Shelly 8tanwyck, Anlatant City
Admmr.trattve OffJcer; John Mandevllle, Community Development
Director; Deborah Unden, Pollce Chief; Jobn Moee, Utllltlea Director;
Mike Drue, Deputy Community Development Director; Doug
·Davidson, HoualnO Programa Manager; Claire Clark, Economic
Development Manager; Pam Ricci, Senior Planner; Warren
Stephenson, Battlllon Chief
--~-·------,~~~-------------------------QI.ORD SESSIQtf
City Attorney Lowell announced the followlng Closed Senion topic:
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to Government Code§ 54958.9
Christina Brown v. City of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo Police Department, et al
Unlted States District Court, central District of Califomia, case No. OCV00-0048 MMM
City AttOCllft Lowell repotted f!Jaf Council met with the City Attorney and discussed the
above-referenced case. There was no further repol'fable llt:llon. ·
PUBLIC CQMMCHJ
Pg San§!r. San Luis Obispo, congratulated the City and SLO Film Festival for an
extraordinary event. He announced that a special event, "Dancing with the Hometown Celebs,
Red Hot Ballroom," will be held at the Alex Madonna Expo Center on September 16, 2006.
,Funds from this event will be offered to chUdren'a charltlea.
Sara Heme, representing the League of Women Voters, discussed the League's activities and
Invited the community to participate In "Sunshine Week," March 12 • 18. She 8Bld the purpose
of 11Sunahlne Week" Is to stimulate publlc discussion about open government •.
STUDY SESSION
1. BUILDING HEIGHT AND INTENSITY IN THE DOWN!OWN CORE
City Council Meeting Page2
Tunc:lay, March 14, 2008 • 7:00 p.m.
Community Qmlopment Director MMcltvll• Hpy11na PrpgraOJ! Manaaar Pty1c1190 and
EPoman>lc Qoneunam AlllQ KPllD presented the staff report and re1ponded to Council'•
queetlOna.
eubllc CommtnJt
Marts R•Y<IRD· San Lui• Obl1po rnldent and archlteot, dl1ou118d hi• oonceptl for making
the downtown pedntrlan friendly and encouraged Councll to embrace the concept of taller
buildings In the dOwntown. ·
Jobn Qpoc:leJI. San Lula Oblapo, oppoaed lncreealng the den11ty In the downtown becauu
of potenllally lldveNe lmptlCte on the character of the City (blooklng vlewl, creating
·canyons 'between tall buHdlnge, lnoreal8d trafflC).
AQdrtW Ct9, San Lula Oblapo, IUplted the fooUI lhould bl on height rather than
denalty IJ'ld floor area ratlol (FAR•). He thought •height" ahould be oonaldered at the
atreet/lldewalk level, and thlll there lhould bl different height ltandarde baaed on the
width of atreet8. He allo thought that there lhould be a 1tandard limiting the UM to
houaln9 llfter a certain height.
Hamlth Martblll· downtown property owner, displayed a photofraph depicting and
dfaou•aed the height of exlltlng bulldlnga and hfltorlcal bulldlnp In the downtown. He
au09Mled that height In feat, not In atorlea, I• what should be oonaldered. He alao
auggeated that "19 FAR should not be changed Md that each development should be
considered on a can-by-cue basl1.
Qeborah Cal,h. Downtown Association, dlacuased the Importance of promoting balance In
the downtown and encouraged a diverse mix of YH.S. She expressed concern that
· adopting strict poHcles may be oounter·productfve to the City's goals.
Lvnn b•ndwher, San Luis Obispo, urg8d Council to take Into consideration the ecala of the
valtey In which the City alts. Sha expressed concern that the sense of aattlng might be lost
with too mueh height, mass and density In the downtown.. ·
Mlgbafl Suf(tvan. San Lula Obispo, reviewed the recommendation• contained In his letter to
Council (on fie In the City Clerk's office) and diaoussed the need for affordable housing.In
the downtown. ·
Tom JOO!f. Pean of Cal Poly College of Architecture and Environmental Design, supported
1ncrea1ed height Md dlscusaed prfnclplea he thought should be considered •.
ggoe Senaer, San Luis Obispo, mpoke In support of the Alff recommendation, of permitting
an extra atory based on the design, and of making decisions on a case-by-case basis.
Cbuck Crotgr. San Lula Obispo, discussed his letter to Council (on flle In the City Clei'k's
office), He tatd there 11 a need to continua considering acquiring and preserving open
space, and to provide alternatives tor moderately Increasing heights.
Keo Schwartz, San Luis Obispo, referenced his letter to Councll (on fife In the City Clerk's
office) and uld he Is In favor of modifying the height !Imitations to accommodate need• for
I
I
the downtown. He explained that while there has been dlscuaalon regarding profltablllty for I
the private sector, conslcleraUon must also be given to the public sector. He said there la a
need roe a careful balance between the permitted land use and revenues generated. .
I
I
I
City Councll Meeting Page3
Tuesday, Mai'ch 14, 2008 • 7:00 p.m.
em l)adamalm· Ian Lula Oblepo, pointed out that In the put, the City had a much more
urban downtown than today and~ that this la an opportunity to replace eome of the
buUdlng maee loet. He also eald he thinks the FAR need• to be adjusted to encourage more
~Ive eolutlone to upper level dealgna. ·
-and of public commente-
cao HamPllD explained why he bellevll there la a need to balance or clarify exlatlng
pollclla. . .
Council dlecunlon eMued, during which "8ff responded to questions.
ytce MaWpr sa eupported flexlbUlty In height, a FAA of 4:0, flexlblllty related to and an
underground comPoMRt tor perking, residential aomponente and mixed uae downtown,
and pursuing storlea Instead of feet. He aleo supported ataft'• recommendation •
. Cqyocll lelDber l[OWD concurred With Vice Mayor Settle'• commente.
Council I_.. l!W!Q also concurred With Vice Mayor Settle'• commente. He added that
there la a need to cDacuH what percent Of a building ehould be hou11n9. He alao concurred
with prior comments that It wlll be lmportent to COMlder the perceptual framework Of
bUlldlng• and to keep ln mind the need to Obtain public amenltlee as a trade off. He .
suqeeted that there la a need to move forward within the 6-etory, 7G-foot range and that
more workable pollcle8 need to be put Into place.
CouQ.pll Membet MuthoDand dtscuued her opposition to the proposal. Her concems
lnOluded, In part, that houelng that hu been developed In the downtown II not affordable;
that there ehould be a modal shift In transportation and that the downtown ehoukl not be
auto-dependent, but auto free; that urban llfe should be redefined to meet the challenge of
the growing energy scarcity; that as Increased housing Is discussed; how to discourage the
uee of automobiles In the downtown and how not to add the costs of parking them onto the
housing muet also be discussed; that residents of the City have expressed their opposition
to a taller downtown; that taller bUlldlngs are lkely to create dark aleys; and that what
draws tourists Is that the City Is pedestrlan-acalec:I old, small downtown. She also
expressed concern about the pro}ectl referenced In the staff report.
Mayor B2mtro said he thinks parking on some baais will need to be provided and that the
FAR II too restrictive. He favored a FAR of 4:0, ellmlnating basements and parking from the
FAA, and pennlWng bulldlnga to exceed two or three stores. He it8ld he would Uke to
consider building heights at 70 to 75 feet and pointed out that this would Impact only a few
seleot8d sites. He said he didn't object to transfer development credits (TDCs) and that
there should be a very careful review of each project greater than three or.four stories In
height. He supported staff's recommendations.
In response to eounoiJ M9ber Mulholland. a brief discussion ensued regarding how the
City will maintain equlllbrlum between the higher and lowei' bulldlngs (I.e., maintaining light
and the view shed) while stHI Incorporating more housing In the downtown.
Staff will Include the concept of uUllzlng transfer development credits In the follow up.
ACTION: Moved by Brgwn/Eyfan to: 1. Revise the City's floor area ratio (FAR)
definition to exclude basements and parking. 2. Confirm Polley inconststencles
among General Plan poltcles and development standards for the downtown. 3.
Direct staff to bring back alternatives for moderately Increasing the downtown
City Councl Meeting Page4
Tuesday, March 14, 2008 • 7:00 p.m.
bulldlng height and Intensity ltmltl, In order to achieve other General Plan goals and 1 ob)ectJVea, Including d•lgn amenities, houalng, and retall land UHS. 4. Review
recommendatlona,wlth the Cultural Heritage Committee, Arohlteotural Review
Commlaalon, Planning Commlufon, and Downtown Alaoclatlan before retumlng to
the Council; motion paaed 4:1 (Mulholland oppoted).
