HomeMy WebLinkAboutExh D_ 2007 02 06 ph1 gp amend bldg heightcounciljagendanepont Mecum DYe/u//7
II®Numbpg /
C I T Y O F S A N L U I S O B I S P O
FROM :John Mandeville, Community Development Dire c
Prepared By : Michael Codron, Associate Planner
SUBJECT : PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS REGARDING
DOWNTOWN BUILDING HEIGHT AND RELATED MITIGATE D
NEGATIVE DECLARATION ; DOWNTOWN CORE (GPA/ER 50-06).
CAO RECOMMENDATIO N
As recommended by the Planning Commission, adopt a resolution amending the Genera l
Plan to clarify existing policies and provide for a moderate increase to downtow n
building height and intensity limits, and approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration o f
environmental impact for the project .
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The Planning Commission has recommended amendments to the Land Use Element o f
the General Plan to clarify existing policies regarding downtown development . Th e
amendments would also moderately increase existing building height and intensity limit s
within the downtown core area . If the amendments are approved, new buildings tha t
meet multiple policy objectives, including specific design amenities, housing and retai l
land uses, could be developed to a height of 60 feet . The amendments would also clarif y
how the City's existing policy to allow a few 75-foot tall buildings should b e
implemented .
Input from the public, the City's advisory bodies, the Downtown Association, and th e
Chamber of Commerce played an important role in helping staff and the Plannin g
Commission develop the recommendation that is now before the City Council .
Throughout the process, great efforts have been made to keep citizens informed and t o
provide opportunities to participate in the deliberations .
This agenda report first provides background information, including a discussion o f
General Plan goals and policies . This discussion is followed by an overview of key issue s
and the input provided by city advisory bodies and the public . The report concludes wit h
a discussion of alternatives and the project's environmental review .
In summary, after several advisory body hearings with extensive public input ,
recommendations are made to clarify existing policies and allow for a moderate increas e
to downtown building height limits in a way that :
Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limits Page 2
is consistent with the direction originally provided by the City Council o n
this issue ;
provides incentives for projects that preserve historic resources and insure s
on-going protection for historic buildings ;
helps the City achieve its goals to increase housing in the downtown cor e
area ;
supports the City's economic goals ;
is based on principles of good urban design ;
protects solar access for southeast facing sidewalks in the downtown core ;
respects views of hillsides from public gathering places and several othe r
downtown locations ; and
will provide for a decision-making process that is consistent with past City practic e
and that will benefit from new technologies .
DISCUSSIO N
Background and Prior Council Direction
On March 14, 2006, the City Council held a study session on the issue of Downtow n
building heights and intensity limits and directed staff to :
1)Revise the City's floor area ratio (FAR) definition to exclude basements an d
parking .
2)Confirm policy inconsistencies among General Plan policies and developmen t
standards for the downtown .
3)Bring back alternatives for moderately increasing the downtown building heigh t
and intensity limits, in order to achieve other General Plan goals and objectives ,
including design amenities, housing, and retail land uses .
4)Review alternatives and recommendations with the Cultural Heritage Committee ,
Architectural Review Commission, Planning Commission, and Downtow n
Association before returning to the Council .
Attachment 1 includes the minutes from the Council's study session . Attachment 2
includes a complete project description with the proposed General Plan amendments i n
legislative draft format, including a discussion of the basis for each proposed amendment .
Based on the Council's direction, two main objectives are identified in the projec t
description . The first objective is to clarify existing policy inconsistencies amon g
General Plan policies and development standards for the downtown . (Attachment 1 7
includes the resolution recommended by the Planning Commission to accomplish thi s
first objective .) The second objective is to bring back an ordinance that woul d
moderately increase downtown building height and intensity limits, thereby implementin g
the revised policies .
t
Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limits Page 3
Clear General Plan Policies Regarding Downtown Building Height Are Essentia l
The General Plan is the blueprint for physical development in the City . Clarity is needed
in the General Plan and the City's development regulations to insure that they implemen t
the community's vision for the future . The General Plan needs to be applied consistently ,
because the vision is achieved not by any single act, but through incremental developmen t
decisions . If individual developments do not consistently contribute to the large r
objective, the cumulative result of new development could easily fail to achieve it .
As the City Council considers the various policies and recommendations regardin g
Downtown building height, it should answer three questions . Doing so will help insure
that the vision for the Downtown is clear, and that the vision can be achieved .
1.Will the policies provide clear direction to property owners and architects on how t o
design a building in the Downtown that can be approved if all the regulations and
impacts are addressed ?
2.Do the policies provide the staff with sufficient direction to advise applicants and th e
public on whether or not a proposed building is consistent with City policies an d
regulations ?
3.Will the proposed policies provide the Architectural Review Commission, Planning
Commission, and the Council, with a clear basis for making unambiguous finding s
that a proposed building is consistent with the guiding policies and regulations ?
Diverse General Plan Goals and Policie s
The current General Plan includes a diverse set of goals . This diversity includes goals fo r
enjoyment of natural resources and sustainability, economic prosperity, preservation o f
historic resources and a distinctive, compact built environment . The diversity of existin g
goals means that multiple policies must be considered and balanced as part of a thoroug h
decision-making process . A sample of the diversity of General Plan goals and policie s
that relate to downtown development is provided below . Attachments 3 through 6
include other relevant General Plan sections to supplement this small sample .
Community Goal #4 : Protect public views of the surrounding hills and mountains .
Land Use Element Policy 4 .7 :Downtown should include many carefully located ope n
places where people can rest and enjoy views of the surrounding hills ...
Community Goal #12 :Emphasize more productive use of existing commercia l
buildings and land areas already committed to urban development .
Housing Element Policy 6 .2 .2 :New commercial developments in the Downtown Cor e
C-D Zone) shall include housing ...
Land Use Element Policy 4.15 :To keep the commercial core's sense of place an d
appeal for walking, it should remain compact and be the city's most intensely develope d
area ./—
3
Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limits Page 4
Community Goal #32 : Foster an awareness of past residents and ways of life, an d
preserve our heritage of historic buildings and places .
Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) Policy 3 .21 .2:Historically or
architecturally significant buildings should not be demolished or substantially changed i n
outward appearance unless doing so is necessary to remove a threat to health and safet y
and other means to eliminate or reduce the threat to acceptable levels are infeasible .
An Evaluation of Existing Policies and Key Issues
The City's goal for taller buildings in the downtown core is no longer sufficiently clear .
The General Plan's description of "a few taller, landmark buildings (about five stories o r
75 feet)," does not provide the direction needed to guide decisions buildings that exceed
50 feet in height .How many are a few? When should one request be approved an d
another denied? Which views of the hills should be preserved? What defines a landmark
building?Despite the existing 75-foot height policy, the Zoning Regulations limit s
building height in the downtown core area to 50 feet .
To address these ambiguities, five policy amendments are recommended (as well as ne w
implementation programs, planning application requirements and definitions) to clarif y
General Plan policies regarding downtown building height . These amendments hav e
been crafted over the course of seven public hearings, based on the input provided by th e
public and the City's advisory body members . The primary issues that were considere d
include historic preservation practices, the economic benefits of taller buildings and th e
need for housing in the downtown core, architectural compatibility, access to sunlight o n
sidewalks, access to views from public places, the floor area ratio standard and th e
decision-making process for tall buildings . Each of these key issue areas relates t o
existing policies in the General Plan . The following numbered sections address thes e
issues as they have been discussed during previous public hearings and in written and oral
testimony provided by the public . A summary of recommendations are provided at th e
end of each topic .
1 .Historic Preservation Practice s
Chapter 3 of the Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) includes specific goals ,
policies and programs to promote historic preservation (Attachment 5). The City also
maintains Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, which require the Cultural Heritag e
Committee to review all new development projects in the City's historic districts, such a s
the Downtown Historic District and the Chinatown Historic District . These policy
documents provide clear direction for City decision makers :Projects that demolish o r
substantially alter the appearance of historic buildings should not be approved, unles s
doing so is necessary to remove a threat to health and safety and other means to
eliminate or reduce the threat to acceptable levels are infeasible .
When a project applicant does propose to demolish or substantially alter a histori c
building, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) says that impacts ar e
considered substantial and unavoidable . Therefore, these projects will always result i n
Class I environmental impacts . If the City Council were to choose to approve such a
project, CEQA would require the Council to adopt a statement of overridin g
q
Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limits Page 5
considerations, explaining why the project is being approved even though it involve s
significant impacts to one or more historic resources . This process is lengthy and
expensive and therefore provides a further disincentive for proposals to demolish histori c
resources . (Attachment 7 is a map showing the locations of all of the Master List an d
Contributing historic properties in the downtown core area .)
The proposed policy amendments are intended to provide additional building height as a n
incentive to promote adaptive reuse of historic buildings . Projects that are found to b e
consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Histori c
Properties would be eligible for increased building height . The changes would also
support a transfer of development credit program for historic properties . Existing policy
direction for this type of incentive is provided by COSE Policy 3 .21 .4 and COS E
Program 3 .30 .8 .
Summary of Recommendations :Existing General Plan policies and programs and CEQ A
requirements provide substantial protection for the City's historic resources . The
proposed General Plan amendments include incentives for projects that treat histori c
buildings in a way that is consistent with these policies . The proposed amendments als o
support the creation of a transfer of development credit program for historic properties .
2.Economic Benefits and the Need for Housin g
The economic benefits of redevelopment in downtown areas and the effect of heigh t
limits are evaluated in a memo written by the City's economic consultant, Allen D . Kotin
Attachment 8). Allowing taller buildings could infuse the downtown core wit h
additional residents, adding to the vitality of the commercial district . As stated in th e
Community Design Guidelines, "multi-story buildings can increase the numbers o f
potential customers for ground floor retail uses and assist in maintaining their viability ."
Kotin's study indicates that an important component for successful downtowns is large -
scale rental housing suitable for employees . The economic analysis indicates that
additional stories will make such housing projects more financially feasible and ,
therefore, more attractive to developers . Increased floor area potential is also importan t
to property owners who need to generate additional income to support the cost o f
construction . The prices of steel, concrete and lumber have risen dramatically in the pas t
few years, leading to property owner interest in increasing leasable square footage with
new construction projects, such as projects associated with unreinforced masonr y
building retrofits .
Housing Element Policy 6 .2 .2 requires all new projects in the downtown core area t o
include housing unless specific findings are made that dwellings would jeopardize th e
public welfare or are infeasible due to physical constraints. Public testimony regardin g
the need for housing downtown has indicated concerns that the type of housin g
constructed won't be affordable and won't serve the needs of the workforce . Publi c
testimony also indicated that increasing the residential density limits downtown would b e
one way to encourage smaller units, because the only way to build more dwellings on a
given site is to make them smaller .
ss
Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limits Page6
As a result of this discussion, the Planning Commission is recommending amending LU E
Policy 4.16 .4 with policy language to encourage high density housing that is achieved b y
a concentration of smaller units . Based on the City's density calculation methods a one -
acre site could include up to 36 two-bedroom units, 59 1-bedroom units or 72 studi o
apartments . The language approved by the Planning Commission would encourage th e
provision of more 1-bedroom and studio units as a feature of taller buildings . Projects
that don't meet minimum density and average unit size requirements are subject t o
increased affordable housing requirements under the City's existing Inclusionary Housin g
Ordinance and the provisions of Table 2a of the Housing Element .
Summary of Recommendations :The proposed amendments allow property owners to
develop additional floor area to support projects that provide housing and that retrofi t
unreinforced masonry buildings . High-density housing that is achieved by a
concentration of studio and 1-bedroom units is particularly encouraged .
3. Architectural Compatibility
The question of acceptable building height is considered with respect to the perception o f
the pedestrian on the sidewalk . In the book, Fundamentals of Urban Design, the ratio of
building height to street width plays a major role in the pedestrian experience . The City's
Community Design Guidelines say that a certain amount of building height is necessar y
to contain a pedestrian's field of view and "enclose the street so that it provides a pleasan t
space for pedestrians ." When buildings are too tall, pedestrians cannot easily perceive th e
tops of buildings and pedestrian scale is lost .
According to Fundamentals of Urban Design, strong special definition is achieved whe n
the ratio of building height to street width is approximately 1 :1 . City streets downtown
range in width from 50 to 70 feet . Therefore, a maximum height limit of 50-75 feet (wit h
setbacks incorporated above the second or third level) is consistent with good urba n
design practices for creating a pleasant space for pedestrians .
In public hearings, the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) supported an increase in th e
base building height to accommodate a four-story building . The Architectural Revie w
Commission (ARC) supported a building height limit between 55 and 60 feet . Both
advisory bodies recommended that the Community Design Guidelines be updated t o
insure that standards are put in place for architectural transitions between taller building s
and existing development . Because of the input of the CHC and the ARC, a Desig n
Guidelines Update is a requirement of the project's environmental review .
A sub-committee of ARC members has been established to work on this update wit h
staff, if the Council approves the recommended General Plan amendments . Publi c
testimony on this key issue has largely been in support of a moderate increase to existin g
building height limitations . However, some members of the public have consistentl y
expressed concerns that increased building height will change the character of downtow n
and eliminate its charm .
Summary of Recommendations :Building height limits between 50 and 75 feet (wit h
setbacks incorporated above the second or third level) will provide a comfortable sense o f
enclosure for pedestrians on the sidewalk . A sub-committee of ARC members has bee n/—6
Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limits Page 7
established to update the Community Design Guidelines with standards for architectura l
transitions between new buildings and existing development .
4.Access to Sunlight on Sidewalk s
As discussed in the Initial Study (Attachment 12), the orientation of downtown street s
and the resulting pattern of sunlight and shade on the sidewalks contributes greatly to th e
downtown core area's sense of place . The intensity of the sun and the ambien t
temperature will often determine what side of the street a person chooses to walk down .
Sidewalks facing southeast receive sunlight during most of the day and include the eve n
addressed sides of Monterey Street, Higuera Street and Marsh Street, which are also th e
main pedestrian routes to and through downtown destinations . Later in the day
particularly in the summer), the northwest facing sidewalks on these also receive som e
direct sunlight .
City staff has prepared a computer shading model to illustrate the shadows created b y
progressively taller buildings in the downtown core area (Attachment 9). Analysis of th e
model indicates that it is possible to design 75-foot tall buildings so that they do no t
shade sidewalks with southern exposure along the three main arterial streets . To
accomplish this imperative, building designers will need to follow existing General Plan
policies and Community Design Guidelines requirements to set back buildings above th e
second or third story.
As a requirement of the project's environmental review, a new Planning Applicatio n
requirement would be implemented to insure that the shadowing effects of ne w
downtown buildings are known . The proposed amendment to Land Use Element Policy
4 .5 (Walking Environment) would clarify the City's policies regarding sunlight o n
sidewalks by saying that new building downtown should not obstruct sunlight fro m
reaching key sidewalks during noon on the winter solstice, when the sun is lowest in the
sky and sunlight is most desirable .
Summary of Recommendations :Southeast facing sidewalks along Monterey, Higuera an d
Marsh receive sunlight most of the day and a policy amendment is recommended t o
insure that new buildings do not shade these sidewalks . If the proposed amendments ar e
approved, planning applications for new downtown buildings would be required t o
include a shadow analysis to show the shadowing effect and facilitate decision making .
5.Access to Views from Public Place s
According to the Conservation and Open Space Element, which includes policies for
protection of views from public places and scenic roadways, there are no roads of sceni c
value within the downtown core area (Attachment 7, COSE Figure 11). However, there
are public places such as Mission Plaza, the Jack House Gardens, the LC YC Cheng Park ,
the lawn in front of the Old County Courthouse building, and other locations where high -
quality views of important scenic resources are available . COSE Policy 9 .22 .1 says tha t
the City will preserve and improve views of important scenic resources from these an d
other public places . Land Use Element policy 4 .7 provides more specificity regarding th e
vision for open places and views downtown .
7
Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limits Page8
LUE Policy 4.7 : Downtown should include many carefully located open place s
where people can rest and enjoy views of the surrounding hills . Downtow n
should include some outdoor spaces where people are completely separated fro m
vehicle traffic, in addition to Mission Plaza . Opportunities include extensions o f
Mission Plaza, a few new plazas, and selected street closures .
The policy amendments that are proposed are intended to clarify conflicts created b y
existing language that promotes view preservation at the sidewalk level within th e
downtown core area . For instance, LUE Policy 4 .13 says that new downtow n
development should respect views of the hills, framing rather than obscuring them. LUE
Policy 4 .16 .4 says that new buildings should respect street-level views of the hills .
Amendments to these policies are proposed because the City advisory bodies could no t
reconcile view protection from all sidewalks with the need for efficient use of existin g
urban land and the preservation of development potential for housing and retail land uses ,
as promoted by Land Use Element Goal #12 and Housing Element Policy 6 .2 .2 .
Therefore, a strategy was recommended that would preserve important view corridor s
from public places, including sidewalk-level views in the direction of street rights-of-wa y
within the downtown core, from sidewalks along the perimeter of the downtown cor e
area, and from public spaces established in the upper levels of new buildings . The
proposed amendments to LUE Policy 4 .13 incorporate this strategy and are intended t o
achieve view protection from public places such as Mission Plaza, while maintaining th e
development potential of building sites within the downtown core area for desig n
amenities, housing and retail floor area .
Existing LUE Policy 4 .7 envisions new public places with access to views of th e
surrounding hills . In order to find the best locations for these new public places, the AR C
has recommended that the City undertake a study of important visual resource s
downtown . As a result, the environmental document requires a new general plan progra m
that encourages the City to perform a study of important view corridors . The study wil l
insure that City actions to implement LUE Policy 4 .7 are focused in the most appropriat e
locations .
Public testimony has indicated that the majority of speakers "do not go downtown for th e
views ." However, other speakers have expressed the point of view that views are a n
important component of downtown's sense of place, consistent with City policies fo r
view protection . The recommendations before the City Council are intended to satisf y
both points of view by insuring efficient use of existing urban land, while maintainin g
views that allow pedestrians to make a connection between the built environment and th e
natural environment .
Summary of Recommendations :Views of the hillsides from public gathering place s
downtown such as Mission Plaza and the Jack House Gardens are protected by existin g
policy. The proposed policy amendments include additional policy support for view
protection from these locations . Some existing views from sidewalks downtown are no t
protected to insure "efficient use of existing urban land" and that downtown remains the
City's "most intensely developed area ." Views from public gathering places, in th e
direction of street rights-of-way, from sidewalks along the perimeter of the downtown
V
Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limits Page9
core, and "new views" from the upper levels of new buildings will insure on-going acces s
to hillside views downtown .
6.Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
One of the key directives provided to staff by the City Council during the 3-14-06 stud y
session was to revise the City's Floor Area Ratio definition to exclude basements and
parking garages . The new definition recommended by the Planning Commission follows :
New Land Use Element Definition -Floor Area Ratio (FAR):The floor area o f
a building or buildings on a lot divided by the lot area . In calculating FAR, floo r
area shall mean the conditioned floor area (as defined by Title 24 of the Californi a
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 .
A higher FAR limit is also necessary to accommodate buildings with over three stories o f
floor area . The current limit of 3 .0 would be too restrictive in conjunction with th e
proposed moderate increase to building height limits . As a result, the ARC has
recommended a FAR limit of 3 .75 . The City already allows FAR up to 4 .0 for projects
that receive transfer of development credits for open space protection . If the propose d
General Plan amendments are approved, then tall buildings that meet multiple polic y
objectives (per the proposed language of LUE policies 3 .16 and 4 .16 .4) would be allowe d
to have a FAR up to 3 .75, or 4 .0 in some cases .
Summary of Recommendations :An increased Floor Area Ratio (FAR) limit is necessar y
to accommodate additional building height . The ARC and Planning Commission hav e
recommended a FAR of 3 .75 . A FAR of 4 .0 may permitted in certain circumstances ,
such as where there are transfer of development credits for open space protection o r
historic preservation, or where there is a density bonus for affordable housing .
7.Decision Making on Tall Buildings
In an effort to improve decision making on this sensitive topic, policy and technologica l
enhancements are recommended .
Policy Enhancements for Decision Makin g
Based on the analysis of key issues provided above, the need to balance diverse General
Plan goals and policies requires taller buildings in the downtown core area to mee t
multiple policy objectives . As directed by the City Council during their study session i n
March, 2006, these multiple objectives can be summarized as design amenities, housin g
and retail land uses . As further developed by the City's advisory bodies, with input fro m
the public, these policy objectives can be met by a wide range of project feature s
including :
Publicly accessible, open viewing spaces at the upper level s
Housing affordability in excess of the Inclusionary Housing Requiremen t
Energy efficiency beyond State mandated requirements
Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limits Page 1 0
Adaptive reuse of a historical resource in a manner consistent with the Secretar y
of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitatio n
High residential density (e .g . above 24 units per acre) achieved by a concentratio n
of smaller dwelling unit s
Street level features such as a public plaza, public seating and/or public ar t
A major pedestrian connection between Higuera Street and the Creekwalk ,
Monterey Street and the Creekwalk, between Higuera Street and Marsh Street, o r
at another acceptable mid-block locatio n
Increased retail floor area, including multi-story retai l
Implementation of specific and identifiable City objectives, as set forth in th e
General Plan, the Conceptual Plan for the City's Center, the Downtown Strategi c
Plan and other key policy document s
Receiving Transfer of Development Credits for open space protection or histori c
preservation
To insure that tall buildings proposed downtown include these features, a revise d
ordinance for the Downtown Commercial Zone will be proposed as part of the secon d
phase of the project . Buildings proposed between 50 and 60 feet tall will be subject t o
the requirements of the new ordinance . The CHC, ARC and Planning Commission hav e
further recommended a Planning Commission Use Permit requirement for building s
proposed between 60 and 75 feet tall to provide for increased discretion and public input .
Technological Enhancements for Decision Makin g
Another component of decision making on taller buildings downtown is provided b y
computer technology . City staff and the College of Architecture and Environmenta l
Design at Cal Poly have embarked on a joint project to develop a three-dimensional
computer model of the downtown core area (Attachment 10). The purpose of the mode l
is to allow decision makers to evaluate proposed buildings in a photo-realistic, three -
dimensional computer environment during the discretionary review process .
The City is currently in the process of acquiring new aerial photographs of the projec t
area, which will be detailed enough to derive building height data . This height data will
be provided to Cal Poly, which has begun building the model from the ground up .
Eventually, photographs will be taken of every building facade for integration into th e
model . The model will be capable of depicting the downtown area from any perspective ,
during any time of day, any day of the year . Analysis of shading impacts and view-she d
impacts of new buildings will also be possible . A demonstration of the model will b e
provided to the City Council at the earliest opportunity .
Summary of Recommendations :The proposed building height limits will b e
implemented by a new ordinance during the second phase of the project . The ordinance
will provide a decision-making process that is similar to other City ordinances, such a s
the Mixed-Use Ordinance and Retail Building Size Ordinance . A three-dimensional
computer model is also being prepared by Cal Poly to give decision makers the ability t o
see" proposed project in a photo-realistic environment before approval is granted .
Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limits Page 1 1
Advisory Body Input and Public Participatio n
One of the main tasks assigned to staff during the Council's March 2006 study sessio n
was to review its recommendations with the City's advisory bodies . The General Plan
amendments and environmental document that are now recommended to the City Counci l
have been developed through the course of seven public hearings, input from th e
Chamber of Commerce and Downtown Association, and public comment . Attachment
13 includes the meeting updates from each of the public hearings leading up to th e
Planning Commission's recommendation . These updates include a summary of publi c
testimony provided and the action of the advisory body .
City staff has also maintained a web page located a t
www .slocity .org/communitydevelopment/downtown .asp as a clearinghouse for all of th e
staff reports, meeting updates and environmental documents associated with the project .
Staff has also posted all of the written testimony provided by the public on the web pag e
and maintained a large e-mail list to keep decision makers, interested individuals ,
members of the media and public interest groups up to date regarding the building height
discussion .
Public hearings on this topic have been well attended because the City has gone fa r
beyond minimum advertising requirements by publishing large display ads in the Tribune .
The decisions of the advisory bodies have been well covered by the local media, and o n
October 1, 2006, the Tribune published a Viewpoint article written by CAO Ke n
Hampian and Community Development Director John Mandeville encouraging publi c
involvement in the process (Attachment 14).
Summary of the Proposed Amendment s
Attachment 2 is a detailed project description that includes the proposed General Pla n
amendments in legislative draft format and a discussion of the basis for each change . In
keeping with the City Council's direction, the amendments before the Council are roote d
in the existing goals, policies, and programs of the General Plan . There are no new
policies recommended . However, the proposed General Plan amendments clarify
existing policies in a way that will allow them to be carried forward with a clearer visio n
of downtown's role and the type of development the downtown core should support . The
following is a brief summary of the proposed amendments :
1.LUE Policy 4.5 : Walking Environmen t
This proposed policy amendment includes a specific provision for maintaining sunligh t
on the south facing sidewalks of Marsh Street, Higuera Street and Monterey Street a t
noon on the winter solstice.
2.LUE Policy 4.13 : New Buildings and View s
This policy amendment is proposed to clarify when, where and how view protection i s
expected to be achieved with the downtown core area . The revised policy language say s
that new downtown development nearby publicly-owned gathering places "shall" respect
Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limits Page 1 2
views of the hills, framing rather than obscuring them . This is more specific than the
existing policy language, which says that new buildings "should" respect views of th e
hills .
3.LUE Policy 4.16.4: Building Height
This proposed policy amendment is intended to provide a moderate increase in buildin g
height limits from the current limit of 50 feet to a proposed limit of 60 feet . The
proposed changes also clarify where, when and how buildings up to 75 feet tall may b e
developed in the downtown core area . The proposed policy language requires al l
buildings between 50 and 75 feet tall to meet multiple policy objectives so that decisio n
makers can balance the diverse goals and policy objectives of the City's General Pla n
when making decisions on these projects .
4.LUE Policy 4.18: Commercial Buildings Outside the Cor e
This proposed policy amendment addresses an inconsistency between the General Pla n
and Zoning Regulations, by clarifying that buildings in General Retail areas adjacent t o
the downtown core area are currently allowed to be up to 45 feet tall .
5.LUE Policy 3 .1 .6:Building Intensity
The policy amendment proposed reflects the a recommended increase in the Floor Are a
Ratio limit to correspond to the increased height limit that is also proposed . As proposed ,
buildings in the downtown core area may be developed with a FAR of 3 .75 . FAR may b e
approved up to 4 .0 for sites in the downtown core area that receive transfer o f
development credits for open space protection or historic preservation, or that receiv e
density bonuses for affordable housing .
Implementation programs are also recommended to include a study of visual resources ,
an update to the Community Design Guidelines, a revision to the City's Downtow n
Access and Parking Management Plan and a new definition for Floor Area Ratio tha t
excludes basements and parking garages from the calculation of floor area. Attachment
17 includes the resolution recommended by the Planning Commission for adoption by th e
City Council .
Alternative s
The proposed General Plan amendments represent the recommended alternative fo r
implementing the Council's direction on downtown building height and intensity limits .
However, there are other alternatives that have been considered in leading up to thi s
recommendation (Attachment 11). The proposed amendments will produce policy-base d
standards in a new ordinance . This is the model that the City has historically used t o
insure that new development projects further General Plan objectives and help the Cit y
reach its stated goals . A review of policies and standards for building height limits use d
by other jurisdictions is also included in Attachment 11 .
Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limits Page 1 3
Environmental Revie w
In addition to the amendments proposed as part of the project, new Land Use Elemen t
programs and Planning Application requirements are recommended in the Initial Study
and Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (Attachment 12, Initia l
Study). Mitigation measures are recommended in the areas of aesthetics, public services ,
traffic and utilities . Aesthetics issues are related to views and solar access . Public
services impacts relate to emergency access and security of public places within privat e
projects . Transportation impacts are related to residential parking in the downtown cor e
area. Utilities impacts relate to required water pressure for domestic and fire flows an d
potential capacity issues within the wastewater collection system . Mitigation measure s
are recommended to reduce these impacts to less than significant levels and includ e
General Plan programs and Planning Application requirements reflected in the projec t
description (Attachment 2). A complete evaluation of these and other environmenta l
issues is included in the Initial Study under each related issue heading .
CONCURRENCE S
The Planning Commission's recommendation has been developed as part of a publi c
process that has included recommendations from the CHC and ARC, public input an d
environmental review . City staff has made presentations to the Downtown Associatio n
and the Chamber of Commerce . The Downtown Association Board has approved a
position paper regarding downtown building heights and intensity limits (Attachmen t
15). The Chamber of Commerce has recently published their point of view on this issu e
in their newsletter, slo-business .com (Attachment 16).
The recommended General Plan amendments and the project's environmental revie w
have been reviewed by all City departments involved in the development review process .
Comments and issues raised by other City departments have been incorporated into th e
analysis and the project description .
FISCAL IMPAC T
When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis ,
which found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced . The proposed change s
to the General Plan land use designations are not expected to change the economic use o f
the underlying land . The proposed General Plan amendments will have a neutral fisca l
impact because they are minor and are intended to reinforce existing policy structure .
ALTERNATIVES
1.The Council can continue the project if additional information is needed or i f
more time is needed to fully evaluate the proposal . The Council may also direct
changes to the project description or environmental document and have staff
return with a revised recommendation at a later date .
2.The Council can deny the proposed project, if the recommended General Pla n
amendments are not supported by a majority of the Council .//
3
Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limits Page 1 4
ATTACHMENT S
Attachment 1 :
Attachment 2 :
Attachment 3 :
Attachment 4 :
Attachment 5 :
Attachment 6 :
Attachment 7 :
Attachment 8 :
Attachment 9 :
Attachment 10 :
Attachment 11 :
Attachment 12 :
Attachment 13 :
Attachment 14 :
Attachment 15 :
Attachment 16 :
Attachment 17 :
Council Minutes, March 14, 200 6
Detailed Project Description and Legislative Draft of Amendment s
Land Use Element Preamble and Vision Statemen t
Land Use Element Chapter 4, Downtow n
COSE Chapter 3, Historic Preservatio n
COSE Chapter 9, View Protection and Circulation Element App .B
Map of Historic Properties located in the downtown cor e
Economic Impacts of Height Limitations (Kotin, 2006 )
Solar Shading Analysi s
3-D Computer Model of Downtown SLO — Project Description
Building Height and Intensity Limits, Alternative s
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration w/out attachment s
Advisory Body Meeting Update s
Tribune Viewpoint article by Ken Hampian, published 10-1-0 6
Downtown Association Position Pape r
Chamber of Commerce Position Pape r
Resolution approving the Planning Commission's recommendatio n
AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFIC E
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration with all attachment s
All written public testimony submitted to the City to dat e
Planning Commission Agenda Report and meeting updates (12-13-06 )
Architectural Review Commission Agenda Report and meeting update (10-2-06 )
Cultural Heritage Committee Agenda Report and meeting updates (8-28-06 )
All of the documents listed above may also be downloaded from the following website :
http ://www .slocity .org/communitvdevelopment/downtown .asp
G:CD-PLAMMCODROMDHO Mcar3(GPA50-06).DOC
Attacnment 1
1
MINUTE S
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCI L
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
TUESDAY, MARCH 14, 2006 .7 :00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBER, 990 PALM STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
DOLL CALL :
Council Members
Present :
City Staff :
Council Members John Ewan, Christine Mulholland, Vice Mayor Alle n
Settle and Mayor Dave Romero were present at Roll Call . Counci l
Member Brown was seated at approximately 7 :05 p .m .
Present :Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer ; Jonathan Lowell, Cit y
Attorney ; Audrey Hooper, City Clerk ; Shelly Stanwyck, Assistant Cit y
Administrative Officer ; John Mandeville, Community Developmen t
Director; Deborah Linden, Police Chief ; John Moss, Utilities Director ;
Mike Draze, Deputy Community Development Director ; Doug
Davidson, Housing Programs Manager ; Claire Clark, Economi c
Development Manager ; Pam Ricci, Senior Planner ; Warren
Stephenson, Battalion Chief -
CLOSED SESSIO N
City Attorney Lowell announced the following Closed Session topic :
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING EXISTING LITIGATIO N
Pursuant to Government Code § 54956 .9
Christina Brown v. City of San Luis Obispo,San Luis Obispo Police Department,et al.
United States District Court, Central District of California, Case No . DCVOB-0048 MMM
City Attorney Lowell reported that Council met with the City Attorney and discussed th e
above-referenced case .There was no further reportable action;
PUBLICCOMMENT
Dane Senser,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 children's charities.
Sara Horne,representing the League of Women Voters, discussed the League's activities an d
Invited the community to participate In "Sunshine Week," March 12 -18 . She said the purpos e
of "Sunshine Week" Is to stimulate public discussion about open government .
STUDY SESSION
1 .BUILDING HEIGHT AND INTENSITY IN THE DOWNTOWN CORE
Attachment 1
City Council Meeting Page 2
Tuesday, March 14, 2000- 7 :00 p .m .
Community Deveioament Dh' ctor Mapgpvlpg,)iousina Proclaims Mana ger Davidson,and
Economic Consultant Allen Kotln presented the staff report and responded to Council's
questions.
public Comment s
Mark Rawson,San Luis Obispo resident and architect, discussed his concepts for makin g
the downtown pedestrian friendly and encouraged Council to embrace the concept of tallerbuildingsInthedowntown .
John Goodell,San Luis Obispo, opposed Increasing the density in the downtown becaus e
of potentially adverse impacts on the character of the City (blocking views, creatin g
canyons between tall buildings, increased traffic).
Andrew Carter,San Luis Obispo, suggested the focus should be on height rather thandensityandfloorarearatios (FARe). He thought ''height" should be considered at th e
street/sidewalk level, and that there should be different height standards based on thewidthofstreets . He also-thought that there should be a standard limiting the use t o
housing after a certain height .
lamish Marshall,downtown properly owner, displayed a photograph depicting an d
discussed the height of existing buildings and historical buildings in the downtown . He
suggested that height in feat, not In stories, is what should be considered . He also
suggested that the FAR should not be changed and that each development should beconsideredonacase-by-case basis .
Deborah Cash,Downtown Association, discussed the Importance of promoting balance i n
the downtown and encouraged a diverse mix of uses . She expressed concern tha t
adopting strict policies may be counter-productive to the City's goals .
vnn I pndwher,San Luis Obispo, urged Council to take Into consideration the scale of thevalleyInwhichtheCitysits . She expressed concern that the sense of setting might be lost
with too much height, mass and density in the downtown .
Michael Sullivan,San Luis Obispo, reviewed the recommendations contained In his letter t o
Council (on file In the City Clerk's office) and discussed the need for affordable housing inthedowntown .
Tom4gpes,Dean of Cal Poly College of Architecture and Environmental Design, supporte d
increased height and discussed principles he thought should be considered ..
pane Sensor,San Luis Obispo, spoke In support of the staff recommendation, of permittin g
an extra story based on the design, and of making decisions on a case-by-case basis .
Chuck Crotse&,San Luis Obispo, discussed his letter to Council (on file In the City Clerk'soffice). He said there Is a need to continue considering acquiring and preserving ope n
space, and to provide alternatives for moderately Increasing heights .
Ken Schwartz,San Luis Obispo, referenced his letter to Council (on file in the City Clerk's
office) and said he Is In favor of modifying the height limitations to accommodate needs forthedowntown . He explained that while there has been discussion regarding profitability fo r
the private sector, consideration must also be given to the public sector . He said there Is a
need for a careful balance between the permitted land use and revenues generated .
Attachment 1
City Council Meeting Page 3
Tuesday, March 14, 2006 .7:00 p .m.
Pierre Rademaket,San Luis Obispo, pointed out that In the past, the City had a much mor e
urban downtown than today and said that this is an opportunity to replace some of th e
building mass lost . He also said he thinks the FAR needs to be adjusted to encourage more
creative solutions to upper level designs .
end of public comments
CAO Hamplan explained why he believes there Is a need to balance or clarify existin g
policies .
Council discussion ensued, during which staff responded to questions .
Vice Mavor Settle supported flexibility In height, a FAR of 4 :0, flexibility related to and an
underground component for parking, residential components and mixed use downtown ,
and pursuing stories Instead of feet . He also supported staff's recommendation .
Council Member Brown concurred with Vice Mayor Settle's comments .
Council Member Ewan also concurred with Vice Mayor Settle's comments . He added that
there Is a need to discuss what percent of a building should be housing . He also concurre d
with prior comments that it will be important to consider the perceptual framework of
buildings and to keep in mind the need to obtain public amenities as a trade off . He
suggested that there is a need to move forward within the 5-story, 70-foot range and tha t
more workable policies need to be put into place.
Council Member Mulholland discussed her opposition to the proposal . Her concern s
included, In part, that housing that has been developed In the downtown is not affordable ;
that there should be a modal shift in transportation and that the downtown should not b e
auto-dependent, but auto free ; that urban life should be redefined to meet the challenge ofthegrowingenergyscarcity ; that as Increased housing Is discussed; how to discourage the
use of automobiles in the downtown and how not to add the costs of parking them onto th e
housing must also be discussed ; that residents of the City have expressed their oppositiontoatallerdowntown ; that taller buildings are likely to create dark alleys ; and that what
draws tourists is that the City Is pedestrian-scaled old, small downtown . She als o
expressed concern about the projects referenced in the staff report .
Mavor Romero said he thinks parking on some basis will need to be provided and that theFARIstoorestrictive . He favored a FAR of 4 :0, eliminating basements and parking from th e
FAR, and permitting buildings to exceed two or three stores . He said he would like to
consider building heights at 70 to 75 feet and pointed out that this would Impact only afewselectedsites . He said he didn't object to transfer development credits (TDCs) and tha t
there should be a very careful review of each project greater than three or four stories i n
height. He supported staff's recommendations .
In response to Council Member Mulholland,a brief discussion ensued regarding how th e
City will maintain equilibrium between the higher and lower buildings (I .e ., maintaining ligh t
and the view shed) while still Incorporating more housing in the downtown .
Staff will Include the concept of utilizing transfer development credits In the follow up .
ACTION : Moved by j3rownIEwan to : 1 . Revise the City's floor area ratio (FAR )
definition to exclude basements and parking . 2. Confirm policy Inconsistencie s
among General Plan policies and development standards for the downtown . 3.
Direct staff to bring back alternatives for moderately Increasing the downtown
Attachment 1
City Council Meetin g
Tuesday, March 14, 2006 .7 :00 p .m .
building height and Intensity limits, In order to achieve other General Plan goals an d
objectives, including design amenities, housing, and retail land uses . 4 . Review
recommendations with the Cultural Heritage Committee, Architectural Revie w
Commission, Planning Commission, and Downtown Association before returning t o
the Council; motion passed 4 :1 (Mulholland opposed).
Vice Mayor Settle Inquired whether Council would support asking for a report from staff on M
the future of the Daildio project and Its Impact on the City's land use policies . There was noconsensusgivestaffthisdirectionatthistime.
There being no further business to come before the City Council,Mayor Romeroadjournedthemeetingat9 :40 p.m. to a special meeting on Wednesday, March 15, 2006, In the Counci l
Hearing Room, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo.
Page 4
APPROVED BY COUNCIL : 04/04106
Attachment 2
City of San Luis Obisp o
Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limit s
Proposed General Plan Amendments and Detailed Project Descriptio n
Project Description
On March 14, 2006, the City Council held a study session on the issue of Downtow n
building heights and intensity limits and directed staff to :
1)Revise the City's floor area ratio (FAR) definition to exclude basement s
and parking .
2)Confirm policy inconsistencies among General Plan policies an d
development standards for the downtown .
3)Bring back alternatives for moderately increasing the downtown buildin g
height and intensity limits, in order to achieve other General Plan goals
and objectives, including design amenities, housing, and retail land uses .
4)Review alternatives and recommendations with the Cultural Heritag e
Committee, Architectural Review Conunission, Planning Commission,
and Downtown Association before returning to the Council .
In order to fulfill this Council direction, the project is divided into two phases . In the firs t
phase, existing policies relative to building height and intensity limits in the City's
downtown core will be reviewed, and, General Plan amendments will be recommended t o
clarify the policies . Second, specific ordinance revisions will be proposed to implemen t
the revised policies .
The following General Plan amendments are recommended to carry out the first phase o f
the project.
Recommended General Plan Amendments - Legislative Draft
The following amendments to the Land Use Element of the General Plan would revis e
the policies that guide development of tall buildings in the City's downtown core are a
the Downtown Commercial, or C-D, Zone), consistent with the direction provided by th e
City Council on March 14, 2006 . The policy changes would establish the basis for a n
ordinance amendment to the Zoning Regulations, which will be pursued if these revise d
policies are approved, based on the final language of the policies .
17/
Attachment 2
Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limits - Project Overvie w
Page 2
Abbreviations :
LU or LUE — Land Use Elemen t
COSE — Conservation and Open Space Elemen t
LU 4 .5 Walking Environmen t
Downtown should provide safe, exciting places for walking and pleasant places fo r
sitting . To invite exploration, mid-block walkways, courtyards, and interior malls shoul d
be integrated with new and remodeled buildings, while preserving continuous buildin g
faces on most blocks . Downtown streets should provide adequate space for pedestrians .
There should be a nearly continuous tree canopy along sidewalks, and planters shoul d
provide additional foliage and flowers near public gathering areas .To maintain th e
downtown's appeal for pedestrians, new buildings should not obstruct sunlight fro m
reaching sidewalks on the northwest side of Marsh Street, Higuera Street and Montere y
Street at noon on the winter solstice .
Basis for Amendment :The proposed amendment is necessary to insure that sidewalk s
with southern exposure along the main pedestrian arteries through the downtown cor e
area retain access to sunlight with the development of additional tall buildings . Th e
environmental review for the project identifies access to sunlight as a major aspect of the
downtown core area's pedestrian orientation and its sense of place, therefore, maintainin g
sunlight along these sidewalk areas is necessary to preserve the area's character .