Yl9' MU.W lfmle Inquired whether CounoU would aupf)Ol't uklng for a report from ataff on
the tuture of the Dalldlo project and lta Impact on the City's land use polloles. There was no
consensus give ltatf this direction at thla time.
There being no further bumlneu to come before the City Councl~ Mmr Romero adjourned
the meeting at 9:40 p.m. to a epaolal meeting on Weclne8clay, March 11, 2008, In the Council
Hearing Room, 980 Palm 8trwt, San Lula Oblepo.
APPROVED BY COUNCIL: 04I04I06
I
I
( · ·) . Attachm~nt 2
city o~ san lUIS OBISPO
memo
To:
Via:
From:
By:
Re:
August 1, 2006
City Council
Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer
~Mandeville, Community Development~
Kim Muny, Deputy Community Deveropment Director ~
Downtown Building Height Dlscussfc?n Update: Two Step Plan
There have been several recent articles In the Tribune and New Tmes
discussing the development of guidelines to aUow taller buiklngs In the
downto.wn area. . These articles, combined with talk radio and the citizenry's
under8tandable "protective instincl" .when It comes to the Downtown, has
caused the staff to alter its approach to pursuing the Councirs direction. We
want to be sure that our approach Is sufficlently deHberatlve so that vie might
have a: less emotional, more productive dialogue about this Issue •
. A Current Situation "Reality Check"
The City has several applications or negotiations in process where increased
height may be ~mplated. However, of the. seven larger ~ under
consideration, only nm are proposing to construct a building higher than the
50 feet typically allowed ore8ftl1ly In the downtown area. 711B remaining
proposals (not yet applications), date within the existing 60' Hmit. This Is in
stark contrast to a common perception that the City Is poised to allow a
timltless nunt>er of exceptionally tall buildings in the Downtown.
I
The Council direction in Maroh 2006 was for staff to bring back alternatives
for Jll9derately increasing the downtown building height and intensity Omits in
order to achieve other General Plan goals and objectives; and to review
po1entlal Inconsistencies among General Plan policies and development
standards .for the · downtown. This direction was given wtth the
understanding that most properties in the downtown are not conducive to a
significant change in height, and therefore the added flexibility would be
dlscrlminately applied.
1
1"1
Two-Step Approach
In order to fldflll this direction, staff believes that It will be more productive to
separate the potloy changes from ordinance Implementation In our approach
to 1he Issue.
Step 1; First, we plan to bring forward the dlscusalon of the General Plan
pollcles with recommendations for the amendments to allow more flexlbllty
and resolve existing conflicts. While there are existing General Plan policies
that enable buldings up to 76 feet In height In the downtown area, there are
also pol~ that have slight lnoonslste~ In .dlre.ctlon and guidance. Staff
will be bringing forward minor modifications for the eouncrs review that
clarify under what clreumstances (e.g. what findings and goala must be met)
additional height may be appropriate for buldlngs In the downtown area.
Step 2; Once this General Plan policy clarification la complete, staff will
retum with a reoommendatlon for ordinance amendments that Implement the
dlrectfon of the policies.
The Schedule
The proposed advisory body and Council schedule for reviewing the existing
General Plan policies and possible amendments is as follows:
CHC 0n August 28"
Downtown Association on August etta.
ARC .and Planning Commission -September/October
City Council In November/December/January.
The ordinance amendments would fotlow this schedule, and most likely be
adq>ted In the spring 2007 ..
SUmmary
Whlle the above approach will take. a little longer and will not rerriove all of
the intense emotion that is running now, we do think a two-step strategy will
provide for better communication, -n.mor control" and citizen involvement.
)
Allan D. Kotin & Associates
Attachment 3
310.820.0900
213.623.3841
Pax 213.623.4231
· Real Est.ate Consultinll for Pcibllc Private Joint VentuteS
949 S. Hope Street Suite 200, Los Angeles, CA 9001 S skotin@adkotin.com
Memorandum
TO: Ken Haippian, City Administrative Officer, City of San Luis DATE: January 13, 2006
Obispo
CC: Shelly Stanwyck, Assistant City Administrative Officer
ftOM: AllanD. Kotin
BE: l!CONOMIC IMPA~S OF HEIGHT LIMITATIONS IN DoWNTOWN SAN LUIS OBISPO
At your request, I have prepared this memo outlining what I perceive to be some of the economic
issues associated With the limitation of building height in downtown San Luis Obispo. Although I
am not an urban planner, .I have given considerable thought to those ingredients that make for
successful downtowns, mixed-use and effective revitalization where revitalization is needed. In that
capacity I have studied in some detail the revitalization of Pasadena, Santa Monica, Santa Barbara ·
and, not at all irrelevantly, San Luis Obispo. In· addition, I teach at the graduate School of Policy,
Planning, and Development.at the Vniversity of Southern California. The two classes I teach are the
Development Approval Process and Public Private Joint Ventures. In both classes, I deal with the
issue of suceessful downtown revitalization and the. interaction of developmental economics and
land use regulation.
I think there are three critical aspects of height limitations and their possible relaxation as they apply
to do'1vntown San Luis Obispo. The three items are: · '
1. The land use impacts of height limitation;
2. Examples of articulated downtowns and their use of different height buildings;
3. The likely impacts of a relaxation of height limitations in downtown San Luis Obispo.
Before going into great detail and elaborating on the three thoughts, it is ·useful to talk about the
whole issue of height limitation.· Many successful downtowns have buildings of five to seven stories
in height without having skyscrapers, and I will be discussing, in this brief memo, primarily
situations in which heights of perhaps 75 to 80 feet are tolerated, accommodating, depending on the
type of building, anywhere from six to eight stories at a maximum.
Impacts of Height Limitation on Land Use
One of the most interesting things about successful downtowns, ·whether they are continuously
successful or successful in revitalization, is that to survive you must grow. All the downtown
patterns that I have studied have to be seasoned with some level of new development. The new
development can, as it is in both. SLO and Santa Barbara, be very heavily regulated, but new
. .. ADK,A
Memorandum
RE: ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF HEIGHT LIMITATIONS IN DoWNTOWN SAN LUIS OBISPO
Working Draft Subject to Change
development is needed for the stimulation and sense of change. Most frequently this is
redevelopment. ·
The institution of a height limitation that keeps buildings at three stories or less, has s~veral
generally unfortunate implications for the kind of redevelopment and repositioning and new
development that are so critical to the long term success of a downtown.
Let us begin with the concept that retail, even in a situation where parking is heavily subsidized, is a
difficult land use not supporting· terribly high land values. Retail tenants have . a wide variety of
options ~d often are unwilling to pay ever escalating rents. Retail generally only works at one ·
level. Only in rare situations and with particular design excellence and entrepreneurial zeal do you
get multiple storey retail that is effective and survives.
One interesting consequence of the limited value of retail land is that as improved properties occur,
it becomes harder and harder to redevelop in a purely retail use. Hence the push in many areas for
mixed-use. Historically mixed-use represented either retail and office or retail and housing. With
the advent of technology and the changing economics of most California cities, office is not a
primary use and mixed-use primarily means retail and housing. .
It is difficult, albeit not impossible, to make a cost effective project in which _there is one level of
retail and only two levels of housing. This product works much better at three or four levels of
housing. · The reasons for this are the fact that more housing reduces the land cost, and also more
housing allows you to approach critical mass. Projects of five, ten or even 20 units are inherently
uneconomical to operate. Projects of 50 or 100 units are much more economical. It is difficult to
get such large projects if housing is restricted to only one or two floors above retail.
The other problem or impact of height limitation on land use is inadvertently to discourage rental
housing. The economics of rental housing do not work very well with ·small projects.
On the other hand, high cost condominium housing can be done with small projects. There is a
strong argument to· be made, particularly in downtown areas, for the incorporation of significant
amounts of rental housing so as to accommodate people who work in downtown. Condominiums
are typically much more expensive and much less suited to many of the non premium employees in
a downtown area. These are the natural tenants for renting and successful downtown development
almost requires that much of the housing built accommodate some of these employees.
Finally and perhaps most critically, is.the fact that without being able to go fairly high, that is to say
four~ five or more stories, it is very difficult to justify the entitlement risk, the construction risk and
the operational risk associated with successful mixed-use development. Elevators, air shafts and
other vertical penetrations are required for even a two or three story building and they do not
changed materially for a much higher building. This means that the building efficiency increases
with height.
Allan D. Kotin & Associates Page2 21912006
.. .. ADK,A
Memorandum
RE: ·ECONOMIC IMPAcTS OF HEIGHT LIMITATIONS IN DOWNTOWN SAN LUIS OBISPO
. Working Draft Subject to Change
Finally and perhaps ,most significantly~ is the fact that without there being ·an economic benefit, ·
some sense of leverage of value added, redevelopment is much less likely to occur. Iti an
environment, particularly founcj. in San Luis .Obispo and other "successful" urban areas, land prices
are very high and the only way to achieve the surplus value needed to warrant redevelopment or new
development is in fact to allow increasing density.
In conclusion, the land use impacts of severe height limitations are primarily to reduce significantly
redevelopment and growth. This means that the goal of mixed-use development of downtowns, .
which ecologically is most attractive and mitigates the otherwise omnipresent traffic problems,
cannot be achieved. It also means, in a very significant sense, that'the concept that downtowns must
giow or die cannot be honored.with the potential bad future ~nsequences.
Examples of Articulated Downtowns
The cities of Pasadena, Santa Monica and Santa Barbara all have a sprinkling· of four, five, and in
some cases six or seven story buildings in their prime downtown area. What is significant is that
none of these cities have become dominated by such structures. In the case of Pasadena, there was a
tradition of mid to high rise office buildings, surrounding but.not in Old Pasadena, that.has actually
been halted but many of the new Ii1ixed-use buildings are 70 .to 90 feet high accommodating four,
five or more stories. In Santa Barbara, there is relatively little new construction at height but there
are a fair number of older office buildings, some still used for office and some subject to adaptive ·
re-use that exceed significantly two and three ·storey height limitations. ·
California is replete with visual examples of situations where individual higher buildings have not ·
only not hurt downtowns but liave in fact enriched them. There is a premium that attaches to a taller
building in an area which has relatively few tall buildings. The opportunity for view and the
opportunity for status create economic value. This does not require that there be a lot of high
buildings and in fact it works better where there are fewer.
This later observation leads directly to the third and concluding observation of this analysis.
;
The Likely Results of Relaxing Height Limitations in Downtown San Luis Obispo
Relaxing height limitations is clearly not going to cause a paroxysm of new high rise construction.
Lot sizes, other forms of regulation and the pure economics of construction all guarantee that this
will not occur. What in fact will occur is that at selected locations, many of which can be defined in
advance, there will be construction of up to seven stories. The reason I chose seven stories is the
fact that under current building codes, it is possible to build five stories of frame and stucco. It is
further possible to build those over a two story concrete and steel podium of parking. This .parking
can be faced in front with retail. A very common format for a mixed-use project with retail at the
ground level and residential above is to provide retail at ground level, parking both below and at the
second· level, and then to build frame and stucco above that.
Allan D. Kotin & Associates Page3 21912006
.. .. ADK,A n ()
Memorandum
RE: ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF HEIGHT LIMITATloNS IN DOWNTOWN SAN LUIS.OBISPO
Working Dra~ Subject to Change ·
My personal view is that it is most unlikely that there will a large number of such construction
involving a mixture of retail, hotel and residential uses. Such construction requires sites of a
minimum of 30,000 square feet and preferably S0,000 or more. The number of places where such
stze can be assembled and effectively developed is vecy small. The combination of seismic
limitation, recent rehabilitation, and lot configuration all virtually guarantee that the number of
locations at which.higher density mixed-use development is likely or possible to occur in downtown,
probably numbers is single digits and certainly not more than a dozen or so.
I would hope you find this memo useful. If you would like further detail or formal example
calculations, please let me know.
C;\Documeots and Settings\t.keelan\Mv Documents\ADK\ADKMemo.dot
Allan D. Kotin & Associates Page 4 219/2006
Attachment 4
communrty OOvelopment bepaRtment
memomnbum
August 29, 2006
To: Ken Hampian, CAO
From: John Mandeville, Community Development Director
By: Michael Codron, Associate Planner
Subject: Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limits: CHC Review
Last night staff made a presentation to the CHC on the Downtown Building Height
and Intensity Limits Discussion. Only four CHC members were present, and the
Committee as a whole did not feel comfortable delving into the issue shorthanded.
Therefore, thel continued their discussion to the next CHC meeting, scheduled for
September 25 . Before the CHC continued the discussion, Staff provided a detailed
presentation of the issues at hand, and explained the two-step approach to addressing
Council's direction provided at the conclusion of the March study session. First, the
policy issues will be discussed and clarified by the City Council after input from the
Advisory groups. Ordinance revisions will be proposed based on the clarified
policies and will also go through the Advisory groups and City Council for adoption.
Staff is planning to meet with the absent CHC members prior to the September
meeting in order to bring them up to speed on the discussion so that the September
25th meeting will be productive.
Although last night's discussion did not really ''talce off," it was still a useful meeting
with great public attendance. The Council Hearing Room was full and nine members
of the-audience provided testimony. A summary of the testimony and CHC
comments follows:
Members of the public gave the following comments:
• Trying to place a number limit on landmark buildings is dangerous -
Buildings should develop and by their design and merits will become
landmarks. The city has lost of lot of landmark and taller buildings and he
listed a few examples. Many of these buildings have ·been lost and the
building mass needs to be returned. The taller first floor of buildings reflects
the historic character that accommodated natural ventilation through
clerestory windows.
• Current prices up to $3.00 sq. ft. triple net, on the way to $4.00 sq. ft. for retail
space. By limiting square footage downtown, the result is increasing rent
costs due to limited supply. Direction should be to protect and retain facades
of old buildings -it's what people see and relate to. Trying to retain the
interior of old buildings is neither efficient nor cost-effective. Older buildings
tended to not be laid out well for current retail or office needs. It's expensive
Page2
to retain these interiors. The city needs to allow basements and not count
them toward FAR -this is the best place for storage and mechanical
equipment. Currently, the only option is to store merchandise off-site and this
creates morning traffic as the trucks bring merchandise to stores. It doesn't
make fmancial sense to use retail floor area to store merchandise.
• There is a SLO Chamber of Commerce sub-committee studying the height
issue. The idea from the sub-committee (has yet to be vetted with Chamber
Board), is to propose a 60' height limit for new buildings. The desire to keep
the histOric character of buildings would encourage a 16' first-floor ceiling
height and tall windows on the ground level (see attached graphic). Height
limits are more important than story limitations. Visitors that come into the
Chamber are looking for a vibrant and active downtown with a mix of uses.
The sub-committee will be making a recommendation to respect history but
also accommodate taller buildings. Tiering and setbacks at upper floors will
make new taller buildings less obtrusive at the street level.
• Speaker representing the American Institute of Architects (AIA) is glad the
city is looking at the height issue. There is a reason that additional height
needs to be accommodated -with safety issues and newer technology and
HV AC requirements, there is a need for more interior space between floors. It
is more important to consider overall height than numbers of stories. Facades
are important.
• Parking needs to be accommodated in equation if residential units are
included in the buildings being proposed. The topography, clearance and
ventilation required for development of a parking garage and the overall cost
of construction makes projects that include residential units very expensive to
build. There is a need to allow additional floors to increase the viability of the
development and the affordability of the units. As the cost of the development
goes up, the amount that the market rate units have to carry goes up too. If
there is a fourth floor with residential units, there are more market rate units
over which to spread the costs to subsidize the affordable units.
• All project decisions are balancing acts. Decision makers need to be able to
balance all aspects of a project. From a CEQA perspective, the city needs to
carefully consider the language that gets adopted so that it doesn't tie the
hands of the decision makers and not allow them to consider all of the city
goals. CEQA is a guarantee of disclosure and is not intended to be used to
disallow certain decisions.
• Make this the toughest ordinance possible so that we do not lose more
character and great buildings downtown. Talk about Garden Street -don't
make decisions based on economics. It's too important to protect our
downtown historic resources.
.Page 3
• There is already a review process in place. Keep wording as tight as possible.
Clean up the policy wording. Concerned about tall buildings on Garden
Street. If development is done carefully, away from the street, then it should
be allowed to go higher.
• Santa Barbara had a similar street to Garden Street and it is no longer there
because that city allowed development that didn't protect the existing
character. While the commenter doesn't live in San Luis Obispo, she has an
appreciation of the historic character of the downtown. What is the possibility
of doing a moratorium until the decisions are made? It is sticky to be able to
have residences downtown: in Avila Beach, these residences have become
vacation rentals.
The CHC discussed these issues as follows:
Tom Wheeler -the policies contain some complex wording and changes need to be
carefully considered. Wants to wait until full committee is in attendance.