LU 4 .13 : New Buildings and View s
New downtown development nearby publicly-owned gathering places such as Mission
Plaza, the Jack House Gardens, LC YC Cheng Park, and similar gathering spaces elieuld
shallrespect views of the hills, framing rather than obscuring them .Adjacent buildings
shall be designed to allow sunlight to reach these open spaces, and when planting ne w
trees the potential canopy shall be considered subordinate to maintaining views o f
hillsides . In other locations downtown, views will be provided parallel to the street right -
of-way, at intersections where building separation naturally makes more views available ,
and at upper-level viewing decks .
Basis for Amendment :The amendment listed above is intended to clarify where, whe n
and how view protection is expected to be achieved within the downtown core area .
Specifically, the policy clarifies that views will be available from publicly-owned ope n
places, but not necessarily from all of the sidewalk locations where views currently exist .
The revised language is consistent with LUE Policy 4 .7, which says that "downtow n
should include many carefully located open places where people can rest and enjoy view s
of the surrounding hills ." It is also consistent with other important General Plan goal s
and policies . For example, LUE Goal 12 says that the City should "emphasize mor e
productive use of existing commercial buildings and land areas already committed t o
urban development ." LUE Goal 31 says that the City should maintain a "compact urban
form ." LUE Policy 4 .15 says "to keep the commercial core's sense of place and appea l
for walking, it should remain compact and be the City's most intensely developed area ."
The proposed policy revision is also consistent with COSE Policy 9 .22.1, which says that
the City will preserve and improve views of important scenic resources from publi c
places .
1/23/2007 2.a
Attachment 2
Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limits - Project Overvie w
Page 3
LU 4 .16.4 : Building Heigh t
New buildings should-shall fit within the existing context andvertical scale of existing
development, shall not obstruct views from, or sunlight to, publicly-owned gatherin g
places such as Mission Plaza, and should be set back above the second or third level t o
maintain a street facade that is consistent with the historic pattern of development .. The y
Generally, new buildings should no t
exceed 60 feet in height . tw o or th rc c s t ories(about 35 to 50feet).Tall buildings (50-7 5
feet) shall be designed to achieve multiple policy objectives, including design amenities ,
housing and retail land uses ,
Publicly accessible, open viewing spaces at the upper level s
Housing affordability in excess of the Inclusionary Housing Requiremen t
Energy efficiency beyond State mandated requirement s
Adaptive reuse of a historical resource in a manner consistent with the Secretar y
of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitatio n
High residential density (e .g . above 24 units per acre) achieved by a concentratio n
of smaller dwelling unit s
Street level features such as a public plaza, public seating and/or public art
A major pedestrian connection between Higuera Street and the Creekwalk ,
Monterey Street and the Creekwalk, between Higuera Street and Marsh Street, o r
at another acceptable mid-block location
Increased retail floor area, including multi-story retai l
Directly implements specific and identifiable City objectives, as set forth in th e
General Plan, the Conceptual Plan for the City's Center, the Downtown Strategi c
Plan and other key policy document s
Receiving Transfer of Development Credits for open space protection or histori c
preservation
Basis for Amendment:The proposed amendment to LUE Policy 4 .16 .4 is intended t o
achieve a moderate increase in the allowable building height of new buildings in th e
downtown core area, as directed by the City Council . This change is intended to
implement General Plan requirements for design amenities, housing and retail land uses .
The changes proposed eliminate reference to building stories and eliminate reference t o
landmark" buildings, per input from the City's Cultural Heritage Committee and
Architectural Review Commission . The revised policy language also reinforces LUE
Policy 4 .7 and reinforces the revisions proposed for LUE Policy 4 .13 . Finally, the polic y
outlines broad criteria for features that should be included in buildings that receive
1/23/2007
Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limits - Project Overview Attachment 2
Page 4
entitlements for increased height and intensity . The ordinance that implements the
revised policy will establish more specific standards for tall buildings to insure that thes e
project achieve multiple policy objectives, as directed by the City Council .
LU 4.18 : Commercial Buildings Outside the Core
In GeneralcRetail areas beyond-adjacent tothe commercial core, the pattern of building s
in relation to the street should become more like the core, with few shareddriveways an d
parking lots and no street or side-yard setbacks (excep t
for recessed entries and courtyards). However, bBuildings should not exceed 45 feet i n
height .two stories (about 35feet in height).
Basis for Amendment :The purpose of this amendment is to clarify the fact that the City's
Zoning Regulations currently allows buildings up to 45 feet tall in the C-R (Retai l
Commercial) zone, which is the zoning that applies to the commercial buildings adjacen t
to the core, along Monterey Street, Marsh Street and Higuera Street . The City Counci l
directed staff to confirm and clarify inconsistencies between existing General Plan
policies and development standards . The proposed General Plan amendment woul d
accomplish this direction and make the General Plan and Zoning Regulations consistent .
LU 3 .1 .6 : Building Intensit y
The ratio of building floor area to site area FAR)shall not exceed 3 .0.Additional floor
area, up to a FAR of 3 .75, may be approved for projects in the downtown core . FAR ma y
be approved up to 4 .0 for sites in the downtown core that receive transfer of developmen t
credit for either open space protection or historic preservation, or that receive densit y
bonuses for affordable housing .,
The Zoning
Regulations will establish maximum building height and lot coverage, and minimu m
setbacks from streets and other property lines, as well as procedures for exceptions t o
such standards in special circumstances . Architectural review will determine a project's
realized building intensity, to reflect existing or desired architectural character in a
neighborhood. When dwellings are provided in General Retail districts, they shall no t
exceed 36 units per acre . So long as the floor area ratio is not exceeded, the maximum
residential density may be developed in addition to nonresidential development on a site .
Basis for Amendment :The amendment to LUE Policy 3 .1 .6 is intended to allow fo r
alternatives to achieve a moderate increase to current building height and intensity limits ,
as directed by the City Council on March 14, 2006 . On October 2, 2006, the AR C
reviewed various FAR standards and recommended a limit of 3 .75 . If the City Counci l
approves the recommendation, then the Zoning Regulations will be updated to reflect th e
revised policy during the second step of the project (ordinance implementation).
New Land Use Element Definitio n
Floor Area Ratio (FAR):The floor area of a building or buildings on a lot divided b y
the lot area . In calculating FAR, floor area shall mean the conditioned floor area (a s
defined by Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations) of the building, excludin g
1/23/2007
Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limits - Project Overview A ttachment 2
Page 5
parking garages and basements, provided the finish floor elevation of the first floor is les s
than 30" above sidewalk grade .
Basis for Amendment :On March 14, 2006, the City Council directed staff to revise th e
City's Floor Area Ratio definition to exclude basements and parking garages . Th e
proposed definition accomplishes Council's direction .
New Land Use Element Programs Proposed as Mitigation Measure s
Staff analysis of the proposed General Plan amendments indicates that the followin g
programs are necessary to insure that the environmental impacts of the project ar e
mitigated . If the proposed General Plan amendments are approved, the followin g
programs must also be added to the Land Use Element of the General Plan . Analysis of
these programs is included in the Initial Study of Environmental Impact for the project .
Mitigation Measure Aesthetics-1 :The City will undertake a study of visual resource s
within the Downtown core area to identify potential locations for new public-owned ope n
places with access to views of important scenic resources . The City will conside r
acquisition of one or more of these open places as resources permit . A range of option s
for property acquisition, including development agreements, will be considered ,
consistent with the City's fiscal policies and objectives .
Mitigation Measure Aesthetics-2 :The Community Design Guidelines shall be update d
to include guidelines for tall buildings within the downtown core area, with a particula r
focus on guidelines for architectural transitions between new development and existin g
buildings within the Downtown Historic District .
Mitigation Measure Transportation-1 :The City should revise the Access and Parkin g
Management Plan (2002) to include a Downtown access program for residents in th e
Downtown core area . The revision should evaluate various strategies and long-ter m
parking solutions and include implementation recommendations . Strategies and solution s
that may be considered include, but are not limited to :
1.A fee based program to allow limited residential parking in downtown parkin g
structures owned and operated by the City .
2.Criteria for on-site parking (requirements and prohibitions) based on project size ,
project location, site access criteria, housing type, and feasible alternativ e
transportation options .
3.Determination if any Downtown core streets should have driveway acces s
restricted .
4.Vehicle parking and storage areas located outside the downtown core area, suc h
as Park and Ride style lots, that can be used by downtown core residents .
5.The development of additional transit programs to increase options for downtow n
residents .
1/23/2007 3
Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limits - Project Overview
Attachment 2
Page 6
6 . Credit towards parking requirements for projects that implement shared vehicl e
programs .
New Planning Application Requirements Proposed as Mitigatio n
Measure s
Staff analysis of the proposed General Plan amendments indicates that the followin g
Planning Application requirements are necessary to insure that the environmental impact s
of the project are mitigated . If the proposed General Plan amendments are approved, th e
following requirements must also be implemented . Planning Application requirement s
are adopted by ordinance and would be put into effect during the second phase of th e
project, after the final language of proposed General Plan amendments is determined .
Analysis of these requirements is included in the Initial Study of Environmental Impact
for the project .
Mitigation Measure Aesthetics-3 :Planning applications submitted for Architectural
Review of new tall buildings (50 to 75 feet tall) shall include a solar shading analysis t o
illustrate shading caused by proposed buildings between the hours of 11 :00 AM and 3 :00
PM during the winter solstice .
Mitigation Measure Public Services-1 :Planning applications submitted for new tal l
buildings (50 to 75 feet tall) within the downtown core area shall include a fire and lif e
safety access plan, which will show how access to upper floors will be provided ,
consistent with the Uniform Fire Code and the requirements of SLOFD . Applicants are
encouraged to review proposed emergency access plans with the City's Fire Marsha l
prior to finalizing their building design and submitting their planning applications .
Mitigation Measure Public Services-2 :Planning applications for buildings between 5 0
to 75 feet tall shall include a security plan for proposed parking areas, courtyard areas ,
public stairways and elevators . The security plan will establish rules and regulations fo r
public use of courtyard areas, and establish timeframes for private security patrols to b e
in place . The plan shall be reviewed with the Police Department prior to submittal .
Mitigation Measure Utilities-1 :Planning Applications submitted to the City of Sa n
Luis Obispo for buildings between 50 and 75 feet tall shall include an engineer's
evaluation of existing utilities infrastructure to ensure that the project will have adequat e
water pressure for domestic use and fire flows and that the collection system in the are a
surrounding the project is sufficient to meet the project's impact . Where deficiencies are
identified, the project developer shall work with the Utilities Department to identif y
needed improvements and shall be required as a condition of approval to perform thos e
improvements as part of the future project .
1/23/2007
Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limits - Project Overview
Attachment 2
Page 7
Phase II : Ordinance Implementation and Design Guidelines Updat e
If the recommended General Plan amendments are approved by the City Council, the n
the project will move into its second phase, which is ordinance implementation . The
components of the project's second phase are anticipated to include :
1)A revision to Chapter 17 .42 of the Zoning Regulations to establish new
standards for the Downtown Commercial (C-D) Zone . The revisions
would establish a Planning Commission Use Permit process for building s
between 60 and 75 feet tall . Use permits for these tall buildings could b e
approved if the proposed project is determined to be consistent with th e
General Plan . To insure General Plan consistency, the ordinance woul d
include planning application requirements, required findings for approval ,
required project features and performance standards .
2)An update to the Design Guidelines will be pursued to include guideline s
for tall buildings within the downtown core area, with a particular focu s
on architectural transitions between new development and existin g
buildings within the Downtown Historic District . The update would b e
prepared by a subcommittee of the Architectural Review Commissio n
with the assistance of City staff . The amendment would be reviewed b y
the Cultural Heritage Committee, Architectural Review Commission an d
Planning Commission before a recommendation is forwarded to the Cit y
Council .
3)Environmental Review consistent with the California Environmenta l
Quality Act.
1/23/2007
Attachment 3
SLO General Plan Land Use Elemen t
PREAMBLE TO THE LAND USE ELEMEN T
We the people of San Luis Obispo hold that we have the right to determine ou r
community's destiny based on our community's values ; that the future livability of ou r
community will be driven by historical choices made from day to day, and not b y
inevitable forces beyond our control ; that in an age when the livability of large, urba n
communities to our north, south, and east is being destroyed by incrementall y
accelerating environmental degradation and the breakdown of civility, we assert ou r
desire to seek a different sort of future for our community ; that, therefore, we direct ou r
elected representatives and civic employees to preserve our community's natura l
environment and control excessive growth detrimental to the long-term sustainability o f
the community .
SAN LUIS OBISPO'S VISIO N
Our vision is of a sustainable community, within a diverse natural and agraria n
setting, which is part of a larger ecosystem upon which its existence depends . San Lui s
Obispo will maintain its healthy and attractive natural environment valued by residents ,
its prosperity, and its sense of safety and community, within a compact urban form . Ou r
community will have a comprehensible scale, where people know each other and wher e
their participation in government is welcome and effective . The general plan outline s
basic features of the city needed to sustain our livelihoods, our natural and historica l
heritage, and our needs for interaction and expression . The general plan is a
benchmark in the continuing planning process, reflecting the desires of citizens wit h
different backgrounds to sustain the community's qualities for themselves and for futur e
generations .
The City should provide a setting for comfortable living, including work an d
recreation . The City should live within its resources, preserve the relatively high levels o f
service, environmental quality and clean air valued by its residents, and strive to provid e
additional resources as needed .
5 / c26
Attachment 4
AttachmentElementandUs
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 facilitie s
for golf, tennis, equestrian activities, soccer, swimming, fishing ,
and eco-tourism .
DOWNTOW N
LU 4 .1 : Downtown's Rol e
Downtown . is the cultural, social and political center of the City for its residents, as wel l
as home for those who live in its historic neighborhoods . The City wants its commercia l
core to be economically healthy, and realizes that private and public investments inthedowntownsupporteachother . Downtown should provide a wide variety of professionalandgovernmentservices, serving the region as well as the city. The commercial core isapreferredlocationforretailusesthataresuitableforpedestrianaccess, off-site parking ,
g
and compact building spaces . Civic, cultural and commercial portions of downtown
v~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 visito r
aceomdations .
LU 4 .2 : Downtown Residential
LU 4.2 .1 : Existing and New Dwelling s
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 i n
the community. Existing residential uses within and around the commercial core shoul d
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 . shouldincludedwellings. Commercial core properties may serve as receiver sites for transfer o f
development credits, thereby having higher residential densities than otherwise allowed .
city o f san leis onispo - general plan digest - &cemnes 2004 LU-5 1
017
Attachment 4
Land Use Elemen t
LU 42 .2 : Dwellings and Office s
Residential uses within some downtown 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 th e
number of dwellings in the Downtown Core (C-D zone) and the Downtown Plannin g
Area by adopting a "no net housing loss" program b y.amending the Downtown Housin g
Conversion ordinance . The amendment shall ensure that within each area, the numbe r
of dwellings removed shall not exceed the number of dwellings added .
LU 4 .3 : Entertainment and Cultural Facilitie s
Cultural facilities, such as museums, galleries, and public theaters should be downtown .
Entertainment facilities, such as nightclubs and private theaters should be in th e
downtown, too . Locations outside downtown may be more appropriate for facilitie s
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 spaces to accommodate public meetings, seminars, classes, an d
similar activities in conjunction with other uses . Downtown should provide a setting
which is festive, and comfortable for public gatherings .
LU 4 .5 : Walking Environmen t
Downtown should provide safe, exciting places for walking and pleasant places for sitting .
lb invite exploration, mid-block walkways, courtyards, and interior malls should b e
integrated with new and remodelled buildings, while preserving continuous buildin g
faces on most blocks . Downtown streets should provide adequate space for pedestrians .
There should be a nearly continuous tree canopy along sidewalks, and planters shoul d
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 o r
travelled places, to enhance public safety .
LU-52 OccemBER 2004 -geneaal plan Digest - city of san Luis osiisp o
020
11 I Attachment-4
Land Use Element
H 6 .3 .2
LU 4 .7: _Open Places and Views
Downtown should include many carefully located open places where people can res t
and enjoy views of the surrounding hills . Downtown should include some outdoor
spaces where people are completely separated from vehicle waffle, in addition to Missio n
Plaza . Opportunities include extensions of Mission Plaza, a few new plazas,and selected
street. closures .
LU 4 .8 : Traffic in Residential Area s
Downtown residential areas should be protected from through traffic .
LU 4 .9 : Street Change s
Street widening and realignment should be avoided .
LU 4.10 : Parking
There should be a diversity of parking opportunities . Any major increments in parkin g
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 customer s
and clients .
city of san tuts otiispo - cenenal plan Oiliest - Occemnen 2004 LU•53
Attachment 4
Land Use Element
LU 4.1 I :The Cree k
San Luis Obispo Creek should be protected and restored, provided this can be done i n
a manner that minimizes human impact on creek life . Walking paths along the creek i n
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 th e
creek should be pursued .
LU 4 .12 :Building Conservation and Compatibilit y
Architecturally and historically significant buildings should be preserved and restored .
New buildings should be compatible with architecturally and historically significan t
buildings, but not necessarily the same style .
LU 4 .13 :New Buildings and Views
New downtown development should respect views of the hills, framing rather tha n
obscuring them .
LU 4 .14:Noise
Obtrusive sounds, induding traffic noises and loud music, should be minimized . Desired()./
activities which are noisy should be timed to avoid conflict with other desired activitie s
which need a quiet setting .
LU 4 .15 :Sense of Place
To keep the commercial core's sense of place and appeal for walking, it should remai n
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 th e
commercial core :
LU 4 .16 .1: Street Level Activitie s
The street level should be occupied by stores, restaurants, and other uses benefitin g
from and contributing to pedestrian traffic, such as offices with frequent client visits .
Stores and restaurants may occupy upper levels . Offices not having frequent client visit s
should be located above street level .
LU•54 Oecemien 2004 -genenalplan Oiliest - city of san this onisp o
3o .
LU 6 .5.4
H 3 .2 .5
Attachment 4
Land Use Elemen t
JLU 4 .16 .2: Upper Floor Dwellings
Existing residential uses shall be preserved and new ones encouraged above the stree t
level .
LU 4 .16 .3 : Continuous Storefron t
There should be a continuous storefront along sidewalks, at the back of the sidewalk ,
except for the Courthouse and City Hall blocks, plazas, recessed building entries, an d
sidewalk cafes .
LU 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 storie s
about 35 to 50 feet). Where necessary to protect significant views, sunlight, and stree t
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 wher e
they will not obstruct views or . sunlight for public spaces . These taller buildings woul d
be more appropriate at mid-block than at corners, and their floors above the second o r
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 .
C)LU 4 .16 .5 : Building 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, an d
architectural details which can be appreciated by people on the sidewalks .
H 5 .2 .3
city of san Luis owspo - Genenal plan Oigest Oecem ae 2004 LU•553/
Attachment 4
Land Use Elemen t
LU 4 .17 : Government Office s
City Hall and the County Government Center should remain at their present locations /
Additional administrative office space which cannot be accommodated within the Count _
Government Center should be developed nearby within the downtown .
LU 4 .18 : Commercial Buildings Outside the Cor e
In retail areas beyond the commercial core, the pattern of buildings in relation to th e
street should become more like the core, with few driveways and parking lots servin g
individual developments, and no street or side-yard setbacks (except for recessed entrie s
and courtyards). However, buildings should not exceed two stories (about 35 feet i n
height).
LU 4 .19 : Implementing the Downtown Concept Pla n
The City will consider including features of 'A Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's
Center," as appropriate, in its Zoning Regulations, architectural review guidelines ,
engineering standards, and capital improvement program .
LU-56 becemaen 2004 -genenal plan Oigest - city of san this oaispo
Attachment 5 -
city of san huts ostspo consenvatton ant) open space element, apart zoo'sgigs
3 .0 CULTURAL HERITAGE
3 .10 Backgroun d
San Luis Obispo is blessed with a ric h
heritage, as evidenced by many noteworthy
archaeological sites and historical
buildings . These cultural resource s
constitute a precious, yet fragile, legac y
which contributes to San Luis Obispo's
unique "sense of place ."
Before Europeans arrived on the centra l
coast, native Chumash and Salinan peopl e
had lived in the area for centuries . Whil e
most reminders of these peoples are no w
gone, evidence of their presence remains i n
various archaeological, historical and spiritual sites throughout the City . These sites should b e
respectfully protected, preserved and studied . The Town of San Luis Obispo began with th e
founding of Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa in 1772 . Since then, the community ha s
experienced many changes, The older buildings, historic sites and landscape features that remai n
help us understand the changes and maintain a sense of continuity . The City wants to preserv e
these cultural resources -- tangible reminders of earlier days in San Luis Obispo .