Dan Carpenter -wants the input of the 3 missing Committee members. Agrees that
it seems suitable to let Landmark buildings appear where they develop rather than
specify the location of where they should happen. There may be two in one block
and none in three blocks. He has concern about shading on the streets and gave
several examples, but felt that this shading and obscuring of buildings was due to a
heavy tree canopy. He would like to see the tree canopy addressed as it blocks views
and fewer trees might open up some views.
Lynne Landwehr-historically, there were no trees downtown, but we don't want to
go back to that situation. She sees the logic of needing 60' of height to be able to
accommodate 4 stories, but she's not sure she agrees with that approach. She would
like to see the policies/ordinance address how the height limit is measured. Historic
buildings may have architectural elements that bring up height of building but that
don't increase building mass. Wants a definition that includes what is measurable
height and what is a building element. Also has some concerns about public viewing
from upper floors of new buildings: if there are. residences included in these
buildings, the residents may not like the public wandering about near their houses.
Page4
Graphic presented to Committee from member of the public showing how a 60'
height limit is needed to accommodate four floors comfortably:
•
Attachment: 8-28-06 CHC Staff Report
MO'Mtttr~!~ri2~·~ lft mskln:(j MW ~Mp ~ t!Mt
tr~ry,
Attachrrient s
land Use Element
· (} C) Develop aggressive tourism marketing programs;
D) Develop concepts such as rail tours, sea cruises, historical tours,
and bicycle tours;
E) Encourage development of appropriate recreational facilities
for got( tennis, equestrian activities, soccer, swimming, fishing,
and eco-tourism.
DOWNTOWN
LU 4.1: Downtown's Role
Downtown is the cultural, social and political center of the City for its residents, as well
as home for those who live in its historic neighborhoods. The City wants its commercial
core to be economically healthy, and realizes that private and public investments in the
downtown support each other. Downtown should provide a wide variety of professional
and government services, serving the region as well as the city. The. commercial core is
a preferred location for J;etail uses that are suitable· for pedestrian access, off-site parking,
()and compact building spaces. Civic, cultural and commercia.J, portions of downtown
\ should be a major· tourist destination. Downtown's visitor 'appeal should be based on
-natural, historical, and cultural features, retail services,· and numerous and varied visitor
accomdations ..
LU 4.2: Downtown Residential
LU 4.2.1: Existing and New Dwellings
Downtown residential uses contribute to the character of the area, allow a 24-hour
presence which enhances security, and help the balance between jobs and housing in
the community. Existiflg residential uses within and around the commercial core should
be protected, and new ones should be developed. Dwellings should be provided for a
variety of households, including singles, couples, and groups. Dwellings should be
interspersed with commercial uses. All new, large commercial projects should include
dwellings. Commercial core properties may. serve as receiver sites for transfer of
development credits, thereby having higher residential densities than otherwise allowed.
crty o~ san LUIS omspo • qeneRal plan 01qest • OecenmeR 2004 LU·&1
LU·62
C)
Land Use Element
LU 4.2.2: Dwellings and Oftices
Residential uses within some dO'wntown areas designated Office prior to this element's
1994 update should be maintained, or replaced as new offices are developed. The City
· should amend the Downtown Housing Conversion Permit process to preserve the
number of dwellings iri the Downtown Core (C-D zone) and the Downtown Planning
Area by adopting a "no net housing loss" program by· amending the Downtc>wn Housing
Conversion ordinance. The amendment shall ensure that within each area, the number
of dwellings removed shall not exceed the number of.dwellings added.
LU 4.3:. Entertainment and Cultural Facilities
Cultural facilities, such as museums, galleries, and public theaters should be downtoWn.
Entettainment facilities, such as nightclubs and private ·theaters should be in the
downtown, too. Locations outside downtown may be more appropriate for facilities
that would be out of character or too big for downtown to accommodate comfortably,
such as the major performing arts center planned for the Cal Poly campus.
LU 4.4: Public Gatherings
Downtown should have spaees to accommodate public meetings, seminars, classes, and
similar activities in conjunction with other uses. Downtown should provide a setting
which is festive, and comfortable for public gatherings. ·
LU 4.5: Walking Environment
Downtown should provide safe, exciting places for walking and pleasant places for sitting.
Tu invite exploration, mid-block walkways, courtyards, and interior malls .should be
integrated with new and remodelled buildings, while preserving continuous building
faces on most blocks. Downtown streets should provide adequate space for pedestrians.
There should be a nearly continuous tree canopy along sidewalks, and planters should
provide additional foliage and flowers near public gathering areas.
LU 4.6: Public Safety
Indoor and outdoor public spaces should be observable from frequently occupied or
travelled places, to enhance public safety.
c·)
-) .. ___ .,..
OecemseR 2004 -QeneRal plan b1Qest -crty of san lms ol\lspo
Land Use Element
0
LU 4.7: Open Plac~ and Views
Downtown should include many ·carefully located open places where people can rest . r···) and enjoy views of the surrounding hills. DowntO'Yfl Sh<;>uld include some outdoor
,, spaces where people ate completely separated from vehicle traffic, in addition to Mission
· · Plaza. Opportunities include extensions of Mission Plaza, a few new plazas, and selected
( ) .. /
street closures. ·
LU 4.8: Traffic in Reside.-.tial Areas
Downtown residential areas should be protected _from through traffic.
LU 4.9: Street Changes .
Street widening and realignment should be avoided.
LU 4.10: Parking
There should be a diversity of parking opportunities. Any major increments in parking
supply should take the form of structures, located at the edges of the commercial core, .
so people will walk rather than drive between points within the core. Retail uses outside
the ·core, and professional ·office developments, may have on-site parking for customers
and clients.
crty o~ san tu1s omspo • qeneQal plan 01qest • OecemneQ 2004
H 6.3.2
LU·63
Land Use Element
G6/"' LU 4.1 I : The Creek
.LU 6.5.4
G6/"'
H3.2.5
LU-64
San Luis Obispo Creek should be protected and restored, provided this can be done in
a manner that minimizes human impact on creek life. Walking paths along· the creek in
the downtown core should be provided as links in an ·urban trail system, provided this
Will not further degrade wildlife habitat value of the riparian ecosystem. As properties
that have encroaching buildings are redeveloped, the City should enforce a reasonable
building setback.from the riparian zone. Opportunities to open covered sections of the
creek should be pursued. ·
LU 4.12: Building Conservation and Compatibility
Architectw:ally and historicaUy significant buildings should be preserved and restored.
New buildings should be compatible with architecturally and historically significant
buildings, but not necessarily the same style.
LU 4.13: ·New Buildin• and Views
New downtown development should respect views of the hills, framing rather than
obscuring them.
LU 4.14: Noise · .. .· .·· · .)
Obtrusive sounds, including traffic noises and loud music, should be minimized. Desired( ....
activities which are noisy should be timed to avoid conflict with other desired activities
which need a quiet setting. .
LU 4.15: Sense of Place ·
'lb keep the commercial core's sense of place and appeal for walking, it sholild remain
compact and be the City's most intensely developed area.
LU 4.16: Design Principles
The following principles should guide construction and changes of use within the
commercial· core:
LU 4.16.1: Street Level Activities
The street level should be occupied by stores, restaurants, and other uses benefiting
from and contributing to pedestrian traffic, such as offices with frequent client visits.
Stores and res.taurants may occupy upper levels. Offices not having frequent client visits
should be located above street level.
becemsen 2004 • qenenal plan 01qest • crty o~ san Luis os1spo
' .
().
Land Use Element·
(~LU 4.16.2: Upper Floor Dwellings
Existing residential uses shall be preserved and ne\Y ones encouraged above the street
level
LU. 4.16.3: Continuous Storefront
There should be a continuous store.front along sidewalks, at the back of the sidewalk,
except for the Courthouse ·and City Hall blocks, plazas, recessed building entries, and
sidewalk cafes. · · ·
LU 4.16.4: Buildiag Height
New bu~ should. tit within the existing vertical scale .. They should respect street-
. level views of the hills, allow sunlight to reach public open spaces, and defer to. i. few tall,
"landmark" buildings. Generally, ·new buildings should not exceed two or three stories
(about 35 to 50 feet). Where necessary to protect significant views, Sµnlight, and street
Character, new buildings should be limited to. two stories, or about 25 to 35 feet tall. A
few taller, landmark buildings (about ftve stories .or 75 feet) may be developed where
they will not obstruct views or.sunlight for public spaces. These taller buildings would
be more appropriate at mid-block than at comers, and their Boors above. the second or
third level should be set back to maintain a lower street facade. The tall buildings·should
include publicly accessible, open viewing spaces at the upper levels.
OLu 4.16.5: BuilcUng Width
{ -)-
..........
New buildings should maintain the historic pattern of storefront Widths.
LU 4.16.6: Sidewalk Appeal
Street facades, particularly at the street level, should include windows, signs, and
architectural details which can be appreciated by people on the sidewalks.
crt;y o~ san tu1s os1spo -qenenal plan b1qest ~ becetnsen 2004
H 5.2.3
LU·&&
LU.&8
Land Use Element
LU 4.17: GovemmentOffices
City Hall and the County Government Center should remain at their present locations{···)
Additional administrative office space which cannot be accommodated within the Countf,,_
Government Center should be developed nearby within the downtown.
LV 4.18: Commercial Buildings Outside the Core
In retail areas beyond the commercial core, the pattern of buildings in relation to the
street should become more like the core, with few driveways and parking lots serving
individual developments, and no street or side-yard setbacks (except for recessed entries
and courtyards). However, buildings should not exceed two stories (about 35 feet in
height). ·
LU 4.19: Implementing the Downtown Concept Plan
The City will consider including features of·~ Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's
Center," as appropriate, in its Zoning Regulations, architectural review guidelines,
engineering standards, and capital improvement program.
becemseR. 2004 • qeneR.al plan b1qest • City Of san WIS OSISpo
"") ( Goals tor Downtown De!e
Attachment 6
Chapter 4 • Downtown Design Guidelines
The San Luis Obispo downtown is the heart of the community in several essential ways. The downtown is· the
city's center for shopping, ~ultural, entertainment, social, and govemmenttll. 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 ·tho~ who have not seen it.
Many downtown buildings~ ft:om .tbe late 19th an4 ~ly 20th centiiry. The plaza Mound historic Mission
San Luis Obispo de Tolosa, including open pordoni of San Luis Obispo Creek, is the venue for a variety of
special events. Nowhere in the city is ~eSign more ~t. :
4.1 • aoaJs for. Downtown Destp ·
The primary goal of thOfollowing 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; an4 where the .pleasant
sidewalks, shading trees. and variety of shops, ~ts, and other activities encourage people to .,mt time,
slow their pace, and engage one another. The design of buildings and their setting, circulation, and P,lblic
spaces in the downtown have, and will continue to p~y a crucial role in maintaining this c~ and vitality.
Another principal goal ot'these luidelines is to implement the vision of the downtoWi1 Conceptual Physical
Plan whereverfeasible. · ·
4.2 • Design and Development Guidelines .
A. Street orientation. Buildings in the downtown should be located at the back of the sidewalk unless
space between the building and.sidewalk is to be used fi:>r pedestrian features such as plazas, courtyanls,
or outdoor eating areas. · ·
B. Height, scale. All buildhigs in the .downtown should be at least two stories or 30 feet in height,
· · particularly within the interiors of blocks, and sh~d generally not exceed three stories. This height is
needed to "enclose" the areet so that it provides pleasant space for pedestrians. Multi-story buildings
are deskable because they can provide opportunities for upper-floor offices and residential units.1
Multi..gtory buildings can increase the numbers of potential customers for .ground floor retail uses and
assisting in maintaining their viability. Different building heights may be appropriate as follows:
1. The height and scale of new structures and alterations to existing structures should complement
existing adjacent buildings and provide human scale and proportion; and ·
10ne 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. ·
Chapter 4 • Do~wn Desip Guidelines 'May2003
41
2. New structures should not be $ignificantly. taller or shorter ~an adjacent structures unless the
proposed structure can provide a Visual transition 'froin the height of. adjacent structures to its
higher portions. · ·
3. New bUildings sbQl1ld fit in with the existing vertical scale. They should respect street-level
· · Views of the hills, allow sunlight to reach public open sp~s, and. defer to a few tall, "landmitrk"
buildings. Where necessary to protect sipifl.Can.t views, sunlight, and street character, new
buildings should be limited to two stories and a maximum height of 35 f~t. A few taller,
. · landmark bUudings (aoo,tlt five stories or 75 feet) may be develOped where they will not obsttuct
'views or sunlight for public apaces. These talleJ' buildings would 'be more apprOpriate at mid-
block than at corners, and their floOts above the secoiid or third should be set back to:iDailitain a
low~ street facade. The tall buildings should include publicly accesslble, open viewing spaces at
the upper levels.
C~ F ... e design. New ~ iDd remOdelS should provide storeftbnt windows, doon, entries,
transoms, awiiings, cornice treatments and other architectur81 featUres that complement existing
structureS, withOU:t copying 'their architectural style.
. 1: .
1. OveraD character. In general,· buildings should. h&ve either flat or· stepped rooflines with
parapets, and essentially flat facades. Walls with round or curvµinear lines, or large pointed or
slanted rooflines 'should generatly be avoided. ·
2. PJ,-opoi'tions in relation to context. Buildings should be designed with consideration of the
chamcteristic 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
rebiforcing a facade rhythm helps tie the street together visually and provides pedestrians with
features to mark their progress down the street. ·
Chapter 4 ·Downtown Design (,;,uldellnes May2003
42
4. Individual stOrefront proportions. Storefronts shpuld not oveipower the building f~e, and
should be confined to the area framed by the support piers ~d the lintel above, consistent with
classic "Main Street" architecture. · ·
S. Wall surfaces. Wall sutfaces, 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:
$ I>ividing 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 bullcheads;
$ Providing traditional recessed. entries; and
$ Careful sizing, placement and overall design of sjgnage.
Chapter 4 • Downtown Design Guidelines May2003
43
()
San Luis Obispo CoDmmel!y Desip Gyldellnf;S
Clerestory
Figure 4-2-Downtown building design elements
na
---Decorative
Metal
Grillwork
---Awning
.-.-Decoratlwi
Ughtlng
:---t--Entry
Door
.iiiliillt-,.+--BuHdlng
Base
6. Doorways. Doorways· should be recessed, as described in Section D.3, below, and shown in
Figure4-4.
Chapter 4 ·Downtown Design Gulciennes May2003
44
San Luis Obispo Community Deslp De.-
D.
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 inch~ in height.
Bulkheads should be designed asprominent
and Visible elements of building facades, and
should be treated sensitively to ensure
compatibility with the overall appearance of
the building. Desirable · materials for
bulkbe8d 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 precut
concrete. See Figure 4-3.
Materlals aad 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 mat~s of
downtown buildings involve seve.raJ aspects
'c color, textu,re. and materials. Materials
with integral color such as hard. smooth
troweled plasteti tile,· stOne, and brick are
· encouraged. If the buil~g'J exterior design
is complicated; With many ctesign features,
the wall texture show4 be simple and
subdued; J{owever, if the building design is
simple (perhaps more monolithic), a finely
textured'materia~ mm as ~ttemed
. masoJU'Y, can greatly enrich the building's
overall ch~. · ·
Materials. should ·.complement those. on.
signmcant adjacent bUlldings. The
folloWing materials are · considered
appropriate for buildings · within the
CLBUSTOlt.¥
AND/OR TRANSOM
downtown. Figure 4-4 -Quality or 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)
Chapter 4 • ilowntown Deslp Guidelines
45
May2003
() ..
4.2 • Desip. and Dlv1lop1Mnt Grddlllnp
$ Clear glass Winqows
The following exterior finish materiaJs are·considered .inappropriate in the dpwntown and are
· disco~ed: ·
$ Mirrored glass and heavily tinted glass
$ Windows .Wlt,b. false· divisions (i.e~. a window where the glass continues uninterrupted
behhid a.~ace mounted mullion)
$ Vinyl an~ 8.IUJDiiium siding·.
$ Painted or baked enamel metal awnings
$ Rough "Spanish laco" stueco finish.
$ Plywood" aiding
$ Corrupted sheet metal .
. $ 'Comlpted tibeigJass
$ Split.f~ concrete bloc~
'$ Exposed concrete.block without integral color \
2. R.emodeling. Storefront ~eling or. covers original decofative details, .or retains~ only
· as visua.I ''leftovers." Existing details should not be w~ in remodeling efforts. If enough
remahl, ~Y can be_ restored ~ part of the .original delign. If ·only a tew remain, they can be
inc:lOl'pODited as design reamie.s in a new storefront. .In either case, the design of changes to a
~should grow out of ihe remaining traditional details and~ a harmonious background
that ei'npba$izes those d~:· . .
:3. ·Doorways. Doors and storefront systems
should~ of materials and have details and
o.rnaiJient .appropriate to. the building wall
Diaterlals (for. ei&mple, . an older brick
building would more appropriately have
woOd . and gblss 'doors with .brass fittings
than aluminum;..framed doors). See Figure
4-S. .