Starting in the early 1980s, the City of San Luis Obispo inaugurated a program formalizing an d
adopting policies to address historic and prehistoric cultural resources . The first of the City's
historic districts was formed, and the City Council created the Cultural Heritage Committe e
CHC). The City subsequently adopted numerous policies in its General Plan that addressed th e
preservation and protection of historic and prehistoric resources . About 700 historic residentia l
and commercial buildings continue to give the community its "historic" character and charm ,
while adapting to owners' changing uses and needs .
After two decades, the City has made important strides with its historic preservation efforts . It
has purchased and rehabilitated several historic structures, including the Jack House, th e
Southern Pacific Railroad Water Tower and the Southern Pacific Railroad Depot, and begu n
rehabilitation of several other historic railroad or adobe structures . Through the Mills Act
program, the City and County of San Luis Obispo have helped owners of historic building s
maintain and improve their properties through property tax benefits .
Nevertheless, many cultural resources are under increasing threats due to development pressures ,
benign neglect and lack of funding for maintenance or rehabilitation . Throughout California ,
older established neighborhoods are feeling the effects of growth and intensification due t o
contemporary development which often dwarfs or lacks the grace of older homes it replaces .
Commercial areas are also feeling the impact of a changing economy with new uses ,
San Luis Obispo . circa 1890
Attachment 5
it
city of sah rum ouispo conseuvation anti open space element, alma 200 0
development patterns and economic realities . Underutilized sites with historic resources ar e
often prime targets for redevelopment projects, with the resulting loss of those resources .
Moreover, some cultural resources have been lost due to unclear or conflicting public policies ,
incomplete information and the lack of funding . The loss of significant historic, cultural an d
archaeological resources can reduce the community's uniqueness and make it a less desirabl e
place in which to live, work or visit .
As San Luis Obispo enters the 21st century, it .is prudent to look into the future to anticipat e
problems which may lie ahead . We have already experienced some of these same pressures, an d
it is reasonable to expect that we will continue to face similar challenges in the near future .
Through its General Plan policies and relate d
implementation . measures, the City intends to hel p
balance cultural resource preservation with othe r
community goals .
3 .20 Goals and Policies
Goal 3 .21 . Historical and architectural resources .
The City will expand community understanding ,
appreciation and support for historic and architectura l
resource preservation to ensure long-term protection of
cultural resources .
Policie s
3 .21 .1 .Historic preservation .Significant histori c
and architectural resources should be identified ,
preserved and rehabilitated .
3 .21 .2 . Demolitions . Historically or architecturally significant buildings should not b e
demolished or substantially changed in outward appearance, unless doing so is necessary t o
remove a threat to health and safety and other means to eliminate or reduce the threat to
acceptable levels are infeasible .
3 .21 .3 .Historical documentation .Buildings and other cultural features that are no t
historically significant but which have historical or architectural value should be preserved or
relocated where feasible . Where preservation or relocation is not feasible, the resource shall b e
documented and the information retained in a secure but publicly accessible location . A n
acknowledgment of the resource should be incorporated within the site through historic signag e
and the reuse or display of historic materials and artifacts .
3 .21 .4 .Changes to historic buildings .Changes or additions to historically or architecturall y
significant buildings should be consistent with the original structure and follow the Secretary o f
the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Buildings . New buildings in historical
The historic Carnegie Library in Mission P I
was rehabilitated in 200 1
10
Attachment 5
city of san this owspo consenvation ant) open space element, apuil200 6
districts, or on historically significant sites, should reflect the form, spacing and materials of
nearby historic structures . The street appearance of buildings which contribute to a
neighborhood's architectural character should be maintained .
3 .21 .5 .Historic districts and neighborhoods . In evaluating new public or private
development, the City should identify and protect neighborhoods or districts having historica l
character due to the collective effect of Contributing or Master List historic properties .
Goal 3.22 . Archaeological resources .The City will expand community understanding ,
appreciation and support for archaeological resource preservation .
Policie s
3 .22 .1.Archaeological resource protection .The City shall provide for the protection of bot h
known and potential archaeological resources . To avoid significant damage to importan t
archaeological sites, all available measures, including purchase of the property in fee o r
easement, shall be explored at the time of a development proposal . Where such measures are no t
feasible and development would adversely affect identified archaeological or paleontologica l
resources, mitigation shall be required pursuant to the Archaeological Resource Preservatio n
Program Guidelines .
3 .22 .2 . Native American sites .All Native American
cultural and archaeological sites shall be protected as open
space wherever possible .
3 .22 .3 .Non-development activities .Activities other than
development which could damage or destroy archaeologica l
sites, including off-road vehicle use on or adjacent to know n
sites, or unauthorized collection of artifacts, shall b e
prohibited .
3 .22 .4 .Archaeologically sensitive areas . Development
within an archaeologically sensitive area shall require a
preliminary site survey by a qualified archaeologis t
knowledgeable in Native American cultures, prior to a
determination of the potential environmental impacts of th e
project .
3 .22 .5 .Archaeological resources present .Where a
preliminary site survey finds substantial archaeological resources, before permittin g
construction, the City shall require a mitigation plan to protect the resources . Possible mitigatio n
measures include : presence of a qualified professional during initial grading or trenching ;
project redesign ; covering with a layer of fill ; excavation, removal and curation in an appropriat e
facility under the direction of a qualified professional .
11 35-
Rehabilitation of the histori c
Michael Righetti House
eitlrl city of san this osispo conservation ant) open space element, apAtt rota meat 5
3 .22 .6 . Qualified archaeologist present .Where substantial archaeological resources are
discovered during construction or grading activities, all such activities in the immediate area of
the find shall cease until a qualified archaeologist knowledgeable in Native American culture s
can determine the significance of the resource and recommend alternative mitigation measures .
3 .22 .7 .Native American participation .Native American participation shall be included in th e
City's guidelines for resource assessment and impact mitigation . Native America n
representatives should be present during archaeological excavation and during construction in a n
area likely to contain cultural resources : The Native American community shall be consulted a s
knowledge of cultural resources expands and as the City considers updates or significant change s
to its General Plan .
3 .22 .8 .Protection of Native American cultural sites .The City will ensure the protection o f
archaeological sites that may be culturally significant to Native Americans, even if they have los t
their scientific or archaeological integrity through previous disturbance ; sites that may have
religious value, even though no artifacts are present ; and sites that contain artifacts which ma y
have intrinsic value, even though their archaeological context has been disturbed .
3 .22 .9 .Archaeological site records .The City shall establish and maintain archaeological sit e
records about known sites . Specific archaeological site information will be kept confidential t o
protect the resources . The City will maintain, for public use, generalized maps showing know n
areas of archaeological sensitivity .
3 .22 .10 .Sunny Acres .Sufficient acreage should be provided around Sunny Acres to enable us e
of the property • for a community center, urban garden, natural history museum and adjoinin g
botanical garden, or similar uses .
3 .22 .11 .Southern Pacific Water Tower .The historic Southern Pacific Water Tower an d
adjoining City-owned land should be maintained as open space or parkland .
3 .22 .12 .Cultural resources and open space .Within the city limits the City should require ,
and outside the city limits should encourage the County to require, public or private developmen t
to do the following where archaeological or historical resources are protected as open space o r
parkland :
A.Preserve such resources through easements or dedications . Subdivision parcel lines or
easements shall be located to optimize resource protection. Easements as a condition o f
development approval shall be required only for structural additions or new structures ,
not for accessory structures or tree removal permits . If a historic or archaeologica l
resource is located within an open space parcel or easement, allowed uses an d
maintenance responsibilities within that parcel or easement shall be clearly defined an d
conditioned prior to map or project approval .
B.Designate such easements or dedication areas as open space or parkland as appropriate .
12
Attachment 5
11
u Pl
3
C . Maintain such resources by prohibiting activities that may significantly degrade th e
resource .
3 .30 Programs .The City will do the following to protect cultural resources, and will encourag e
others to do so, as appropriate .
3 .30 .1 .Cultural Heritage Committee . The City's Cultural Heritage Committee will :
A.Help identify, and advise on suitable treatment for archaeological and historica l
resources .
B.Develop,information on historic resources .
C.Foster public awareness and appreciation of cultural resources through means such a s
tours, a web site, identification plaques and awards .
D.Provide recognition for preservation and restoration efforts .
E.Communicate with other City bodies and staff concerning cultural resource issues .
F.Provide guidance to owners to help preservation and restoration efforts .
G.Review new development to determine consistency with cultural resource preservatio n
guidelines or standards .
3 .30.2 .Financial assistance and incentives . The City will participate in financial assistanc e
programs, such as low-interest loans and property tax reduction programs that encourag e
maintenance and restoration of historic properties .
3 .30 .3 .Construction within historic districts .The Cultural Heritage Committee and
Architectural Review Commission will provide specific guidance on the construction of ne w
buildings within historic districts .
3 .30 .4 .Post-disaster Historic Preservation .The City will be prepared to assess the conditio n
of historic buildings that may be damaged by disasters and to foster their restoration whenever
feasible .
3 .30 .5 .Archaeological resource preservation standards .The City will maintain standard s
concerning when and how to conduct archaeological surveys, and the preferred methods of
preserving artifacts .
3 .30 .6 .Educational programs.The City will foster public awareness and appreciation o f
cultural resources by sponsoring educational programs, by helping to display artifacts tha t
illuminate past cultures and by encouraging private development to include historical an d
archaeological displays where feasible and appropriate .
3 .30 .7 .Partnering for preservation.The City will partner with agencies, non-profi t
organizations and citizens groups to help identify, preserve, rehabilitate and maintain cultura l
13
l v/
city of san Luis ouispo consei2vatton ant, open space element, alma 2006
J
J
J
3
Attachment 5
r,,,as city of san tuts ostspo consenvation anti open space element, amt. Zoos
resources .
3 .30 .8 .Promote adaptive reuse of historic buildings .The City will, consistent with health ,
safety and basic land-use policies, apply building and zoning standards within allowed ranges o f
flexibility, to foster continued use and adaptive reuse of historic buildings .
3 .30 .9 . City-owned adobes and historic structures . The City will preserve and, as resource s
permit, rehabilitate City-owned historic adobes and other historic structures by aggressively .'
seeking grants, donations, private-sector participation or other techniques that help fun d
rehabilitation and adaptive reuse .
3 .30.10 . Cultural Heritage Committee Whitepaper .The City will implement th e
recommendations of the Cultural Heritage Committee's "Whitepaper", including the adoption o f
an historic preservation ordinance .
14 3f
Attachment6cityofsantutsostspoconsenvattonanbopenspaceekt .nent, apuil 200 6
9 .0 Views
9.10 Backgroun d
San Luis Obispo has been favored with a beautifu l
natural setting . Also, the community has strive d
for attractive urban development . Protection o f
these assets enhances the community's quality of
life and economic vitality. Protection involve s
both the integrity of the resource being viewed,
and lines of sight to the resource .
9.20 Goals and Policie s
Goal 9.21 . Viewsheds .Maintain and create
attractive rural landscapes and cityscapes .
Policies
9 .21 .1 .Preserve natural and agricultural landscapes .The City will implement the followin g
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 b e
maintained in their current patterns of use .
B . Any development that is permitted in natural or agricultural landscapes shall be visuall y
subordinate to and compatible with the landscape features . Development includes, but i s
not limited to buildings, signs (including billboard signs), roads, utility an d
telecommunication lines and structures . Such development shall :
1)Avoid visually prominent locations such as ridgelines, and slopes exceeding 2 0
percent .
2)Avoid unnecessary grading, vegetation removal, and site lighting .
3)Incorporate building forms, architectural materials, and landscaping, that respect th e
setting, including the historical pattern of development in similar settings, and avoi d
stark contrasts with their setting.
4)Preserve scenic or unique landforms, significant trees in terms of size, age, species o r
rarity, and rock outcroppings .
C . The City's non-emergency repair, maintenance, and small construction projects in highl y
visible locations, such as hillsides and downtown creeks, where scenic resources could b e
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 wil l
encourage other agencies with jurisdiction to do likewise : urban development should reflect it s
architectural context . This does not necessarily prescribe a specific style, but requires deliberat e
design choices that acknowledge human scale, natural site features ; and neighboring urba n
60 3 9
City Limits form a well-defined urban edge,
with open space beyond
1
I
1 .
I
11
i
I
II
I
I
Attachment 6
city of san luis oatsp, consenvatton anb open space element, apart 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 an d
communication equipment, and traffic equipment and signs should be designed and placed so a s
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 Sig n
Regulations .
9 .21 .4 .Streetscapes and major roadways .In the acquisition, design, construction o r
significant modification of major roadways (highways/regional routes and arterial streets), th e
City will promote the creation of "streetscapes" and linear scenic parkways or corridors tha t
promote the City's visual quality and character, enhance adjacent uses, and integrate roadway s
with surrounding districts . To accomplish this, the City will :
A.Establish streetscape design standards for major roadways .
B.Encourage the creation and maintenance median 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 sufficien t
height, spread, form and horticultural characteristics to create the desired streetscap e
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 t o
enhance the streetscape appearance, comfort and safety .
F.Encourage and where possible, require undergrounding of overhead utility lines an d
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 o n
views and visual quality by applying the Community Design Guidelines, height restrictions ,
hillside standards, Historical Preservation Program Guidelines and the California Environmenta l
Quality Act and Guidelines .
9 .21 .6 .Night-Sky preservation .City will adopt a "night sky" ordinance to preserve nighttim e
views, prevent light pollution, and to protect public safety by establishing street and public are a
lighting standards .
Goal 9 .22 . Viewing opportunities .Provide ample opportunities for viewing attractive features .
65 ce
Attachment 6
city of san Luis ostspd ..c nseavation anti open space etenm .whit 2006
Policie s
9 .22 .1 .Views to and from public places, including scenic roadways .The City will preserv e
and improve views of important scenic resources from public places, and encourage othe r
agencies with jurisdiction to do so . Public places include parks, plazas, the grounds of civi c
buildings, streets and roads, and publicly accessible open space . In particular, the route segment s
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 o r
clutter views, consistent with safety needs .
C.Where important vistas of distant landscape features occur along streets, street frees shall
be clustered to facilitate viewing of the distant feature &
D.Development projects, including signs, in the viewshed of a scenic roadway shall b e
considered "sensitive" and require architectural review .
9 .22 .2 .Views to and from private development .Projects should incorporate as amenitie s
views from and within privat e
development sites. Private
development designs should cause the
least view blockage for neighborin g
property that allows project objective s
to be met .
Islay Hi11•
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-sit e
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 Genera l
Plan goals and policies .
9 .30 .2 .Update Community Design Guidelines .Update and maintain Community Desig n
Guidelines to address views from scenic roadways and include them in design standards in plan s
for sub-areas of the City .
66
C
C
C
L
C
C
C.
L
L
L
L
L
L
IS
I
1
l
J
l
l
I
I
I
I
I
i Attachment 6 -
city of san Luis NIL-6 consenvation ana open space elk ...ent,Apia]. 200 6
9 .30 .3 .Sign Regulations .Maintain and apply Sign Regulations consistent with General Pla n
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 an d
architectural review consistent with General Plan goals and policies regarding visual impacts an d
quality.
9 .30 .5 .Visual assessments .Require evaluations (accurate visual simulations) for project s
affecting important scenic resources and views from public places .
9 .30 .6 . View blockage along scenic highways. Determine that view blockage along sceni c
roadways is a significant impact.
9 .30.7 .Development proposals in unincorporated County.Review County-proposed genera l
plan amendments and development proposals within the City's Planning Area for consistenc y
with City General Plan goals and policies.
9 .30 .8 .Scenic highway designation .Advocate State and County scenic highway designation s
and protective programs for scenic routes connecting San Luis Obispo with other communities .
9 .30 .9 .Undergrounding utilities.Place existing overhead utilities underground, with highes t
priority for scenic roadways, entries to the city, and historical districts .
9.30 .10 .Prohibit billboards.Not allow additional billboards .
9.30 .11 .Billboard removal .Remove existing billboards through amortization, conditions o f
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, othe r
government agencies, non-profit agencies and property owners, the City will seek to preserve th e
Morros as open space through preservation incentives, easements, land acquisition, or othe r
measures to preserve their visual qualities .
9 .30 .13 .Monitor viewsheds .The City will establish and maintain a program of describing an d
monitoring viewsheds within and adjacent to City limits to establish a photographic baseline o f
visual setting and conditions .
t
67
mod c value
high p value
a 'high o' i't;odsate scenic value outside city limi t
SWX GISartyon ...mo o
mntusawo
Miles
0 .. 0 .25 0.5 1 1 .5
Attachment 7
ADKsfl 1
Allan D . Kotin &Associates
Real Estate Consulting for Public Private joint Ventures
949 S. Hope Street, Suite 200, Los Angeles, CA 90015
Attachment 8
310.820.0900
213 .623.384 1
Fax 213 .623 .423 1
akotin@adkSin .co m
Memorandum
TO :Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer, City of San Luis DATE :January 13, 200 6
Obisp o
CC :Shelly Stanwyck, Assistant City Administrative Office r
FROM :Allan D . Kotin
RE :ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF HEIGHT LIMITATIONS IN DOWNTOWN SAN LUIS OBISP O
At your request, I have prepared this memo outlining what I perceive to be some of the economi c
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 fo r
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 Barbar a
and, not at all irrelevantly, San Luis Obispo. In addition, I teach at the graduate School of Policy ,
Planning, and Development at the University of Southern California . The two classes I teach are th e
Development Approval Process and Public Private Joint Ventures . In both classes, I deal with th e
issue of successful downtown revitalization and the interaction of developmental economics an d
land use regulation .
I think there are three critical aspects of height limitations and their possible relaxation as they appl y
to downtown 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 th e
whole issue of height limitation . Many successful downtowns have buildings of five to seven storie s
in height without having skyscrapers, and I will be discussing, in this brief memo, primaril y
situations in which heights of perhaps 75 to 80 feet are tolerated, accommodating, depending on th e
type of building, anywhere from six to eight stories at a maximum .
Impacts of Height Limitation on Land Us e
One of the most interesting things about successful downtowns, whether they are continuousl y
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 ne w
development can, as it is in both .SLO and Santa Barbara, be very heavily regulated, but new
Attachment8flDKfl
Memorandum
RE :ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF HEIGHT LIMITATIONS IN DOWNTOWN SAN LUIS OBISPOWorkingDraftSubjecttoChange
development is needed for the stimulation and sense of change . Most frequently this i s
redevelopment .
The institution of a height limitation that keeps buildings at three stories or less, has several
generally unfortunate implications for the kind of redevelopment and repositioning and ne w
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 and often are unwilling to pay ever escalating rents . Retail generally only works at on e
level . Only in rare situations and with particular design excellence and entrepreneurial zeal do yo u
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 fo r
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 o f
retail and only two levels of housing . This product works much better at three or four levels o f
housing. The reasons for this are the fact that more housing reduces the land cost, and also mor e
housing allows you to approach critical mass . Projects of five, ten or even 20 units are inherentl y
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 renta l
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 significan t
amounts of rental housing so as to accommodate people who work in downtown . Condominium s
are typically much more expensive and much less suited to many of the non premium employees i n
a downtown area . These are the natural tenants for renting and successful downtown developmen t
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 sa y
four, five or more stories, it is very difficult to justify the entitlement risk, the construction risk an d
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 no t
changed materially for a much higher building . This means that the building efficiency increase s
with height .
Allan D . Kotin & Associates Page 2 2/9/2006
4/6
IIDK60 Attachment 8
Memorandu m
RE: ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF HEIGHT LIMITATIONS IN DOWNTOWN SAN LUIS OBISPOWorkingDraftSubjecttoChange
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 . In an
environment, particularly found in San Luis Obispo and other "successful" urban areas, land price s
are very high and the only way to achieve the surplus value needed to warrant redevelopment or ne w
development is in fact to allow increasing density .
In conclusion, the land use impacts of severe height limitations are primarily to reduce significantl y
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, tha t .the concept that downtowns must
grow or die cannot be honored with the potential bad future consequences .
Examples of Articulated Downtown s
The cities of Pasadena, Santa Monica and Santa Barbara all have a sprinkling of four, five, and i n
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 mixed-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 ther e
are a fair number of older office buildings, some still used for office and some subject to adaptiv e
re-use that exceed significantly two and three storey height limitations .
California is replete with visual examples of situations where individual higher buildings have no t
only not hurt downtowns but have 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 th e
opportunity for status create economic value . This does not require that there be a lot of hig h
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 Obisp o
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 thi s
will not occur . What in fact will occur is that at selected locations, many of which can be defined i n
advance, there will be construction of up to seven stories . The reason I chose seven stories is th e
fact that under current building codes, it is possible to build five stories of frame and stucco . It i s
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 th e
ground level and residential above is to provide retail at ground level, parking both below and at th e
second level, and then to build frame and stucco above that .