$ .Storefront. entrance doors should be
recessed within the. building f~e
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 and available
. space, ·but should be at least the
width of the entrance door. .
$ Doors themselves should be
primarily of glass, to avoid conflicts
between entering and exiting pa1r0ns. · .
$ Door and entry designs and materials Figure 4-:5 -A quality doorway for upper 6.oor uses
materials. Terrazzo and tile pavers are
Cbapter 4 • Downtown Desip Guidelines May2003
46
,.
attractive and appropriate paving . materials common in the downtown, while
indoor/outdoor carpeting and wood planking are inappropriate ~terials. ·
4. . Windows. Windows that. allow pedestrians to see the activities Within the ground floors of
downtown buildings are important in maintaining the pec;lestrian 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 commo~ .on the same block. · · . ·
Use of clear glass (at least 88 percent light transmission) on the firSt floor i8 recommended.
In~g or changh)g tho. location .or size of windows or other openings that alter the
itchitectural rh.ydun or character of the original builclhJ.1 is disQ(mapd ..
Pemumen~ fixed secudty grates or gri11ea in front of WindoWa are not permitted. Any
neceaaary security Jrilles sbOuJd be placed inside, behind the window.display area.
Traditional storefront ti-ansom windows should be mained whenever feasible. If the
ceiling inside the~ bas been lowered, the ceiling should be stepped up to meet the
transom so that light will penetrate tile interi~ of the building.
·Existing. windows should be maintained. and not "walled-in" or darkened to provide more
iiiterior wall or storage space. . . .
5. Awntnp. Awnhigs should be retained andtor inCotporated whCre feasible and compatible with
the storefront. · · · · ·
$ Where the faCade Of a comm~ial
b~ding is. divided into distinct bays
(sections defined by vertical architectural
elements, such as masomy piers), awnings ·
should be placed within tbC vertical
elements rather than overlapping them.
The awning design should respond to the
scale, proportion and· 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 ·
used on rectangular windows. See Figure
4-7 ..
$ Awnings may not be internally
ilb:uninated.
$ Awnings can be either ·fixed or retractable.
$ The materials and color of awnings need to
· be carefully chosen. The use of second
. fl~r a\vnings shall be coordinated with · Figure 4-7..;. AWl\ing shape relates to opening
lower storefront awnings. Canvas is the
Chapter 4 • Downtown Desip Guidelines
47
•' 0 .()
San Luis Obispo Communfti p!!lp Guidelines . 4.Z • Deip d1id oWPPm•• Gutdellnn
. ... '
most appn)priate material for awnings. Metal, plastic (vinyl), or other glossy materials are
not appropriate .. · ·
$ Awnings should be functional and at least four feet wide.
$ A smgle 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 ~igUie 4-8.
---:-·~·
.... -.... --~ -·-· . ....--.-......
' ;, ,,;..., '
Figure 4-8-~ awntng style on upper and lower floors
6. Ofher d..US. 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 itm.nS as:
· .$ · · Light fiitures, 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
·s · Baiconies, ·rails, finials, corbels, plaques, etc. ·
$ · F1ag or banner pole brackets.
$ .· · Crafted artworks.
E. Pu~lic ·Splices, plazas and courtyards. Public spaces on downtown sites should be designed as
:'tKtensi~s of the i}ublic sidewalk by providing pedestrian amenities such as benches and fountains, and
by continufug 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 aceess may
be from retail shops, restaurants, offices, and other uses.
Chapter 4 ·Downtown Desi.an Guidelines May2003
48
• ...
San Luis Obl!po Comimml!J De!lp (1..
$ Shade trees or architectriral elements that provide shelter and relief from direct sunlight ~oulci be
provided. ·
$ Courtyards should be buffered from parking areas or drive aisles by low walls, landscaping, or
other features to clearly define tbe edges of the pedestrian space.
$ Ample seatfug should be provided.
$ Bicycle parking should be provided.
Chapter 5 • Residential Project Design Ma72803
49
Attachment 7
57
epe
It is well known that few people (except bureaucrats) walk around De.signing for Vision
with their eyes fixed straight ahead. When people enter a strange
new place, they automatieally smn the parameters of the space, pa.us-
ing only to study features of interest. The 180· by·180 degree field
of vision enables people to quickly and efficiently synthesize an over-
all mental imagt\ provided the setting i$ not too compliaited. If the
design features are too simple and bland, they may not brother with
a more careful examination and depend on their peripheral vision
and memory for an overview. In such a situation people are apt, out
of boredom, to shift their mental gears to other matters. People en-
joy reexaminating familiar areas where multiple levels of visual en·
joyment are offered and where there alWa.yS s~em to be new visual
relationships and effects to appreciate. If a building or group of
buildings is to work on a day-to-day basis, a certain simplicity and
boldness of feature and form is needed to facilitate comprehension
of the larger composition and a degree of complexity and subtlety
also is needed to renew the interest of the regular viewer. In recent
years there has been more inclination toward the opposite, with the
creation of a confused, disorganized overall composition in public
spaces and provision of a poverty of visually interesting detail to
sustain the day-to-day visitor.
How proposed projects are studied is quite different from the way
built projects are typically experienced. 'lb an excessive degree, pro-
posed designs are evaluated through photographs and small models.
The nature of human vision makes it difficult to evaluate the reali-
ty of a project via ariy kind of photographic process or small-scale
model. Both techniques collapse everything down within the scope
of the most perceptive part of the retina where features that will
almost completely vanish in real life seem to play a significant role.
Designers must recogniZe that to be effective many features must
be overscaled or otherwise reinforced so that they will not wash out
and disappear on the full-sized building.
Unlike a room, a plaza has no ceiling to define the height of the space STREET SPACE
within its walls and unlike a plaza a street has only two walls with
which to define space. If those walls are low in relation to the width
of the street, vie\Vs outward are not contained enough to provide
a sense of unifying space. The range of human vision thus, affects
the perception of street space and scale.
58
0 0
1:4Ratio
Height-to-Width Ratios · In a street with a 1:4 ratio of street wall height to width, there is
three times as much sky as wall within the normal ranre of vision.
The weak sense of space that streets of such proportions obtain has
its counterpart in the very low and wide rooms popular in modern
convention hotels. A typical modern "Grand Ballroom" may have
floor dimensions of 80-by-125-feet and a ceiling height of 20 feet
or less. A common observation abOut suCh spaces is that in spite of
the large horizontal dimensions the visitor tends to experience the
space as a sequenee of Smaller spaces, subdivided by tables, chairs,
1."SRatio
and people. In a street with a cross section of this proportion~ the
most noticeable sense· of' spatial definition ~ along the sides
of the street where buildings, awnings, signs, and the curb line may
combine to define a narrow band of space. Good spatial definition
may not be impossible in· a i:4 proportioned street section, but it
is extremely difficult to aec0mplish.
When the ratio is decreased to 1:2 the peripheral glimpses of sky
equal the amount of visual field devoted to the street wall The sky
view is less important, however, in that it is in the less :Perceptive
peripheral zone. The 1:2 ratio provides sufficient spatial containment
to permit the creation of intensely three-dimensional space. A room
with a similar ero~ section also would not appear oppressively low
nor would the resulting sP.aee tend to fragment into subareas as in
r~ .
the modern·"Grand Ballroom" example. A 1:2 ratio is the minimum
desirable ratio of height to width for good street spatial definition.
A street wall height that equals the street width will severely limit
any skyview. The viewer ca1i wholly comprehend the height of sur-
'rounding buildings with bis peripheral vision although his vision is
almost completely contained. Strong spatial 4efinition is possible
within such a cross section. ·
When the street wall height to width ratio is increased to 8:2, the
top of the building is no longer vist"ble without adjusting the angle
of the bead, and when the ratio is higher still it starts to be®me
· difficult to judge height bemuse of the extreme angle. Higher street
walls also increasingly restrict the amount of sunlightavailable to
illuminate·and help define the space, although when sunlight does
penetrate the effect may be far more. dramatic due to the increased
oontrast in light values. Extended areas enclosed by very tall build-
ings may seem claustrophobic to some.
59
1:1 Ratio
The height at wkick the building
cuts off peripheral vision is wrg
near the angle of the Golden Mean.