Allan D . Kotin &Associates Page 3 2/9/2006
7 2
Attachment 8
Memorandum
a
C
RE:ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF HEIGHT LIMITATIONS IN DOWNTOWN SAN LUIS OBISPO
Working Draft Subject to Chang e
My personal view is that it is most unlikely that there will a large number of such constructio n
involving a mixture of retail, hotel and residential uses . Such construction requires sites of a
minimum of 30,000 square feet and preferably 50,000 or more . The number of places where suc h
size can be assembled and effectively developed is very small . The combination of seismi c
limitation, recent rehabilitation, and lot configuration all virtually guarantee that the number o f
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 exampl e
calculations, please let me know .
C :\Dacaments and Settlnas\t keelan\Mv Documents\ADK\ADKMemo .dot
Allan D . Kotin & Associates Page 4 2/9/2006
Attachment 9
city of san Luis oBispo — qls divisio n
Downtown Shading Mode l
The following graphic is a plan view representation of shading effects caused b y
buildings of progressively greater height . The model shows that buildings above 50 fee t
tall will begin to shade the sidewalk on the opposite side of the street, if General Pla n
policies and Community Design Guidelines requirements are not met . Specifically, th e
Community Design Guidelines says that buildings should be set back above the second o r
third story to maintain a lower street facade . The proposed General Plan amendments say
that buildings should be set back above the second or third story to maintain a stree t
facade that is consistent with the historic pattern of development .
The graphic below illustrates that, in the worst case scenario (12 :00 PM on the winte r
solstice), shading effects caused by tall buildings downtown will not result in shading o f
sidewalks with southern exposure provided setbacks are incorporated into the buildin g
design and FAR limits are not exceeded . The graphic is not indicative of a preferred or
likely architectural style or design, it is simply a block representation of potential
building mass . Planning applications submitted for new tall buildings would be require d
to include an analysis of shading effects caused by the proposal .
9
Attachment 9
city of san lu g s oslspo — Gls divisio n
Downtown Shading Mode l
The graphic below represents shading effects that occur later in the day (4 :00 PM on the
winter solstice), when the sun is lower in the sky and longer shadows are cast . Becaus e
of the orientation of the City's street grid in the downtown core area, shadows are cast up
the street, as opposed to across the street onto sidewalks .
Attachment 9
city of san Luis ol3ispo — Cis divisio n
Downtown Shading Model
The graphic below represents a perspective view of the solar shading model, durin g
winter solstice at 12 :00 PM, noon . The model will show any time of day, during any da y
of the year . These stills are intended to represent the worst case scenario, with som e
buildings that are more intense than would be allowed by the proposed General Pla n
amendments . The building in the foreground represents 75-foot building height and a
Floor Area Ratio of 3 .75 . The graphic is not indicative of a preferred or likel y
architectural style or design, it is simply a block representation of potential buildin g
mass .
Perspective View
Woking southerly dowi
Monterey, Figuera or Marsh
Attachment 1 0
11/29/200 6
MEMORANDU M
Mr.Michael Codron
Associate Planner, Community Development Departmen t
City of San Luis Obisp o
990 Palm Stree t
San Luis Obispo, CA 9340 1
Dear Michael ,
We are pleased to inform you that we are ready to initiate the project "Three-Dimensional Model o f
Downtown San Luis Obispo". Cal Poly team from the College of Architecture and Environmental Desig n
CAED) will encompass Dr . Umut Toker, Dr. Vicente del Rio, and student assistants .
As you will see in the attached project description, we have defined the project in three phases, estimate d
to start by the provision of the aerial photos and GIS data to the Cal Poly team, and to end i n
approximately 7 months .
Please note that the project will be provided at no cost to the City of San Luis Obispo . The total cost of
the project, $30,028 .88, including 30% CAED administrative support and overhead, will be funded in ful l
by the College of Architecture and Environmental Design . The College of Architecture and Environmenta l
Design team will make a good-faith effort to complete the project as described in the attached projec t
description .
Also please note that the College of Architecture and Environmental Design will not purchase new three -
dimensional aerial photographs for purposes of achieving accurate building data, however, per ou r
previous communications, the City of San Luis Obispo will be purchasing this data .
Attached, please find the project description that provides information on project phasing, basi c
expenses, and the tasks to be completed . Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate t o
contact us . We are looking forward to working with you .
Sincerely ,
Umut Toker, PhD .
Assistant Professo r
Department of City and Regional Plannin g
College of Architecture and Environmental Desig n
California Polytechnic State Universit y
One Grand Avenu e
San Luis Obispo, CA 9340 7
Phone : (805)756-1592 ; Fax: (805)756-1340
utoker@calpoly .ed u
http ://wvvw .planninq .calpolv .edu/
Vicente del Rio, PhD .
Professo r
Department of City and Regional Plannin g
College of Architecture and Environmental Desig n
California Polytechnic State Universit y
One Grand Avenu e
San Luis Obispo, CA 9340 7
Phone : (805)756-2572 ; Fax : (805)756-1340
vdelrion@calpoly .ed u
http ://wvvw .planninq .calpoly .edu/
Attachment 1 0
THREE-DIMENSIONAL MODEL OF DOWNTOWN SAN LUIS OBISP O
PROJECT DESCRIPTIO N
1.PROJECT DESCRIPTIO N
Computer-based three-dimensional modeling of Downtown San Luis Obispo . The area to be modele d
covers 20 blocks, defined by Palm, Pacific, Nipomo, and Osos . For three-dimensional modeling ,
SketchUp software will be used . The modeling process may be supported by AutoCAD as needed . ESRI
ArcGIS will be used for GIS operations . The project includes the following team members and phases .
2.CAL POLY PROJECT TEA M
Umut Toker, Assistant Professor, CRP [Project Director]:
Vicente del Rio, Professor, CRP :
Student Assistant 1 :
Student Assistant 2 :
Student Assistant 3 :
Supervision, 3D modeling, GI S
Supervisio n
3D modeling, GI S
3D modeling, GI S
Acquisition of information on buildin g
facades through digital photography ,
image clean-up with Adobe Photosho p
2 . PROJECT NEEDS : PROVISIONS BY THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PRIOR T O
THE START OF THE PROJEC T
2.1 . ACQUISITION OF BUILDING HEIGHT AND MASSING INFORMATION IN DOWNTOWN SAN LUI S
OBISPO
This project requires that Cal Poly team has access to up-to-date data on building heights ,
building footprints and massing . This data will be provided to Cal Poly team ; through new three -
dimensional aerial photographs for purposes of achieving accurate building data [Downtown Sa n
Luis Obispo Building Profiles], by the City of San Luis Obispo . The City of San Luis Obispo wil l
contact the appropriate service provider, and purchase this service before Phase 1 of this project .
This data will then be provided to the Cal Poly team in the form of accurate vectoral buildin g
height and massing information, prior to the start of Phase 1 of the project .
2 .2 . PROVISION OF OTHER GIS DAT A
The city of San Luis Obispo will provide the Cal Poly team with other required, up-to-date GIS dat a
for the project before the start of Phase 1 of this project .
The project will be composed of three phases . It is estimated that the project can be completed withi n
three quarters, the project thus beginning with the provision of aerial photos and GIS data to the Cal Poly
Attachment 1 0
team, and ending in approximately 7 months . The College of Architecture and Environmental Desig n
team is willing to meet with the City of San Luis Obispo staff once every month, to exchange ideas abou t
the progress of the project, to assess the details of the work performed, and to review project details .
3 .1 . PHASE 1 : DATA ASSEMBLY AND DEMONSTRATION [ESTIMATED FOUR WEEKS AFTE R
PROVISION OF NECESSARY DATA TO THE CAL POLY TEAM ]
This phase will involve [i] acquisition of information on building facades by the Cal Poly team, and [ii ]
partial three-dimensional modeling of a small portion of the project area for demonstration purposes .
3 .1 .a . STEP 1 . ACQUISITION OF INFORMATION ON BUILDING FACADE S
Cal Poly team will acquire information on the building facades in downtown area through the wor k
of Student Assistant 3 . This process will involve systematic digital photographical documentation o f
building facades, to be followed by clean-up of digital photographs [i .e . clean-up of cars and similar
visual obstacles to make building facades visible or easy to visualize, to the highest exten t
possible] using Adobe Photoshop software .
3 .1 .b. STEP 2 . THREE-DIMENSIONAL MODELING FOR DEMONSTRATIO N
Cal Poly team will prepare a three-dimensional model of Higuera Street, three blocks betwee n
Broad and Morro for demonstration . This model will contain building mass composition and roug h
facade information .
3 .1 .c . PHASE 1 DELIVERABLES [ESTIMATED DELIVERY WITHIN FOUR WEEKS AFTE R
PROVISION OF NECESSARY DATA TO THE CAL POLY TEAM ]
One SketchUp format file [extension :.skp] that contains the three-dimensional model of Higuer a
Street, three blocks between Broad and Morro .
3 .2 . PHASE 2 : THREE-DIMENSIONAL MODELING OF DOWNTOWN TOPOGRAPHY AND BUILDIN G
MASSING [ESTIMATED WITHIN FOURTEEN WEEKS FROM THE END OF PHASE 1 ]
3 .2 .a . STEP 1 . THREE-DIMENSIONAL MODELING OF DOWNTOWN TOPOGRAPH Y
Using GIS data and SketchUp software, Cal Poly team will model the topographical features of th e
defined downtown area [3D model base], which will include the street surfaces, sidewalk surfaces ,
parcel surfaces and their slopes .
3 .2 .b . STEP 2 . THREE-DIMENSIONAL MODELING OF BUILDING MASSIN G
Using the provided GIS data and SketchUp software, Cal Poly team will model the buildings in th e
defined downtown area . This three-dimensional model will not include facade details, but wil l
provide mass composition of buildings in the area defined .
Attachment 1 0
3 .2 .c . STEP 3 . BUILDING FACADE FEATURES INTO THE THREE-DIMENSIONAL MODE L
Cal Poly team will build facade features into the three-dimensional model built in phases 1 and 2 .
This information will be limited to basic facade features such as the location, shape and roug h
details of fenestration . The window and door frames and details will NOT be modeled for every
single building .
3 .2 .d . PHASE 2 DELIVERABLES [ESTIMATED DELIVERY WITHIN FOURTEEN WEEKS FROM
THE END OF PHASE 1 ]
One SketchUp format file [extension :.skp] that contains a model of the buildings in the define d
downtown area, which will provide mass composition of buildings and facade features as describe d
in Section 3 .2 .c.
3 .3 . PHASE 3 : DETAILING THE THREE-DIMENSIONAL MODEL [ESTIMATED WITHIN EIGH T
WEEKS FROM THE END OF PHASE 2]
3 .3 .a . STEP 2 . PROVIDING FURTHER DETAILS
Cal Poly team will build street furniture, landscaping and similar details into the model . Th e
detailing of this step will be limited to using predefined SketchUp components so that the model
provides better scale and land use information . Specific street furniture and similar details will NO T
be three-dimensionally modeled for every single object .
3.3 .b . STEP 3 . PROVIDING THE SURROUNDING ENVIRONMEN T
Cal Poly team will use the GIS data provided and SketchUp software, and build the topographica l
features and building masses surrounding the downtown area within the City of San Luis Obisp o
limits . This step will be limited to building masses as extruded from building footprints usin g
building height data provided, rather than specific mass composition information for every singl e
building . Similarly, the topographical features will simply be extruded using the GIS data, n o
additional details will be provided . The intent is to provide some contextual information to th e
viewer of the model .
3 .3 .c . PHASE 3 DELIVERABLES [ESTIMATED DELIVERY WITHIN EIGHT WEEKS FROM TH E
END OF PHASE 2 ]
One SketchUp format file [extension :.skp] that contains the topographical features and buildin g
masses surrounding the downtown area within the City of San Luis Obispo limits [building masse s
as extruded from building footprints using building height data, not specific mass compositio n
information for every building ; topographical features simply extruded using the GIS data, n o
additional details].
Attachment 1 0
4 . SUBMISSION OF COMPLETED WORK : FINAL DELIVERABLE S
The completed three-dimensional model will be submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo in digital format ,
in SketchUp format [extension :.skp]. This will not include stills or animations, which can be generated b y
the City of San Luis Obispo staff using the model submitted .
5 .. PROJECT BUDGE T
EXPENS E
CAL POLY TEAM MAN-HOURS [two faculty, three student assistants, total 650 hours]
AMOUN T
19,278 .7 0
EXPENSES [misc . supplies]$200 .0 0
EQUIPMENT [desktop computers, 2@$1810 .22]$3,620 .4 4
SUBTOTAL $22,118 .70
COLLEGE OF ARCHITECTURE AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN ADMINISTRATIVESUPPORTANDOVERHEAD [30%]$6,929 .74
4 .h~&F+`lS.{~e'RF r ff~YTi !'£t''~'33 ~T,V{crv~R l F>~+!S _ZV ~S f~i'f `S t t ,.c-
t 1 i ~64 rYi ~'y Sl y 3f~'\Ti.1 ~f `'PCCyY~X~a~J~E4S4°-w a?9 .a ~$
TLI"Y~~~`i_.a'.!f,1 (31t lw~cu~n ...P ;a~~h'+
IsWI ('yeFA.
Y [o ;~~ ~f t'[
O . OWNERSHIP OF RESULT S
The Three-Dimensional Model of Downtown San Luis Obispo produced as the result of this project will be
turned over to the City of San Luis Obispo, and will be fully operational for the future use and enjoymen t
of the city. Additionally, the Three-Dimensional Model of Downtown San Luis Obispo produced as the _
result of this project shall also remain the property of the College of Architecture and Environmenta l
Design, California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo for its future use for educationa l
purposes .
In exchange for providing this model to the City of San Luis Obispo at no cost, it is the intention of th e
College of Architecture and Environmental Design to use the model for research, education an d
publications, to add enhanced features, and to utilize in public educational venues . Furthermore, as a
public service, the CAED may allow access to and use of the model by members of the public and
property owners . Commercial use of project information which is not otherwise publicly available as a
matter of public record shall require approval by the College of Architecture and Environmental Design .
444hnandeville,AICP ho s R .Jone eanommunityDevelopmentDirectorColl =•e of Archittture and Environmental DesignityofSanLuisObispoCal' ornia Polyt- hnic State University919PalmStreetOreGrandAvenueSanLuisObispo, CA 93401 an Luis Obispo, CA 9340 7
Date :/'g 'n /~.•ate :l2 -d4'
Attachment 1 1
Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limits : Alternative
Implementation Methods
The proposed General Plan amendments represent the recommended alternative fo r
implementing the Council's direction on downtown building height and intensity limits .
However, there are other alternatives that have been considered in leading up to thi s
recommendation . The proposed amendments will produce policy-based standards in a
new ordinance. This is the model that the City has historically used to insure that new
development projects further General Plan objectives and help the City reach its state d
goals .
Alternatives for implementing the proposed ordinance revisions include :
A Form-Based Code for Downtown —The following definition of form based codes i s
taken from the Form Based Code Institute website ,
http ://www .formbasedcodes .org/definition .html, and edited for this purpose .
Form-based codes are a method of regulating development to achieve a
specific urban form . Form-based codes control physical form primarily ,
with a lesser focus on land use, through city or county regulations .
Form-based codes address the relationship between building facades an d
public spaces, the form and mass of buildings in relation to one another ,
and the scale and types of streets and blocks . The regulations an d
standards in form-based codes are presented in both diagrams and word s
and designates the appropriate form and scale (and therefore, character) o f
development rather than only distinctions in land-use types .
In short, a form-based code would require development of design standards similar t o
those provided in the Community Design Guidelines, however, these guidelines woul d
be much more specific and would become ordinance requirements .
A form-based approach was not taken in this case because it would be a major departur e
from past City practice and it is a resource intensive endeavor that should only occur a s
part of a more comprehensive update to the City's General Plan and Zoning Regulations .
Transfer of Development Credits (TDC) –In general, TDCs refer to incentive program s
that allow a property owner to sell development rights from her land to a developer wh o
can then use these rights to increase the density of development at another designate d
location . While the seller of development rights still owns the land and can continu e
using it, an easement is placed on the property that prevents further development .A
TDC program has the benefit of protecting resources and providing additional income t o
both the seller and, potentially, the buyer of the development rights .
Attachment 1 1
Building Height Alternatives Overview Page 2
Staff has considered a program for a transfer of development credits, primarily wit h
respect to historical resources . Most of the downtown core area is located with th e
Downtown Historic District, and includes many buildings that are historically an d
architecturally significant at both the local and State level . The City has very specifi c
policies that say historic buildings should not be demolished or substantially changed i n
outward appearance . However, the proposed project could have the effect of promotin g
redevelopment by making it financially attractive to property owners to demolish histori c
buildings . A TDC program would allow development of tall buildings on receiver site s
non-historic sites) by capturing the unused development potential from historic sites .
Owners of developed sites would compensate owners of sender sites (historicall y
significant properties) who would only be able to redevelop their sites in ways that ar e
compatible with existing historical resources .
A TDC program is not proposed at this time . The program would require a
comprehensive effort to identify property owners willing to act as "senders ." In addition ,
implementation of a TDC program should be coordinated with a new historical resourc e
survey and historic preservation ordinance . Staff is currently in the early phases o f
developing a historic preservation ordinance, and it could be two to three years before th e
effort is completed .
Quantifiable Standards Approach –With advancements in computer modeling it is now
possible to quantify objectives and establish preferred development scenarios in advance .
This would allow for a more objective process for determining whether or not a propose d
project meets General Plan requirements . For instance, a model of the downtown core
area could be used to determine the best location for new dwelling units, new pedestria n
connections, new viewing decks, and other project features . The difference between a
quantified model and the proposed Cal Poly model is that the quantified model woul d
serve as a plan and would guide development towards a pre-determined outcome . Th e
Cal Poly model is intended to reflect existing conditions to facilitate analysis of propose d
development projects .
A quantified model would essentially act like a high-tech version of the City's
Downtown Concept Plan, which currently serves as a guide for directing improvement s
in the downtown core area . This approach is not recommended at this time because o f
the time and cost involved with creating the computer model . The approach would likel y
be more useful if the model covered a larger geographic area with a relatively larg e
number of proposed development projects . In this case, the geographic area is small an d
the projects are relatively few . Therefore, continuing past practice and reviewin g
proposed projects on a case-by-case basis is feasible and can be accommodated withi n
reasonable timeframes .
Open Application Period Approach/Design Competition —The City could also establis h
a design competition or open application period for tall buildings downtown . This woul d
be similar to the City's condominium conversion process . Applications would be
accepted between January l s`and March 31" each year . Each year, the City would selec t
the top design proposals and allow them to go through the permit process . This program
could continue until the City had achieved its goals for housing units, retail floor area, o r
other parameters that would be established by policy .
3
Attachment 1 1
Building Height Alternatives Overview Page 3
This approach is not recommended because it would require project proponents to mak e
a major investment in an uncertain outcome and, therefore, would limit the potentia l
number of projects proposals that the City would receive .
Comprehensive General Plan Update -The City of San Luis Obispo has not pursued a
major update of its Land Use or Circulation Elements since the current plans wer e
adopted in 1994 . This alternative involves making no changes at this time, and waitin g
until the General Plan update is underway before proposing-policy amendments relatin g
to building height and intensity limits downtown .
This alternative is not recommended because there are currently inconsistencies betwee n
the General Plan and Zoning Regulations that should be addressed now . In addition, thi s
recommendation would not be consistent with the direction provided by the City Counci l
in March, 2006 .
Overview of Building Height and Intensity Limits : Other Jurisdictions
Cities in San Luis Obispo 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 determined by existing buildings, 10% variation of the mean height of the
existing buildings . Buildings on the ends of blocks are similar in height to adjoinin g
buildings or their height is determined by the mean height of existing buildings . Thi s
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 an d
regulations .
Atascadero — Community Development Dept.805 .461 .5000 ext .347 0
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 will need an additional use permit .
Morro Bay — Public Services 805 .772 .626 1
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, allo w
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 i s
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 . Fo r
small projects the city staff reviews for compliance .' For large projects, such as mix-us e
or hotels, they will need a use permit .
Attachment 1 1
Building Height Alternatives Overview Page 4
Pismo Beach — Community Development Dept .805 .773 .465 8
Pismo Beach's downtown is comprised of three sub-districts ; they are the Commercial
Central Core) District CD-C, Commercial (Mixed-Use and Resident-Servin g
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 th e
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 cod e
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 storie s
and not to exceed 40 feet . The maximum height is given by right but all new project s
must be reviewed by the Planning Commission for architectural approval .
Arroyo Grande — Community Development Dept .805 .473 .542 0
The city of Arroyo Grande has two downtown zones . The Grand St . Downtow n
Commercial zone allows a maximum height of 30 to 35 feet or 3 stories, whichever i s
less . The Village Historical Downtown allows a maximum height of 30 feet or 3 stories ,
whichever is less . All new projects go through review with Architectural Revie w
Commission for compliance with standards and regulations . The maximum heigh t
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 som e
regulation over development . The city is also currently trying to change the code t o
allow for more intense development .
Carmel – Community Planning and Building 831 .620 .201 0
Cannel's central core allows for a maximum height of 30 feet unless it is prevailing . T o
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 i t
would have to go through the Planning Commission .
Monterey – Community Development Dept .831 .646 .388 5
Monterey is a fairly conservative city when it comes to development because they wan t
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 /~6
Attachment 1 1
Building Height Alternatives Overview Page 5
the maximum height limit are subject to a design review . New projects can also build u p
to a height of 35 feet or 3 stories but require a use permit .
Los Gatos – Community Development Dept .408 .354 .687 2
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 staf f
for compatibility with existing structures . Then the Planning Commission reviews th e
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 differen t
maximum height limit . The maximum heights range from 30 to 100 feet . Any ne w
project requires a conditional use permit, which the Planning Commission must approv e
and the City Council also reviews the process . The city is very sensitive about thei r
downtown and so any project going in that is higher than the maximum height allowed i s
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 Distric t
property lines – 0 .80 FAR . 2) other areas – 0 .50 FAR . Increases in FAR are allowed bu t
are processed as findings . Documents need to be submitted giving a justification fo r
FAR increase and stating the impacts on traffic, wind, sun, sewer and general impacts t o
the surrounding properties . Request for increases up to 5% above specified FAR shall b e
considered by the Director of Development and Environmental Services . Over 5% an d
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, whicheve r
is less . For any new project in the C-1 zone building above 1 story or 18 feet adjacent t o
a residential zoning district, a conditional use permit or planned development permit i s
required unless the new project in the C-1 zone is located 100 feet from the residentia l
zone . An exception to the maximum height buildup of 3 stories or 40 feet are any ne w
projects that fall within the boundaries of the Central Redevelopment Project . All ne w
projects within this area are allowed to buildup to a maximum of 75 feet but anythin g
above 3 stories or 40 feet is subject to approval of a conditional use permit or a planne d
development permit by the Planning Commission .
Attachment 1 1
Building Height Alternatives Overview Page 6
Ventura — Community Development Dept .805 .654 .789 3
Currently the maximum height allowed for the densest area is 44 feet (3 stories) and a s
long as the new project is a permitted use and meets all standards and regulations th e
maximum height is allowed by right . The Downtown Specific Plan is currently bein g
updated to change to form base code . The draft document's policy on maximum heigh t
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 mor e
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 dev/downtownplan/index .as p
Oxnard — Planning and Environmental Services 805 .385 .785 8
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 .
Attachment 1 2
r city of san Luis oBisp o
INITIAL STUD Y
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FOR M
For ER #50-06 -
1.Project Title :Downtown Height Ordinanc e
2 .Lead Agency Name and Address :City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
SLO, CA 9340 1
3.Contact Person and Phone Number :Michael Codron, Associate Planner, 781-717 5
4.Project Location :Downtown Core (see Attachment 1 )
5 .Project Sponsor's Name and Address :City of San Luis Obisp o
990 Palm Street
SLO, CA 9340 1
6.General Plan Designation :General Retai l
7.Zoning :Downtown Commercial (CD) and Downtown Commercial – Historic (CD-H )
8.Description of the Project:On March 14,2006,the City Council held a study session on th e
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 fo r
the downtown .
3)Bring back alternatives for moderately increasing the downtown building height and intensit y
limits, in order to achieve other General Plan goals and objectives, including desig n
amenities, housing, and retail land uses .
4)Review alternatives and recommendations with the Cultural Heritage Committee ,
Architectural Review Commission, Planning Commission, and Downtown Associatio n
before returning to the City Council .
In order to fulfill this Council direction General Plan policy changes will be separated fro m
ordinance implementation . After existing policies related to building height and intensity in th e
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 1 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 200 6
a
Attachment 1 2
City's downtown core are clarified through General Plan amendments, then specific ordinanc e
revisions will be proposed to implement the new policies .
An expanded project description with proposed General Plan Amendments in legislative draft
format are attached to this initial study as Attachment 2 .
9.Surrounding Land Uses and Settings :The Downtown Commercial (CD) zone is located i n
the heart of San Luis Obispo, situated-along three primary streets, Monterey Street, Higuer a
Street and Marsh Street . The northeast/southwest boundaries of the CD zone are Santa Ros a
Street and Beach Street, respectively . The CD zone is bordered by office, public, residential an d
retail uses . Adjacent zones include Retail Commercial (CR), Office (0), Public Facility (PF),
High Density Residential (R-4) and Medium High Density Residential (R-3). The CR zone ha s
similar standards as the CD zone, except for a greater parking requirement, including on-site
parking requirements, resulting in less intense development . Allowable building height in the
surrounding areas is 35 feet for the office and residentially zoned land, and 45 feet for CR zone d
land .
The Downtown Historic District and the Chinatown Historic District overlay portions of the C D
zone . The Downtown Historic District is a large district bounded by Osos Street and Nipom o
Street and extending down Dana Street . The Chinatown Historic District is a small portion of
this area located along Palm Street between Morro and Chorro Streets . There are many valuable
historic resources within these districts, including the Mission, the Ah Louis Store, the Andrew s
Building, the Sinsheimer Brother's Store and the Warden Block building .
The Downtown Area is generally flat south of the creek . North of the creek, the topograph y
includes a slope up to the Palm Street ridge, which is most evident on Chorro Street and Mon o
Street between Monterey and Palm Streets .
10.Project Entitlements Requested :General Plan Text Amendment, Municipal Code Tex t
Amendment, Environmental Review .
11 .Other public agencies whose approval is required : Non e
12 .Attachments :
Attachment 1 :
Attachment 2 :
Attachment 3 :
Attachment 4 :
Attachment 5 :
Attachment 6 :
Attachment 7 :
Attachment 8 :
Attachment 9 :
Attachment 10 :
Attachment 11 :
Vicinity Map (LUE Figure 4 )
Expanded Project Description and Proposed General Plan Amendment s
Downtown Views Photo Representations
Downtown Buildings Photo Representation s
Historic District Boundarie s
Community Design Guidelines, Chapter 4 — Downtow n
City of San Luis Obispo Inventory of Historic Resource s
COSE Chapter 3 – Historic Preservation Policie s
CHC Meeting Updates : 8-28-2006 and 9-25-200 6
ARC Meeting Update : 10-2-2006
Computer Shadow Model Representation s
r CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 200 6
C
Attachment 1 2
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED :
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at leas t
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages .
X Aesthetics Geology/Soils X Public Service s
Agricultural Resources Hazards & Hazardou s
Materials
Recreation
Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality X Transportation & Traffi c
Biological Resources Land Use and Planning X Utilities and Servic e
Systems
Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings o f
Si L nificance
Energy and Mineral
Resources
Population and Housing
FISH AND ,GAME FEE S
X
There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fis h
and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends . As such, the project qualifies for a
de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees .
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fis h
and Game fees pursuant to Section 711 .4 of the California Fish and Game Code . This initial study has bee n
circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment .
STATE CLEARINGHOUS E
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or mor e
State agencies (e .g . Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guideline s
15073(a)).
22 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006/z r
Attachment 1 2
DETERMINATION :
On the basis of this initial evaluation :
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, an d
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared .
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment ,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have bee n
made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added an d
agreed to by the project proponent . A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will b e
prepared .
X
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and a n
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required .
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" impact(s) or "potentiall y
significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attache d
sheets . An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only th e
effects that remain to be addresse d
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment ,
because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EI R
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoide d
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revision s
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required .
b t Pa/IZIsISignatureDate
4M a .MU
Printed Name For : John Mandeville ,
Community Development Directo r
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
Attachment 1 2
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS :
1.A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by th e
information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section . A "No Impact" answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the on e
involved (e .g . the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it i s
based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e .g . the project will not expose sensitive receptors t o
pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2.All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as wel l
as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts . The explanation of each
issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question .
3.Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant . If there ar e
one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required .
4."Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures ha s
reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact ." The lead agency must
describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5.Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has bee n
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration . Section 15063 (c) (3) (D) of the California Code of
Regulations . Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the-checklist .
6.Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e .g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should ,
where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated .
7.Supporting Information Sources : A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion . In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following :
A.Earlier Analysis Used . Identify and state where they are available for review.
B.Impacts Adequately Addressed . Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of an d
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effect s
were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis .
C.Mitigation Measures . For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent t o
which they address site-specific conditions for the project .
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 200 6/
ze7
Attachment 1 2
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Infdi ..,ation Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
3tentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No
Impac t
ER # 50-06 Downtown Building Height/Intensity Limits Issues Unles s
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
Evaluatio n
a) Scenic Vistas and Views - Figure 11 of the Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) is the City's Scenic Roadway s
Map, which shows the scenic vistas that are located in the City . None of these vistas are physically located in the downtow n
core area and the proposed project will have no direct effect on these vistas . Appendix "B" of the Circulation Elemen t
includes the Scenic Roadway Survey Methodology and the City's evaluation of roads with scenic value . The study shows that
roadway locations within the downtown core area scored too low in the visual quality evaluation to be designated as sceni c
roadways . However, many of the visual resources identified in Figure 11 are visible from downtown . Views from downtow n
out towards the hillsides include the following visual resources in their order of prominence : Cerro San Luis, Cuesta Grade ,
Santa Lucia Range, Bishop's Peak, Laguna Lake Ridge, Terrace Hill, Irish Hills, and South Street Hills . A photo
representation of these views is attached (Attachment 3).
The Land Use Element includes policies regarding open places and views downtown, specifically :
LUE Policy 4 .7 : Downtown should include many carefully located open places wher e
people can rest and enjoy views of the surrounding hills . Downtown should include som e
outdoor spaces where people are completely separated from vehicle traffic, in additiona l
to Mission Plaza . Opportunities include extensions of Mission Plaza, a few new plazas ,
and selected street closures .
Open places in the downtown core where people can rest and enjoy views of the surrounding hills currently include the Jac k
House Gardens, Mission Plaza, the creekwalk extension, the Chinese Memorial Garden (under construction), the corner plaz a
at City Hall and the lawn and plaza in front of the County Government Center (Old Courthouse Building). In addition, there
are plans for two potential street closures where views are available . These include the Broad Street dog-leg and Montere y
Street between Osos and Santa Rosa . No change is proposed to this policy .
To the extent that the proposed project would increase the number of buildings downtown that are developed or redeveloped
to heights between 50 and 75 feet, existing views of surrounding visual resources will be lost at the sidewalk level . Recent
projects approved and developed in the downtown core area, including the Marsh Street Parking Garage Expansion and th e
Court Street project, illustrate this fact . Both projects obscured sidewalk-level views of Cerro San Luis . However, thes e
recent projects show that the impact occurs under existing conditions, with development up to but not exceeding 50 feet tall .
Therefore the effect of the proposed project, which would increase the number of buildings built above 50 feet in height, i s
considered minor with respect to its effect on scenic vistas . However, if existing policies are not clarified, views from th e
public places discussed in LUE Policy 4 .7 could be compromised . The proposed amendment to LUE Policy 4 .13 and th e
mitigation measures listed below are intended to insure that these views from public open places are protected as part of th e
project .
The effects of individual development projects on existing views are evaluated based on the goals, policies and programs
included in Chapter 9 of the COSE . In particular, COSE Policy 9 .22 .1 says that "the City will preserve and improve views o f
important scenic resources from public places ."
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
o f
Attachm 1 2.n t
otentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impac t
Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
The downtown core area is intended to be the most intensely developed location in the City, and yet, because of its valle y
setting, is essentially surrounded by visual resources and views that people enjoy . LUE Policy 4 .7 provides clear polic y
direction because it says that downtown should include many carefully located open places where people can rest and enjo y
views of the hills . However, LUE Policy 4 .13 seems to indicate that views from sidewalks should be protected throughout th e
downtown core through modified building design . The proposed project amends LUE Policy 4 .13 to reinforce the need fo r
view protection from public open places that is discussed in both LUE Policy 4 .7 and COSE Policy 9 .22 .1, while insuring tha t
most development projects in the downtown core area are not minimized for the purpose of view protection . During their
discussion of building height and intensity in the downtown core, the Cultural Heritage Committee and the ARC expresse d
support for the following land use/view protection strategy :
Use building design, street furniture and landscaping to provide a comfortable sense o f
enclosure for pedestrians on the sidewalk (as discussed in the Community Desig n
Guidelines), white preserving hillside views from carefully located public open places ,
and encouraging public access to "new views ." Tree selection in these public, ope n
places should be consistent with maintaining views, and trees with a dense canopy shoul d
be avoided (see Attachments 9 and 10 for CHC and ARC meeting updates).
The ARC further recommended that the City undertake a study of important views in the downtown core area that should b e
protected . Therefore, the following mitigation measure is recommended as a new Land Use Element Program .
Mitigation Measure AM-1 : New Land Use Element Program — The City will undertake a study of visual resources withi n
the Downtown core area to identify potential locations for new publicly-owned open places with access to views of importan t
scenic resources . The City will consider protecting these views by creating open places through street closures and/o r
property acquisition, as encouraged by LUE Policy 4 .7 . A range of options for property acquisition, including developmen t
agreements, will be considered, consistent with the City's fiscal policies and objectives .
The proposed mitigation measure would mitigate the potential impact to a less than significant level because, in conjunctio n
with existing COSE policies, the new program will insure that there will always be public locations within the downtown cor e
area where views of surrounding visual resources will be available . The new program encourages proactive implementatio n
of LUE Policy 4 .7, 4 .13 and COSE Policy,9.22 .1 .
The land use strategy discussed above was supported by the ARC and CHC and the proposed amendments to LUE Polic y
4 .13 are based on this direction . It should also be noted that there are many views throughout the downtown core area that ar e
not located in "public open places" and also will not be impacted by future development of mid-rise buildings . For instance ,
sidewalk areas around the perimeter of the CD zone, such as on Palm Street between Nipomo and Broad, provide high-qualit y
views of adjacent hillsides . Views from the sidewalk, parallel to the roadway are also available throughout the CD zone (se e
Attachment 3). The view of the Irish Hills looking down the roadway at Palm and Mono will be unchanged by futur e
development. The sidewalk level view of Cuesta Grade at Monterey and Santa Rosa is exceptional and will also b e
unchanged by this project. Existing General Plan policy encourages public access to "new views," which are those view s
created at the upper levels of new development projects . These views take advantage of the downtown core area's uniqu e
setting in a valley amidst numerous visual resources and can provide 360-degree views of the surrounding hillsides, providin g
the public with a connection to the natural landscape that would not otherwise be available .
b)Other Scenic Resources - Highway 101 along the western edge of downtown San Luis Obispo is designated as a roadwa y
of moderate scenic value in Figure 11 of the COSE . The proposed project would enable some taller buildings within th e
downtown core , up to 75 feet tall where the current height limit is 50 feet . No views from the scenic highway would b e
impacted by this change because the visual resources available from the highway are to the west and north of the downtow n
core (Attachment 3).
c)Visual Character and Quality - The visual quality of the downtown core area is defined by a combination of features . The
character defining features can be broadly categorized as pedestrian orientation and historic character . Pedestrian-oriente d
features include :
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Infdo .'ation Source s
ER # 50-06 Downtown Building Height/Intensity Limits
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
Attachment 1 2
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Intel ''anon Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
otentiall y
Significant
Less Tha n
Significant
No
Impact
ER It 50-06 Downtown Building Heightlntensity Limits Issues Unless
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
continuous building storefront s
recessed building entries with 12' to 16' first floor height s
mid-block pedestrian connection s
generally low-scale street walls with one to three-story facades and a few notable taller buildings (Attachment 4 )
sidewalk-level access to sun and shade
public open space areas that are separated from vehicles with access to view s
landscape features such as benches, planters, large canopy street trees and lighting
a proliferation of awnings and projecting signs that are designed for and oriented to pedestrians on the sidewal k
The visual quality is also defined by historic character. This character is created by the historic buildings within th e
downtown core area and the traditional development pattern that is prevalent within the Downtown Historic District, whic h
covers most of the project area (Attachment 5). This traditional development pattern is associated with the numerous histori c
buildings in the downtown core and their components, such as traditional building materials, decorated parapets and cornices ,
and a combination of land uses including residential apartments or offices above retail storefronts . Potential impacts to
historic character are evaluated in the Cultural Resources section of this Initial Study .
The evaluation below addresses potential impacts to visual quality with respect to downtown's pedestrian-oriented features .
The proposed project would have an adverse impact on the visual character or quality of the downtown core area if futur e
development of tall buildings impacts the ability of new development to create or maintain the pedestrian features liste d
above .
Continuous Building Storefronts
The project will not change the requirement for continuous storefronts in the downtown core area because the Communit y
Design Guidelines strongly encourage this type of development and LUE Policy 4 .13 is being amended to clarify that buildin g
design need only be modified to provide access to street level views when adjacent to publicly owned open places .
Recessed Building Entries with 12' to 16'First Floor Height s
The proposed policy changes would allow for new four story buildings to include sufficient height that the first floor would
not need to be diminished in size, consistent with the historic development pattern of the downtown core area .
Mid-Block Pedestrian Connections
The proposed policy changes specifically encourage mid-block pedestrian connections, where appropriate . These types of
spaces encourage people to take new routes to locations throughout the downtown core area, and open up new locations for
people to explore .
Generally Low-Scale Street Walls With One to Three-Story Facades and a Few Notable Taller Building s
Attachment 4 provides photo representations of existing building facades in the downtown core area . The incorporation of
new mid-rise buildings into a lower scale environment is considered one of the biggest challenges of successful downtow n
development . The following is a list of Best Practices for new downtown development provided in the Downtow n
Development Handbook (ULI, 1992):
1)Breaking the horizontal expanse of long facades into increments that relate to the human scale by usin g
fenestration, architectural details, and varying setbacks and rooflines to define a sequence of bays ;
2)Articulating the building mass to create an aggregation of smaller forms as a means of reducing th e
perception of overwhelming bulk;
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 200 6/-
72)
Attachment 1 2
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Info,...ation Sources Sources Potentiall y
Significant
otentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No
Impac t
ER # 50-06 Downtown Building Height/Intensity Limits Issues Unles s
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
3)Providing a sequence of public spaces and walkways that are linked to the street grid ;
4)Using setbacks to reinforce the definition of the streetwall and .bring interior activities to the edge of th e
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 othe r
uses that edge the street ; and
7)Designing transitions in height and massing .
The Architectural Review Commission and the CHC reviewed this list of Best Practices in conjunction with an overview o f
the City's Community Design Guidelines (Attachment 6). It was determined that an update to the Design Guidelines shoul d
be undertaken, specifically to address transitions in height and massing between new development and existing buildings .
The ARC appointed a subcommittee to work with staff on this amendment . The following mitigation measure i s
recommended to insure that this update takes place .
Mitigation Measure AES-2 :New Land Use Element Program - The Community Design Guidelines shall be updated t o
include guidelines for mid-rise buildings within the downtown core area, with a particular focus on guidelines for architectura l
transitions between new development and existing buildings within the Downtown Historic District .
As discussed in the Community Design Guidelines building height is necessary 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 t o
focus on details of building design, storefront displays, street furniture and other pedestrian oriented features .
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 fal l
within the recommended height for pedestrian orientation along these street frontages . 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 withou t
adjusting the head angle, providing a less comfortable environment .
Proposed LUE Policy 4 .16 .4 states that new buildings should be set back above the second or third story to maintain a stree t
facade that is consistent with the historic pattern of development . Adherence to this policy and the Design Guidelines wil l
insure that appropriate height to width ratios are achieved throughout the downtown core area .
Sidewalk Level Access to Sun and Shade
City staff has analyzed the downtown core street grid with respect to the movements of the sun over the course of the year .
The City's street grid is skewed to the west such that buildings along Monterey, Higuera and Marsh Streets face southeas t
even side of the street) and northwest (odd side of the street). This skew provides an exceptional benefit in terms of sola r
access at the sidewalk level because it creates a sunny side of the street (even side, facing southeast) and a shady side (od d
side, facing northwest). Later in the day, when shadows get longer, the shadows of the odd side buildings are cast in the
northeast direction and do not reach the sidewalk on the even side of the street, except in a few locations . The sidewalks
along the odd side of Monterey, Higuera and Marsh even get some direct sunlight late in the day (when temperatures drop an d
direct sunlight is highly desirable). The orientation of the streets and the resulting pattern of sunlight and shade on th e
sidewalks contributes greatly to the downtown core area's sense of place. Pedestrians downtown essentially have a choic e
between walking in the sun or shade . The intensity of the sun and the ambient temperature will often determine what side o f
the street a person chooses to walk down .
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006/ 7/
Attachment 1 2
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Inf t,.,ation Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
Jtentiall y
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
ER # 50-06 Downtown Building Height/Intensity Limits Issues Unles s
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
This issue is primarily a concern on downtown's main arterial streets, Monterey, Higuera and Marsh . During the course o f
the day, sidewalks along the cross streets all receive direct sunlight as the sun transits from east to west . In addition,
sidewalks on the odd side of cross streets (buildings face northeast) get morning sun . The sidewalks along the even side o f
cross streets (buildings face southwest) receive afternoon and evening sun . These cross streets are narrower and adjacen t
buildings do cast shadows on sidewalks across the street in many locations .