()
60
()
People do not stand in one place and stare fixedly across streets
as represented in the previous diagrams; their restless natures
usually compel them to walk down one street or another. Umess lost
~ some reverie, it is normal for people to look about a bit as they
walk dawn a street and they are more likely to look along the street
than across it. The angles of vision i11uStrating the street cross sec-
tions provide only a crude approximati()Jl of the predominate pat-
tern of obserVatton, but they do offer insight about how buildings
an4 the spaces defined by them are perceived.
Asaeulng Seale
Obtaining the right street wall height to width ·ratio is the essen-
tial first step in defining street space. If the height is inadequate,
good spatial definition becomes extremely difficult if not impossi-
ble to achieve. When street wall height effectively contains the chan·
nel of space, the next step is providing the means for the viewer to
assess the dimensions of the space in terms of height and length-a
hierarchy of aed features must be established both vertically and
horizontally. Further, it must be expressed in three dimensions or
it will not work because any two-dimensional design ~d.s to be sub-
servient to the planar quality of its surface. The hierarchy must pro-
vide the means for reading the . building height in easy,
comprehensible terms, i.e., the reference ae for judging the larger
whole should be of a size with which. most people are familiar. At
·the larger end of the hierarchy, the. scale element may be similar
to a two-story commercial building, a common enough feature of
the Ameriam citysm.pe. At the smallest end of the scale, pOOplf.HDzed
elements provide useful reference pointS.
Most streets have neither roofs nor ends an · ry
buildings of disparate size, conditions which pose
problems in the definition of street space and
these handicaps two design conditions m
of the height of buildings, a relative! rm height of street space
must be defined to give the cross section the strong unify-
ing proportions of a mposed room;· and (2) the facades fram..
ing the provide such grips, holds, and snags upon the
~i!milll~~ as to fix it in place, offsetting the linear thrust of tbe ·
Attachment 8
:'It crty o~ san tu1s os1spo conse12vat1on anb open space element, ap121l 2006
9.0 Views
9.10 Background
San Luis Obispo has been favored with a beautiful
natural setting. Also, the community has strived
for attractive urban development. Protection of
these assets enhances the community's quality of
life and economic vitality. Protection involves
both the integrity of the resource being viewed,
and lines of sight to the resource. '
9.20 Goals and Policies
Goal 9.21. Viewsheds. Maintain and create
attractive rural l~dscapes and cityscapes.
Policies
City Limits form a well-defined urban edge,
with open space beyond
9.21.1. Preserve natural and agricultural landscapes. The City will implement the following
. policies and will encourage other agencies with jurisdiction to do likewise:.
A. Natural and agricultural landscapes that the City has not designated for urban use shall be
maintained in their current 'patterns of use.
B. Any development that is permitted in natural or agricultural landscapes shall be visually
subordinate to and compatible with the landscape features. Development includes, but is
not limited to buildings, signs (including billboard signs), roads, utility and
telecommunication lines and structures. Such development shall:
1) A void visually prominent locations such as ridgelines, and slopes exceeding 20
percent.
2) A void unnecessary grading, vegetation removal, and site lighting.
3) Incorporate building forms, architectural materials, and landscaping, that respect the
setting, including the historical pattern of development in similar settings, and avoid
stark contrasts with their setting.
4) Preserve scenic or unique landforms, significant trees in terms of size, age, species or
rarity, and rock outcroppings.
C. The City's non-emergency repair, maintenance, and small construction projects in highly
visible locations, such as hillsides and downtown creeks, where scenic resources could be
affected, shall be subject to at least "minor or incidental" architectural review.
9.21.2. Urban development. The City will implement the following principle and will
encourage other agencies with jurisdiction to do likewise: urban development should reflect its
architectural context. This does not necessarily prescribe a specific sty~e, but requires deliberate
design choices that acknowledge human scale, natural site features, and neighboring urban
60
.1
")
]
]
]
]
1
)
1
)
]
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
r
;:'II crty o~ san lu1s os1spo conseRvatJon anb open space element, ap121l 2006
development. New development shall be compatible with historical and architectural resources.
Plans for sub-areas of the City may require certain architectural styles.
9.21.3. Utilities and signs. In and near public streets, plazas, and parks, features that clutter,
degrade, intrude on, or obstruct views should be avoided. Necessary features, such as utility and
communication equipment, and traffic equipment and signs should be designed and placed so as
to not impinge upon or degrade scenic views of the Morros or surrounding hillsides, or farmland,
consistent with the primary objective of safety. New billboard signs shall not be allowed, and
existing billboard signs shall be removed as soon as practicable, as provided in the Sign
Regulations.
9.21.4. Streetscapes and major roadways. In the acquisition, design, construction or
significant modification of major roadways (highways/regional routes and arterial streets), the
City will promote the creation of "streetscapes'' and linear scenic park.ways or comdors that
promote the City's visual quality and character, enhance adjacent uses, and integrate roadways
with surrounding districts. To accomplish this, the City will:
A. Establish streetscape design standards for major roadways.
B. Encourage the creation and maintenance 1'1.edian planters and widened parkway plantings.
C. Retain mature trees in the public right-of-way.
D. Emphasize the planting and maintenance of California Native tree species of sufficient
height, spread, form and horticultural characteristics to create the desired streetscape
canopy, shade, buffering from adjacent uses, and other desired streetscape characteristics,
consistent with the Tree Ordinance or as recommended by the Tree Committee or as
approved by the Architectural Review Commission.
E. Encourage the use of water-conserving landscaping, street furniture, decorative lighting
and paving, arcaded walkways, public art, and other pedestrian-oriented features to
enhance the streetscape appearance, comfort and safety.
F. Encourage and where possible, require undergrounding of overhead utility lines and
structures.
9.21.5. View protection in new development. The City will include in all environmental
review and carefully consider effects of new development, streets and road construction on
views and visual quality by applying the Community Design Guidelines, height restrictions,
hillside standards, Historical Preservation Program Guidelines and the California Environmental
Quality Act and Guiqelines.
9.21.6. Night-Sky preservation. City will adopt a "night sky" ordinance to preserve nighttime
views, prevent light pollution, and to protect public safety by establishing street and public area
lighting standards.
Goal 9.22. Viewing opportunities. Provide ample opportunities for viewing attractive features.
65
:'fl Crty or san LUIS OBISpo COOS6RVa~on anb open space element, apRll 2006
Policies
9.22.1. Views to and from public places, including scenic roadways. The City will preserve
and improve views of important scenic resources from public places, and encourage other
agencies with jurisdiction to do so. Public places include parks, plazas, the grounds of civic
buildings, streets and roads, and publicly accessible open space. In particular, the route segments
shown in Figure 11 are designated as scenic roadways.
A. Development projects shall not wall off scenic roadways and block views.
B. Utilities, traffic signals, and public and private signs and lights shall not intrude on or
clutter views, consistent with safety needs.
C. Where important vistas of distant landscape features occur along streets, street trees shall
be clustered to facilitate viewing of the distant features;
D. Development projects, including signs, in the viewshed of a scenic roadway shall be
considered "sensitive" and reqriire architectural review.
9.22.2. Views to and from private development. Projects should incorporate as amenities
views from and within private
development sites. Private
development designs should cause the
least view blockage for neighboring
property that allows project objectives
to be met.
Islay Hill·
9.22.3. Outdoor lighting. Outdoor lighting shall avoid: operating at unnecessary locations,
levels, and times; spillage to areas not needing or wanting illumination; glare (intense line-of-site
contrast); and frequencies (colors) that interfere with astronomical viewing.
9.30 Programs
The City shall do the following to protect and enhance views, and will encourage others to do so,
as appropriate:
9.30.1. Public facilities. Locate and design public facilities and utilities consistent with General
Plan goals and policies.
9.30.2. Update Community Design Guidelines. Update and maintain Community Design
Guidelines to address views from scenic roadways and include them in desigh standards in plans
for sub-areas of the City.
66
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
l
[
l
l )
t]
I
i
I]
]
]
]
)
l
]
)
)
I
I
I
I
1
I
)
]
a"•! crty o~ san Luis os1spo conse12vat1on anb open space element, ap121l 2006
9.30.3. Sign Regµlations. Maintain and apply Sign Regulations consistent with General Plan
goals and policies. When possible, signs in 'the public right-of-way should be consolidated on a
single low-profile standard.
9.30.4. Environmental and architectural review. Conduct environmental review and
architectural review consistent with General Plan goals and policies regarding visual impacts and
quality.
9.30.5. Visual assessments. Require evaluations (accurate visual simulations) for projects
affecting important scenic resources and views from public places.
9.30.6. View blockage along scenic highways. Determine that view blockage along scenic
roadways is a significant impact.