Based on this analysis, an impact to the visual character of the downtown core area would occur if new buildings locate d
along the odd side of Monterey, Higuera, and Marsh cast a shadow onto the sidewalk of the sunny side of the street - the eve n
side facing southeast . This effect is most damaging during the winter solstice, when access to sun is at a premium and the su n
is lowest in the sky . Staff has prepared a computer model to illustrate the shading effects of progressively taller buildings i n
the project area . Attachment 11 includes two representative views of the model, one is a plan view and the other is a
perspective . The analysis shows that as buildings get taller and bulkier, shadow effects increase . However, when taller
buildings are designed to meet the proposed FAR standard of 3 .75, and include setbacks after the second or third story, the
effects of shadows are diminished, and solar access for pedestrians on downtown sidewalks is not impacted .
As part of the proposed project, LUE Policy 4 .5 would be amended to say that new buildings should not obstruct sunlight
from reaching sidewalks on the northwest side of the downtown core's key arterial streets, Monterey, Higuera and Marsh .
These are the main streets used by pedestrians traveling to destinations in the downtown core area .
To the extent that new downtown buildings are set back above the second or third story, as required by LUE Policy 4 .16 .4
and the Community Design Guidelines, the potential shading of these sidewalks will be diminished . As illustrated by th e
Anderson Hotel, and by the City's computer shading model, tall buildings that are not set back above the second or third story
are likely to shade sidewalks with southern exposure . Therefore, the following mitigation measure is recommended to insure
compliance with the proposed amendment to LUE Policy 4 .5 :
Mitigation Measure AES-3: Planning applications submitted for Architectural Review of buildings between 50 to 75 fee t
tall shall include a solar shading analysis to illustrate shading caused by proposed buildings between the hours of 11 :00 AM
and 3 :00 PM during the winter solstice .
Public Open Space Areas Separated From Vehicles, With Access to Views
This character defining feature of the downtown core area is expressed by LUE Policy 4 .7 and is further implemented by th e
project through revisions to LUE Policy 4 .13, which is intended to strengthen the City's ability to protect views from publicly
owned open places such as Mission Plaza .
Landscape Features Such as Benches, Planters, Large Canopy Street Trees and Lightin g
The proposed project would have not have an impact on these landscape features . In many cases, wider sidewalks will b e
provided with new development, creating an increased opportunity for these pedestrian landscape features .
A Proliferation of Awnings and Projecting Signs Designed for and Oriented to Pedestrians on the Sidewal k
The proposed project would not have an impact on storefront building designs, which are controlled by the Communit y
Design Guidelines . In particular, adherence to Design Guidelines Section 4 .2 .C .3 (Storefront Rhythm) and 4 .2 .C .4
Individual Storefront Proportions) will help insure that new buildings reflect the traditional development pattern of th e
downtown core area and do not impact the area's visual quality or sense of place .
d) Light and Glare - The City's Community Design Guidelines (Section 6 .1 .C) includes standards for lighting that are
intended to reduce light spill and glare . The proposed project would enable some buildings in the downtown core to b e
developed between 50 and 75 feet tall . The changes proposed to the City's policies and municipal code will not result i n
substantial light or glare or lighting of the nighttime sky since care is given during the review of each proposed building
design to insure compliance with existing standards .
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 200 6
Attachment 1 2
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Infd,..,ation Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
Stentiall y
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
ER # 50-06 Downtown Building Height/Intensity Limits Issues Unles s
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
Conclusio n
The proposed project involves changes to the City's General Plan, to be implemented by an amendment to the Zonin g
Regulations, that would permit development of buildings between 50 and 75 feet tall in the downtown core area . The projec t
is expected to improve the ability of property owners and developers to provide dwelling units in new buildings, as require d
by the Housing Element of the General Plan . The project also provides opportunities to insure that new buildings incorporat e
design amenities and maximize revenue producing jand uses (such as retail stores, restaurants and hotels) that contribute t o
the economic health of the City by creating jobs and contributing to City revenues through increased sales tax and transien t
occupancy tax receipts .
The above analysis focuses on aesthetics issues and indicates that development of tall buildings in the downtown core area ha s
the potential to create significant environmental impacts on both scenic vistas and the visual character of the downtown cor e
area.
Mitigation Measures are recommended to insure that potentially significant impacts are reduced to insignificant levels . Thes e
measures include:
Mitigation Measure AES-1 :New Land Use Element . Program – The City will undertake a study of visual resources withi n
the Downtown core area to identify potential locations for new publicly-owned open places with access to views of importan t
scenic resources . The City will consider protecting these views by creating open places through street closures and/o r
property acquisition, as encouraged by LUE Policy 4 .7 . A range of options for property acquisition, including developmen t
agreements, will be considered, consistent with the City's fiscal policies and objectives .
Mitigation Measure AES-2 : New Land Use Element Program - The Community Design Guidelines shall be updated t o
include guidelines for tall buildings within the downtown core area, with a particular focus on guidelines for architectura l
transitions between new development and existing buildings within the Downtown Historic District .
Mitigation Measure AES-3 :New Planning Application Requirement - Planning applications submitted for Architectura l
Review of new buildings between 50 to 75 feet tall shall include a solar shading analysis to illustrate shading caused b y
proposed buildings between the hours of 11 :00 AM and 3 :00 PM during the winter solstice.
With incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures, the impacts of the project are considered less than significant .
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES . Would the s r ect:
X
X
Evaluatio n
a)The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency identifies the project site as urban
land, therefore no farmland conversion will result from the project .
b)No Williamson Act contract or agricultural zoning exists with the project boundaries .
CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPo 11 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 200 6
23
Attachment 1 2
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Infoi,.,Ation Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
tentiall y
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No
Impac t
ER # 50-06 Downtown Building Height/Intensity Limits Issues Unles s
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
c) The proposed project would not change the environment in a way that could result in conversion of farmland to non -
agricultural uses .
Conclusion
The project will have no impact on agricultural resources and is intended to relieve pressure on development at the fringes o f
the community by allowing for intensification and infill development within an area that is already completely urbanized .
3. AIR 3 UALITY. Would the •ro'ect :
Evaluatio n
a), b) San Luis Obispo County is a non-attainment area for the State and PMIO (fine particulate matter 10 microns or smalle r
in diameter) air quality standards . State law requires that emissions of non-attainment pollutants and their precursors b e
reduced by at least 5% per year until the standards are attained . The proposed project does not d irectly involve developmen t
related activities . When future projects are proposed under the revised policies, those projects will be reviewed by the Ai r
Pollution Control District (APCD) for compliance with the local Clean Air Plan and CEQA Air Quality Handbook, publishe d
by the APCD . The recommendations of the APCD for mitigating air impacts during the construction and operational phase s
of projects are routinely implemented by the City through discretionary review processes, such as Architectural Review .
c)The project is intended to allow for a moderate increase in the intensity of development in the downtown core, CD zone .
To the extent that the project also results in increased vehicle trips, air quality impacts may occur . When new projects are
proposed they are routinely evaluated for their impacts to air quality, and where necessary, trip reduction requirements ar e
required to reduce the number of vehicle trips that are likely to be generated by the project, consistent with existin g
Circulation Element policies . The location of the proposed project, the downtown core area, is proximate to services, public
transportation and bicycle routes, which increases the potential effectiveness of vehicle trip reduction measures .
d)The downtown area is occupied by retail businesses, offices, public uses and residential uses that do not create substantia l
pollutant concentrations . Residential uses are considered sensitive receptors, however, the proposed project will not increas e
exposure of residents to substantial pollutant concentrations .
e)The project is not expected to result in the creation of objectionable odors . Occasionally businesses in the downtown
engage in activities that have the potential to create strong odors. In mixed-use developments, these types of activities ar e
controlled through existing ordinance requirements (SLOMC 17 .08 .072.A .1). Other uses are evaluated for consistency wit h
adjacent uses through the Architectural Review or use permit approval processes . Odor complaints are investigated and
enforced by the Air Pollution Control District, as well as City Code Enforcement .
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 200 6
Attachme 1t 1 2
N o
Impac t
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Infor1 . diion Source s
ER # 50-06 Downtown Building Height/Intensity Limit s
Conclusio n
The proposed project will facilitate the development of housing in a location that is proximate to services, public transit an d
bicycle routes and is therefore consistent with APCD recommendations . Individual projects that are proposed in the futur e
are subject to the requirements of the San Luis Obispo Clean Air Plan . Future projects that exceed CAP thresholds will b e
required to adopt specific mitigation measures to reduce potential air quality impacts . During the construction phase of ne w
buildings downtown, the City requires compliance with the Clean Air Plan and APCD recommendations for dust control, i n
addition to the City's own dust control ordinance . During the operational phase of new development projects, the Cit y
implements alternative transportation and demand management programs as recommended by APCD and encouraged by th e
City's Circulation Element. The proposed project will have a less than significant impact on air quality .
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the 'ro o ect :
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
entially Less Than
Significant Significant
Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
X
X
Evaluation
a), b), c), d), e), f) The proposed project would establish policies, programs and ordinance standards to enable mid-rise
buildings in the downtown core area of San Luis Obispo . This is an area that is completely urbanized and intensely develope d
with building and infrastructure . San Luis Obispo Creek also runs through the center of the downtown core area . Further
encroachment on the creek's riparian area is prohibited by the City's Creek Setback Ordinance . Future proposals to develo p
buildings adjacent to the creek will have to comply with the requirements of the ordinance .
Conclusion
The project will have no impact on biological resources .
5.CULTURAL RESOURCES . Would the rr oect :
INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 200 6/-7CITYOFSANLUISOBISPO13
Attachment 1 2
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Infon,.afion Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
entiauy
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
ER # 50-06 Downtown Building Heightilntensity Limits Issues Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
X
X
Settin g
San Luis Obispo has a rich cultural heritage spanning the prehistoric, Spanish, Mexican, and American periods . The City i s
located within the area historically occupied by the Obispeno Chumash, the northernmost of the Chumash people o f
California. The Obispeno occupied land from the Pacific coast east to the coast range and from the Santa Maria River nort h
to approximately Point Estero . The era of Chumash contact with Europeans began with the initial Spanish exploration o f
California in 1542 . Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa was founded in 1772, the first Spanish establishment in Chumas h
territory. In 1822 California became a Mexican Territory, and the mission lands gradually became private ranchos via th e
new Mexican land grants . After California entered the Union in 1850, the ranchos continued to raise cattle until 1863-1864 ,
when a severe drought depleted the cattle . By 1869, dairying had become an important part of the local economy, headed
primarily by Swiss and Swiss-Italian farmers . Chinese, Portuguese, and other ethnic groups also played important roles in
local history, particularly in the downtown core area .
From its inception as a mission settlement in 1772, the commercial and civic life of San Luis Obispo evolved along the street s
adjacent to the Old Mission . Today, the principal business district covers roughly the same area it did in the late 19th century ,
occupying both sides of Monterey, Higuera, and Marsh Streets between Santa Rosa and Nipomo Streets . This is essentially
the project boundary, covering the current Downtown Commercial (CD) zone . Here is located the City's larges t
concentration of historic, multi-storied commercial, residential and public buildings, offering visible proof of the significanc e
and central role of Downtown over time . The evolution of the current streetscape began in 1873, when the County built it s
Greek Revival style courthouse to replace the 1850 adobe original . With the connection of Higuera Street between 1889 -
1892, the streetscape surrounding the project area began to mature. As the pattern of transportation and land use changed i n
the early 1900s, commercial buildings began to outnumber private residences in the study area . Civic and commercial
buildings housing retail establishments, restaurants, professional offices, and residential units on upper floors, today dominat e
the built environment . Architectural styles are eclectic, and include Mission Revival, Tudor Revival, California Craftsmen ,
Richardsonian Romanesque, early 20'" century commercial, Spanish Colonial Revival, Streamline Moderne, an d
Contemporary . Due to the high concentration of cultural resources — including both archaeological sites and histori c
buildings — Downtown San Luis Obispo has been designated as a Historical District .
Archaeological Resource s
The archaeology of San Luis Obispo reflects the City's rich, multi-cultural heritage . Archaeological excavations and
construction projects have unearthed an unusually rich collection of pre-historic and historic artifacts and features considere d
as significant under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15064 .5 . Although limited in geographic area,
past excavations suggest that the probability of encountering additional artifacts and archaeological features due to futur e
development projects is high .
Records pertaining to prehistoric sites within the city are very limited . Chert flakes, fire-affected rock, and shell have bee n
documented at CA-SLO-1424 and CA-SLO-835 . CA-SLO-30, at Mill and Osos streets, reportedly contained four burials .
However, the site, discovered in 1948, was poorly documented . Prehistoric materials also were reportedly discovered in 198 6
during construction of the Palm Street parking structure, but there is no report of these discoveries .
Many of the prior studies document historical research and excavations in the vicinity of Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa .
The Palm Street Historic Site, CA-SLO-1419H, was discovered in 1986 during construction of the Palm Street parkin g
structure. The site contains extensive remains from the Mission period to the present . Recent investigation of this site at the
city-owned Kozak parking lot property on the corner of Palm and Morro Streets revealed an extensive Mission-era Chumas h
midden as well as late 19' century refuse deposits (SLO-1419H, Heritage Discoveries 1995).
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
2ze
Attachment 1 2
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Info\,„ation Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
Aentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
ER # 50-06 Downtown Building Height/Intensity Limits Issues Unles s
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
Historical Resources
Proposed projects within the Downtown Historic District would be near or next to several of the City's most historically an d
architecturally significant buildings . These include : Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa, Murray Adobe, Carnegie Library ,
Ah Louis Store, Muzio's Store, Sauer/Adams Adobe, Sauer Bakery, Universal Auto Parts Building, J .P . Andrews Building,
Fremont Theatre, Sperry-Laird Building, and the Anderson Hotel . Several of the listed structures have been determined to b e
eligible or "potentially eligible" for the National Register of Historic Places .
Evaluation
a) The project site area is predominantly located within the Downtown Historic District, which has a significant inventory o f
historical resources . This inventory is included in the City's Historical Resource Preservation Guidelines and is attached t o
this initial study (Attachment 7). New buildings can have an impact on existing historical resources in two ways, directly, b y
altering or demolishing existing buildings to make way for new ones, or indirectly, by changing the overall character of th e
historic district .
Chapter 3 of the Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) includes specific goals, policies and programs to promot e
historic preservation (Attachment 8). The following analysis provides an overview of how these policies work to protec t
historic resources from direct impacts (relocation, demolition, etc .), as well as impacts associated with incompatible adjacen t
development .
COSE Policy 3 .21 .2 Demolitions . Historically or architecturally significant buildings should not b e
demolished or substantially changed in outward appearance, unless doing so is necessary to remove a threat t o
health and safety and other means to eliminate or reduce the threat to acceptable levels are infeasible .
COSE Policy 3 .21 .2 provides clear direction that the City should not approve projects that demolish or substantially alter th e
appearance of historic buildings, unless doing so is necessary to remove a threat to health and safety and other means t o
eliminate or reduce the threat to acceptable levels are infeasible . Projects that propose to remove historic buildings that are
not a safety threat should be considered inconsistent with the General Plan and denied on this basis . Individual policies, that
state that a direction "should" be followed, however, are interpreted in the context of all other policies and it is conceivabl e
that a project that demolishes a historic resource could be found consistent with the General Plan if the project, as a whole ,
was consistent with other policies and furthered other important goals and objectives . This policy is an important mitigatio n
to the impact that taller building limits will have in the form of an incentive for property owners to replace smaller histori c
buildings with buildings capable of generating more revenue .
COSE Policy 3 .21 .4 Changes to historic buildings . Changes or additions to historically or architecturall y
significant buildings should be consistent with the original structure and follow the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Buildings . New buildings in historical districts, or on historicall y
significant sites, should reflect the form, spacing and materials of nearby historic structures . The street
appearance of buildings which contribute to a neighborhood's architectural character should be maintained .
COSE Policy 3 .21 .4 specifically refers to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards as the guiding document for how historic
properties should be treated . When rehabilitation projects are submitted to the City, staff provides decision makers with a n
analysis of how well the project meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards . These standards mitigate the potential impac t
that new construction can have on the appearance of historically and architecturally significant buildings . This policy also
provides guidance for new buildings in historic districts, such as the Downtown Historic District and the Chinatown Histori c
District . Projects within historic districts or that directly effect historic resources are referred to the CHC for review .
COSE Policy 3.21 .5 Historic Districts and Neighborhoods.In evaluating new pubic or private development ,
the City should identify and protect neighborhoods and districts having historical character due to th e
collective effect of Contributing or Master List historic properties .
r CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 15 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 200 6/-
97
Sources Potentially
Significan t
Issue s
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Infoi ..ation Source s
ER # 50-06 Downtown Building Height/Intensity Limits
Attachm nt 1 2
ientially Less Than N o
Significant Significant Impact
Unless Impac t
Mitigation
Incorporated
The Downtown Historic District and the Chinatown Historic District are both located within the project area . New projects
located within historic districts must be evaluated for their affect on adjacent historical resources and on the district as a
whole .
COSE Program 3 .30.10 Cultural Heritage Committee Whitepaper.The City will implement th e
recommendations of the Cultural Heritage Committee's "Whitepaper," including the adoption of an historic
preservation ordinance .
COSE Program 3 .30.10 refers to a set of recommendations that the CHC prepared in May 2000, including the adoption of a n
historic preservation ordinance . Many of the White Paper recommendations, including a revised Building Demolitio n
Ordinance, have already been implemented . Existing General Plan policies, such as those that were adopted in the May ,
2006, COSE, provide a high level of protection for historic resources .
Staff is currently in the early stages of preparing an historic preservation ordinance . However, the ordinance will not b e
adopted before potential changes to downtown building height limits are enacted . Therefore, the CHC recommends to th e
City Council that all new downtown development projects be required to be designed in a manner that is consistent with th e
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties . Specifically, on September 25 th, 2006, the CHC
recommended the following required finding for tall buildings :
Any ordinance revision proposed to enable "landmark" buildings (60-75 feet tall) in the downtown cor e
shall establish the following or similar mandatory finding for approval : The proposed project is consisten t
with the General Plan because historic resources on the project site will be retained and either preserve d
or rehabilitated in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment o f
Historic Properties, unless demolition is necessary to remove a threat to health and safety and other mean s
to eliminate or reduce the threat to acceptable levels are infeasible .
The purpose of this recommendation is for the CHC to make it clear that, consistent with the City's historic preservation goal s
and policies, they will not recommend approval of projects that include demolition of historic resources . Demolitions of
historic buildings are always inconsistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and are always considered a significan t
and unavoidable impact under CEQA, the California Environmental Quality Act . If the finding listed above is supported b y
the City Council and put into effect as part of the current project, then proposals to demolish historically significant building s
could not be approved because the finding could not be made in an affirmative manner . In the past, the City Council has onl y
allowed historic buildings to be demolished if that had lost their integrity, and as such, were no longer considered historica l
resources . An example of this would be the Loobliner Building, 969 Monterey Street, which had undergone significan t
exterior alterations to the point that the historic value of the building had been compromised and the building was no longe r
considered historic by the Council even though it was on the City's Inventory of Historic Resources . The building was
allowed to be demolished and an attractive new building was erected in its place .
As previously stated, the proposed increase in downtown building height and intensity limits in the downtown core area could
make it financially attractive for property owners and developers to try to remove historic buildings and completely redevelo p
existing sites . This analysis indicates that there are two approaches to dealing with proposals to demolish historic buildings i n
downtown San Luis Obispo . One response would be for the City to prohibit demolitions of historic buildings, except wher e
there is a threat to health and safety . This could be accomplished in the ordinance that would enable development of tal l
buildings in the downtown core, consistent with the CRC's recommendation . The other way would be to evaluate propose d
demolitions on a case-by-case basis . For instance, if a project proposal includes demolition of one or more historicall y
significant buildings, then the project will create significant and unavoidable impacts under CEQA . CEQA will require th e
preparation of an Environmental Impact Report and to approve the project the City Council would have to make Findings o f
Overriding Consideration, to indicate why, in consideration of all General Plan policies, the proposed loss of histori c
resources is acceptable . While an ordinance would provide for more certainty and potentially better protection of histori c
resources, the case by case approach would allow the City Council to make these decisions based on an individual evaluatio n
of the environmental effects of the proposed project and its overall benefits to the community . For the purpose of thi s
environmental review, either alternative would result in compliance with CEQA requirements and no mitigation measures ar e
required .
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 16 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
Attachment 1 2
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Infoo ..ation Sources Sources Potentiall y
Significant
entially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
N o
Impac t
ER # 50-06 Downtown Building Height/Intensity Limits Issues Unles s
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
Mini CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 17 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 200 6
b), c), d) The City's Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines include procedures for mitigating potentiall y
significant impacts to archaeological resources and paleontological resources due to construction projects . Prior projects in
the downtown core area including the Court Street Project and the Palm Street Garage involved significant mitigatio n
requirements for archeological resources . Public Works projects within the downtown core area that involve installatio n
and/or replacement of utilities infrastructure are also evaluated for their potential to disturb archeological resources .