9.30.7. Development proposals in unincorporated County. Review County-proposed general
plan amendments and development proposals within the City's Planning Area for consistency
with City General Plan goals and policies.
9.30.8. Scenic highway designation. Advocate State and County scenic highway designations
and protective programs for scenic routes connecting San Luis Obispo with other communities.
9.30.9. Undergrounding utilities. Place existing overhead utilities underground, with highest
priority for scenic roadways, entries to the city, and historical districts.
9.30.10. Prohibit billboards. Not allow additional billboards.
9.30.l l. Billboard removal. Remove existing billboards through amortization, conditions of
development approval, and grants for enhancing open-space and transportation corridors, with
highest priority for scenic roadways, entries to the city, and historical districts.
9.30.12. Preserve the Morros. In cooperation with the County of San Luis Obispo, other
" government agencies, non-profit agencies and property owners, the City will seek to preserve the
Morros as open space through preservation incentives, easements, land acquisition, or other
measures to preserve their visual qualities.
9.30.13. Monitor viewsheds. The City will establish and maintain a program of describing and
monitoring viewsheds within and adjacent to City limits to establish a photographic baseline of
visual setting and conditions.
67
~
-hlgh~value
~ways
tstas
• • • high or moderate scenic value outside city limit
Sll~ID c•tJ of u.a tuts aatspo
=~OlllPO •
---=====--•Miles 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5
Attachment 9
Building Heights and Intensity Limits, Other Jurisdictions
Cities in San Luis Qbisoo County
Paso Robles-Community Development Dept. 805.237.3970
Maximum height buildup for the downtown area is about 32 feet. The height of a new
building is determin~ by existing buildings, 10% variation of the mean height of the
existing buildings. Buildings on the ends of blocks are similar in height to adjoining
buildings or their height is determined by the mean height of existing buildings. This
form of regulation maximum height keeps new development wanting to build to the
maximum height at scale to existing buildings. All new development projects are
reviewed by the Design Review Commission for compliance with policies and
regulations.
Atascadero -Community Development Dept. 805.461.5000 ext.3470
Maximum height buildup for the downtown varies depending on the zoning. For
Industrial, Commercial Park, and Industrial Park Zones maximum buildup is 45 feet. For
Commercial Professional, Commercial Retail, Commercial Service, and Commercial
Tourist it is 35 feet. The maximum height is allowed by right if it is a conforming use. If
it is a non-conforming use they wm need an additional use permit.
Morro Bay-Public Services 805.772.6261
Most zones allow a maximum height of 25 feet above natural grade. However, the R-4,
which is the highest density of the residential zones, and C-1, which is commercial, allow
a maximum height of 30 feet. The downtown area is mostly comprised of C-1 zoning,
which allows for a maximum height of 30 feet unless if the commercial structure is
within 20 feet of a residential district other than R-4, then they are only allowed a
maximum height of 25 feet. The maximum height is somewhat allowed by right. For
small projects the city staff reviews for compliance. For large projects, such as mix-use
or hotels, they will need a use permit.
Pismo Beach -Community Development Dept. 805.773.4658
Pismo Beach's downtown is comprised of three sub-districts; they are the Commercial
(Central Core) District CD-C, Commercial (Mixed-Use and Resident-Serving
Commercial) District CD-M, and Commercial (Visitors Services) District CD-V. The
height limit for buildings in all three sub-districts is 35 feet above the exiting site grade.
For all new building developed in the downtown area they must be reviewed by the
Planning Commission for compliance with all regulations and standards. The building
itself requires a Coastal Development Permit. The city of Pismo Beach is currently in
talks with the California Coastal Commission to get their most recent zoning code
approved so they are currently using the 1993 zoning code.
Grover Beach-Community Development Dept. 805.473.4520
The maximum allowable height for Grover Beach's Central Business District is 3 stOJies
and not to exceed 40 feet. The maximum height is given by right but all new projects
must be reviewed by the Planning Commission for architectural approval.
Arroyo Grande-Community Development Dept. 805.473.5420
The city of Arroyo Grande has two downtown zones. The Grand St. Downtown
Commercial zone allows a maximum height of 30 to 35 feet or 3 stories, whichever is
less. The Village Historica.I Downtown allows a maximum height of 30 feet or 3 stories,
whichever is less. All new projects go through review with Architectural Review
Commission for compliance with standards and regulations. The maximum height
allowed is somewhat given by right since it is in the zoning code.
Cities north of SLO County
Salinas-Community Planning and Development 831.758.7206
The city currently does not have a maximum height buildup limit for the downtown area.
They feel this is more practical. They do have a FAR of 3.0 which gives the city some
regulation over development. The city is also currently trying to change the code to
allow for more intense development.
Carmel-Community Planning and Building 831.620.2010
Carmel's central core allows for a maximum height of 30 feet unless it is prevailing. To
achieve this maximum height it would depend on the situation. If it is based on design
then it would have to go through design review. If it requires a use permit or a variance it
would have to go through the Planning Commission.
Monterey -Community Development Dept. 831.646.3885
Monterey is a fairly conservative city when it comes to development because they want
to maintain a small scale downtown to preserve the historical feeling. Monterey's
downtown consists mostly of C-2 zoning, which is community commercial district. C-2
zoning allows for a maximum buildup of 25 feet or 2 stories and all new projects meeting
the maximum height limit are subject to a design review. New projects can also build up
to a height of 35 feet or 3 stories but require a use permit.
Los Gatos -Community Development Dept. 408.354.6872
The downtown consists of C-2 zoning, which allows for a maximum height of 45 feet.
All new projects must get an Architectural insight approval and must be reviewed by staff
for compatibility with existing structures. Then the Planning Commission reviews the
project. Nothing in the code is given by right.
Sunnyvale -Community Development Dept. 408.730.7444
Sunnyvale has a system of allowing each block in the downtown area a different
maximum height limit. The maximum heights range from 30 to 100 feet. Any new
project requires a conditional use permit, which the Planning Commission must approve
and the City Council also reviews the process. The city is very sensitive about their
downtown and so any project going in that is higher than the maximum height allowed is
a deviation and most likely is not supported by the staff.
Fremont-Community Development Dept. 510.494.4440
Fremont's downtown area consists of CBD zoning. The CBD zone does not have a
maximum height buildup but they do have FAR for the downtown. They have two FAR
for the downtown area: 1) within one-half mile of the Bay Area Rapid Transit District
property lines -0.80 FAR. 2) other areas -0.50 FAR. Increases in FAR are allowed but
are processed as findings. Documents need to be submitted giving a justification for
FAR increase and stating the impacts on traffic, wind, sun, sewer and general impacts to
the surrounding properties. Request for increases up to 5% above specified FAR shall be
considered by the Director of Development and Environmental Services. Over 5% and
up to 15% above the specified FAR shall be considered by the Planning Commission.
Anything above 15% shall be considered by the City Council.
Cities south of SLO County
Santa Maria-Community Development Dept. 805.925.0951 ext.244
Santa Maria's downtown area consists of C-1 zoning, which is the Central Business
District. The maximum height buildup in the C-1 zone is 3 stories of 40 feet, whichever
is less. For any new project in the C-1 zone building above 1 story or 18 feet adjacent to
a residential zoning district, a conditional use permit or planned development permit is
required unless the new project in the C-1 zone is located 100 feet from the residential
zone. An exception to the maximum height buildup of 3 stories or 40 feet are any new
projects that fall within the boundaries of the Central Redevelopment Project. AU new
projects within this area are allowed to buildup to a maximum of 75 feet but anything
above 3 stories or 40 feet is subject to approval of a conditional use permit or a planned
development permit by the Planning Commission.
Ventura -Community Development Dept. 805.654.7893
Currently the maximum height allowed for the densest area is 44 feet (3 stories) and as
long as the new project is a permitted use and meets all standards and regulations the
maximum height is allowed by right. The Downtown Specific Plan is currently being
updated to change to form base code. The draft document's policy on maximum height
buildup states that the downtown area is going to have an average height of four stories.
This means that up to 20% of each building footprint per lot can be five stories, no more
than 55% shall be four stories and a minimum of 25% shall be three stories.
City of Ventura Draft Downtown Specific Plan Development Code Chapter 3
http://www.ci.ventura.ca.us/depts/comm 4ev/downtownplan/index.8.§p
Oxnard -Planning and Environmental Services 805.385.7858
Oxnard' s downtown area consists of CBD zoning, which is the Central Business District.
The CBD zone allows for a maximum buildup of 48 feet which is given by right. An
additional 25% increase in buildup is allowed by a special use permit. Additional non-
occupied building features may exceed the maximum height by 15 feet.