According to the Guidelines, the downtown core area is a sensitive site because of proximity to San Luis Creek and know n
archeological resources, including human burials . Therefore, planning applications submitted for new buildings downtow n
must include Phase I Archeological Resource Inventories . In most cases, depending on the scope of the project, the Phase I
report will recommend further work, including a Phase II Subsurface Archeological Resource Evaluation . The Phase II repor t
would include recommendations for avoidance, excavation, recovery, and curation as determined to be necessary by a
qualified archeologist and the Community Development Director . The recommendations are based on the scope of th e
project, the significance of the resources, and the value of curation and public education vs . the preferred practice of
avoidance and/or leaving the resource in place . With the Guidelines in effect, the impacts of new development projects o n
archeological resources, paleontological resources and potential burials are adequately addressed .
Conclusio n
The downtown core area is located within an historic district and among many known archeological sites, including huma n
burials. The project area also includes many important buildings that are included on the City's Inventory of Historical
Resources. Therefore, new development projects must be evaluated for their potential to impact historic resources, eithe r
d irectly through alterations or demolitions or indirectly by changing the overall character of the district .
There is also very high probability that pre-historic or archeological materials will be found when new development project s
are constructed in the downtown core area . As a result, the Archeological Resource Preservation Guidelines requires that ne w
projects submit Phase I studies with recommendations on how to proceed . The Guidelines include adopted City standards fo r
how to proceed in the event that archeological resources are determined to be present . Adherence to these standards insure s
the impacts to archeological resources are less than significant .
The City's Cultural Heritage Committee reviews all new development projects and building alterations in the Downtow n
Historic District, and makes recommendations to City decision makers regarding potential impacts on historical resources an d
archeological resources, consistent with General Plan policies and other City guidelines . CEQA also plays a role because
impacts to historical and archeological resources are considered an impact on the environment . This results in significan t
discretionary review requirements for projects that involve alterations to historical resources, and a requirement to prepare a n
EM if an historical resource is proposed for . demolition . The proposed project is expected to have a less than significant
impact on Cultural Resources because existing policies that promote historic preservation are in place and adherence to th e
City's Community Design Guidelines is required prior to project approvals . Future projects that involve significant ,
unavoidable impacts to these resources will require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report .
6 . GEOLOGY AND SOILS . Would the s ro'ect :
7 Y
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Issues, Discussion and Supporting InfcL .ation Source s
ER # 50-06 Downtown Building Height/Intensity Limits
AffacbmPn-1 2
lentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigatio n
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Evaluation
a)There are no known fault lines on site or in the immediate vicinity . However, the City of San Luis Obispo is in Seismi c
Zone 4, a seismically active region of California and strong ground shaking should be expected at any time during the life o f
proposed structures . Structures must be designed in compliance with seismic design criteria established in the Unifor m
Building Code . Since this is a code requirement that is monitored through the review of plans during the Building Division's
plan check process, no further mitigation is necessary .
b)The project area is within the City's urbanized downtown core and the project will not result in substantial soil erosion o r
loss of topsoil.
c)The site lies in an area identified by the Safety Element of the General Plan as being in an area of High Liquefactio n
Potential . As defined in the Safety Element, liquefaction is "the sudden loss of the soil's supporting strength due t o
groundwater filling and lubricating the spaces between soil particles as a result of ground shaking ." In extreme cases of
liquefaction, structures can tilt, break apart, or sink into the ground . The likelihood of liquefaction increases with the strengt h
and duration of an earthquake . The risk of settlement for new construction can be reduced to an acceptable level through
careful site preparation and proper foundation design . Recommendations for proper site preparation and foundation desig n
are included in project soils reports and soils engineering reports . These documents are required by code to be submitted to
the Building Division as part of the construction permit process, therefore, no further mitigation is necessary .
d)Expansive soils are common in San Luis Obispo and occur in the downtown core area . Recommendations included in
soils reports and soils engineering reports, which are required as part of the building permit application process, are sufficien t
to mitigate potential hazards from building on expansive soils . In general, the presence of expansive soils requires additiona l
base for roadways and flat work and deeper footings for building foundations .
e)Septic tanks are not permitted with new construction in the City . The project will be served by the City's sewer system .
Conclusion
The proposed project involves less than significant impacts with respect to geology and soils .
7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the s ro'ect:
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 18 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
Attachment 1 2
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Info,..,ation Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
Itentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
ER # 50-06 Downtown Building Heightllntensity Limits Issues Unles s
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
Evaluation
a),b),c),d) Development in the downtown core area normally includes retail, restaurant, office and automobile parking use s
that are not likely to create health hazards . The City's Zoning Regulations insure that uses involving hazardous substances ar e
separated from densely populated urban areas . Where generators or other fuel tanks are required, permits issued by the City's
Fire Department ensure compliance with applicable public safety standards . The project site area is not subject to reasonably
foreseeable upset or accident conditions because the downtown core area does not include major transportation routes such a s
the railroad or Highway 101, which are located outside of the downtown core area .
e), 1) The project site is not within the Airport Land Use Plan area and is located greater than two miles from the San Lui s
Obispo County Regional Airport .
g)The proposed project will not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan . Projects proposed in the downtow n
core area are reviewed by the Fire Marshall to insure compliance with access requirements for firefighters and paramedics .
h)The project site is an urbanized area that is not adjacent to wildland fife areas .
Conclusion
The proposed project will create no impacts with respect to hazards or hazardous materials .
8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER UALITY . Would the ' ro'ect :
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 19 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 200 6
X
Attachment 1 2
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Infd,...ation Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
Aentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
N o
Impac t
ER # 50-06 Downtown Building Height/Intensity Limits Issues Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
Evaluation
a)Future development of tall buildings in the downtown core area will not violate water quality standards or waste discharg e
requirements because building plans for new development projects are subject to the City's Waterways Management Plan an d
requirements established by the Regional Water Quality Control Board . The City's standards and the standards applied by th e
Regional Board insure that new development project meet all water quality and waste discharge requirements .
b)The project area does not make use of groundwater and development in the downtown core area will have no effect on th e
local groundwater table level .
c), d), e), f) Development in the downtown core area does not have the potential to substantially alter the existing drainag e
pattern because the area is already completely urbanized . All area drainage from new development projects is directed int o
the storm drain system or overland into one of the City's waterways . In the downtown core area, stormwater flows are
directed into San Luis Creek . New development is required to be consistent with the requirements of the Waterway s
Management Plan, which prohibits increases in the rate and volume of post development stomrwater runoff . Proof of
compliance with the Waterways Management Plan is required to be submitted to the City at the Planning Application stage ,
and this information is verified before construction permits are issued . Development in the downtown core area is no t
expected to have a negative effect on water quality .
g) A significant portion of the downtown core area lies within the 100-year flood plain of San Luis Obispo Creek . Over th e
years, shallow sheet flooding has been observed . The Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) prepared by the Federal Emergenc y
Management Agency (FEMA) indicates that portions of the project area are within the AO Zone with a maximum floodwate r
depth of 2 feet . The AO Zone is described as areas of 100-year shallow flooding where depths are between I and 3 feet .
The potential impacts of flooding in San Luis Obispo are addressed by ordinance requirements contained in the Flood
Damage Prevention Guidelines . For projects in the AO Zone, the ordinance requires the lowest finished floor of buildings t o
be raised to a minimum of one foot above the 100-year peak flood elevation . Flood-proofing of downtown commercia l
buildings using .flood-gates and the use of building materials that are less likely to be damaged by water are identified a s
acceptable alternatives in the ordinance to raising the finished floor elevation .
The project also has the potential to affect flooding downstream, by changing the velocity and elevation of floodwater s
through the addition of new structures within the flood plain . This potential impact is addressed by the Flood Damag e
Prevention Guidelines and the Waterways Management Plan . Any project that increases flood depths by more than one foo t
is required to implement design alternatives that are consistent with the City's Flood Damage Prevention Guidelines . As par t
of the building permit application for buildings proposed in the flood zone, the applicant must submit a hydrologic study tha t
shows how the project complies with standards of the Flood Damage Prevention Guidelines to the approval of the Publi c
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 20 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 200 6
Attachment 1 2
Issues, Discussion and Supporting InfL ....Ation Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
itentiall y
Significant
Less Tha n
Significant
No
Impact
ER #50-06 Downtown Building Height/Intensity Limits Issues Unles s
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
Works Department .
Compliance with standards contained in the Flood Damage Prevention Guidelines and the Waterways Management Plan i s
considered adequate to mitigate potentially significant impacts to people and property from flooding hazards .
Conclusion
The project site area is completely urbanized and future development will not negatively effect water quality, runoff pattern s
or flood levels, and will not subject property to significant flooding hazards, because compliance with existing standards wil l
require that flood protection measures are installed where necessary and that existing runoff conditions are not exacerbate d
with the development of new buildings and other improvements .
9. LAND USE AND PLANNING . Would the s ro'ect :
Evaluation
a)The proposed project will allow for further infill and intensification of the City's downtown core area and will no t
physically divide an established community .
b)The project will not conflict with any land use plan ; policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigatin g
an environmental effect . The City's General Plan currently allows buildings up to 75 feet tall and residential density up to 3 6
units per acre in the downtown core area . However, most development in the downtown core area is less intense than curren t
policies envision. With respect to residential density, the City of San Luis Obispo has seen a net deficit of residentia l
dwellings in the downtown core area since the current General Plan was adopted . The proposed project would allow for taller
buildings in an effort to facilitate residential development, among other goals, but would not conflict with existing plans o r
policies.
c)There are currently no habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans in effect within the project area .
Conclusion
The proposed project will have no impacts on land use and planning .
10. MINERAL RESOURCES .Would the ' ro'ect :
a), b) The proposed project would not result in the loss of a known mineral resource and no locally-important mineral
resource recovery site has been identified within the project area .
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 21 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 200 6
Evaluation
g;
Attachment 1 2
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Inf3,..ation Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
itentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No
Impac t
ER # 50-06 Downtown Building Height/Intensity Limits Issues Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
Conclusion
The project will have no impact on mineral resources .
11 . NOISE . Would the ' ro'ect result in :
X
X
X
X
X
Evaluatio n
a)The proposed project is located in the City's downtown core area . The Noise Element of the General Plan includes th e
City's goals, policies and programs regarding noise exposure . Residential uses are considered noise sensitive uses and the
Noise Element includes standards for interior and exterior noise exposure limits for these types of uses . The Noise Element
also projects noise levels at General Plan build-out .
According to the Noise Element, Figure 5b, the project site area will be subject to transportation generated noise levels i n
excess of 60dB . 60dB LDN (24-hour, day and night average) is the maximum level of exterior noise exposure permitted i n
residential open space areas, such as private yards and decks, without requiring some form of mitigation . Mitigation of
excessive noise levels is generally possible for up to 10dB of noise (Noise Element, Figure I). The noise in the project area is
generated primarily by vehicle traffic on Highway 101, but also includes noise from vehicle traffic on area streets . Maximum
interior noise exposure is established at 45dB LDN . Interior noise exposure limits are easier to accomplish because standard
construction techniques will reduce noise exposure levels by 15dB and additional noise attenuation measures can reduc e
interior noise exposure by an additional 15dB, resulting in a total interior noise level reduction of 30dB .
Areas within 342 feet of the centerline of Highway 101 would be subject to noise in excess of 70dB . In these locations it i s
more difficult to provide outdoor use areas that comply with acceptable noise exposure limits . However, the project site is
completely outside of the area that is subject to projected noise levels of over 70dB . Therefore, the proposed project will no t
expose people to excessive exterior noise levels . As individual projects come forward for review by the City, noise studies
will be required, per Figure 2 of the Noise Element . Noise study recommendations are routinely incorporated into projec t
conditions of approval and mitigation measures, to insure that projects are consistent with the General Plan for both interio r
and exterior noise exposure limits.
b)The project site is the City's urban downtown core and is not an area that has ground-mounted machinery that would caus e
vibration.
c), d) Proposed projects in the downtown core area may include features, such as parking garages, that would increas e
ambient noise levels above current levels . Temporary increases in ambient noise levels can occur during construction . Th e
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 22 INITIAL STUD? ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 200 6~
ay
Attachment 1 2
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Ink Ation Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
3tentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
ER # 50-06 Downtown Building Height/Intensity Limits Issues Unles s
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
City of San Luis Obispo has a Noise Ordinance that includes standards for maximum noise levels across property lines . Th e
Noise Ordinance also includes standards for construction related noise . Compliance with Noise Ordinance requirements i s
required and sufficient to mitigate any potential impacts to less than significant levels .
The Police Department has indicated that it deals with a large number of noise complaints due to existing nightclubs and bar s
in the downtown core area . The impacts are generated by sound systems within nightclubs and by patrons of these downtow n
businesses . With the development of new buildings in the downtown core area, and the associated addition of residentia l
dwellings, conflicts between patrons of nightclubs and bars and downtown residents may increase . Nightclubs and bars in th e
downtown area require Administrative Use Permit approval . Use permits typically limit hours of operation and require crow d
control plans . The Noise Ordinance also gives the Police Department the ability to act on noise complaints . Establishment s
that continually violate noise standards and are the subject of neighborhood complaints may have their use permits revoked .
If noise complaints rise as more residents are added to the downtown core area, the City may need to revise its nois e
ordinance standards accordingly .
e),f) The project area is outside of the boundaries covered by the Airport Land Use Plan for the San Luis Obispo Count y
Regional Airport .
Conclusion
The proposed project will result in less than significant noise impacts . Future projects proposed in the downtown core are a
may be required to prepare Noise studies to insure compliance with the criteria in the General Plan Noise Element and th e
City's Noise Ordinance .
12 . POPULATION AND HOUSING . Would the ' rr'ect :
X
X
X
Evaluation
a)The proposed project would increase the potential for significant residential development in the downtown core area by
allowing for increased building height (from 50 feet to 75 feet) and increased development intensity (from the current FAR
limit of 3 .0 to 3 .75). This population growth would be located in an existing urban area that is designed to accommodat e
development of the proposed intensity . Existing City policy encourages infill and intensification in areas already committe d
to urban development (LUE Goal 12). Existing policy also states that the downtown core area should be the most intensel y
developed location in the City (LUE Policy 4 .15). Therefore, the increased population that may result from the propose d
policy and ordinance changes would be consistent with existing City policies for population and housing . The project woul d
help ,implement Housing Element Policy 6 .2 .2, which says that new commercial developments in the downtown core are a
shall include housing .
b)The project will not displace existing housing and is intended to encourage the development of additional housing, amon g
other objectives .
c)The project will not displace substantial numbers of people .
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 23 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 200 6
Attachment 1 2
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Info ..,ation Sources Sources Potentiall y '
Significant
otentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
ER # 50-06 Downtown Building Height/Intensity Limits Issues Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
Conclusion
The proposed project will have less than significant impacts in the area of population and housing .
13 . PUBLIC SERVICES . Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with th e
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significan t
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performanc e
ob'ectives for an of the • ublic services:
Evaluatio n
a) The San Luis Obispo Fire Department (SLOFD) provides emergency and non-emergency fire protection services in the
City. Emergency services include fire response, emergency medical response, hazardous materials response, and publi c
assistance. Non-emergency services include fire and life safety inspections, building inspections, fire code investigations, an d
public education . SLOFD currently operates four stations and maintains a response time goal of four minutes . Station #1
2160 Santa Barbara Avenue) and Station #2 (13 .6 N . Chorro Street) are located less than 1 mile from the project area, to th e
south and north, respectively ._
The proposed project would enable development of tall buildings within the downtown core area, to heights between 50 an d
75-feet. As opposed to high-rise buildings (buildings that exceed 75 feet in height), these "mid-rise" buildings are no t
required to have significant internal fire suppression systems . Internal systems allow fires in high-rise buildings to b e
contained and fought from the inside of the building . In contrast, fires in mid-rise buildings would primarily be fought from
the exterior using fire escapes, the City's ladder truck and ladders brought on-site into courtyard areas within a project .
Containing and controlling fires within tall buildings in the City's downtown core area is one of the most challenging and
resource intensive types of potential fires that the SLOFD faces . The City's 75' ladder truck can access the top of the
Anderson Hotel from Court Street . However, other locations present unique challenges . For instance, sidewalks and stree t
trees in other locations might require the ladder truck to set up farther away from the building and could reduce the potential
height that the ladder could reach. Building setbacks at upper levels could provide a staging area at an upper level deck, but
also would make it more difficult to reach the tallest parts of the building that are set back farther . In some location s
downtown, service alleys, adjacent lower roofs or adjacent vacant parcels would provide access to all sides of a building . In
other locations, the only access to the upper floors of a building would be from the street .
In addition to these access issues, providing fire and life safety protection for tall buildings is very resource intensive ,
requiring a large number of firefighters and fire suppression apparatus . Multiple, simultaneous calls are also a concern fo r
SLOFD . For instance, the City's ladder truck, located at Fire Station #1, is part of an engine company that provides primary
response for a large geographic area in the City . If the ladder truck is out on a prior service call when an emergency occurs in
a downtown building, the response-time objective of four minutes may not be met . In addition, calls for service to a tal l
building downtown would likely draw additional engine companies from the City's fire stations on Laurel Lane (Fire Statio n
3) and Los Osos Valley Road (Fire Station #4).
The City has limited resources in terms of firefighters and apparatus to serve simultaneous calls for service in differen t
locations, therefore, it is preferable to design fire suppression systems into buildings to the greatest extent possible . In
recognition of the fact that buildings between 50 and 75 feet involve many of the same fire and life safety challenges as high -
rise buildings, many jurisdictions in California have incorporated high-rise standards into their local ordinances to apply t o
proposed mid-rise buildings . As previously stated, high-rise buildings require significant internal fire suppression systems .
High-rise buildings must be designed to meet standards for Type I or Type II fire resistive construction, which means tha t
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 24 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 200 6
Attachment 1 2
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Ink,,..iation Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
otentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
N o
Impac t
ER # 50-06 Downtown Building Height/Intensity Limits Issues Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
non-combustible framing materials, such as steel or concrete, must be used . Standards for high-rise buildings also include
requirements for pressurized stair cores and a fire control room, which would allow the fire department to control fir e
suppression systems throughout the building from one location . Santa Monica, Santa Cruz, and Gilroy have all redefine d
high-rise" buildings in their local codes to mean any building that has an occupied floor beginning 55 feet or higher abov e
adjacent grade, instead of the statewide standard of 75 feet . Other jurisdictions with locally defined regulations for mid-ris e
buildings include all of Orange County, San Jose, Fremont, Burbank, Foster City, Ventura and El Segundo, among others .
These other jurisdictions include some, but not all, high-rise requirements in their mid-rise building regulations .
Therefore, as part of the proposed project, the City intends to evaluate the specific standards adopted by other jurisdiction s
and agencies to determine if those standards would be effective in the City of San Luis Obispo . This evaluation will occur a s
part of the ordinance to implement the proposed General Plan amendments .
As part of the planning process, the design of proposed buildings is evaluated by the City's Fire Marshall . When emergenc y
access issues are identified, the Fire Marshall can require design modifications to insure that the project meets the Fire Cod e
and that SLOFD can provide adequate fire fighting and life safety response services to the project . With respect to tal l
buildings, advance planning for fire fighting and emergency response is even more important and the following mitigatio n
measure is recommended to insure that designers of proposed buildings in the downtown core area take these issues int o
account early on in the design development process . In addition, SLOFD is currently reviewing standards for high-ris e
buildings that might be appropriate for buildings between 50 and 75 feet tall . These requirements may be incorporated int o
the project during the second phase, when ordinance revisions are proposed .
Mitigation Measure PS-1 :New Planning Application Requirement . Planning applications submitted for new building s
between 50 and 75 feet tall within the downtown core area shall include a fire and life safety access plan, which will sho w
how access to upper floors will be provided, consistent with the Uniform Fire Code and the requirements of SLOFD .
Applicants are encouraged to review proposed emergency access plans with the City's Fire Marshal prior to finalizing theft
building design and submitting their planning applications .
The above mitigation measure will help insure that buildings between 50 and 75 feet tall are designed in a manner that i s
consistent with the Uniform Fire Code and the City's standards . This represents an improvement over the current standar d
because it will force building designers to take fire department access requirements into account with the initial design of a
building.
b)Police protection is provided by the City of San Luis Obispo Police Department (SLOPD). Police services for the area ar e
based at the station located at the intersection of Walnut and Santa Rosa, just outside of the downtown core area . SLOPD
also operates an un-staffed storefront office on 840 Marsh Street, within the downtown core area .
The Police Department has indicated that courtyard areas and viewing decks that are open to the public should be maintaine d
under private ownership and patrolled by a private security company because these areas are more difficult to patrol an d
would require an increased focus by beat officers . Also of concern with new mid-rise buildings are the design of th e
stairwells and elevators in terms of the safety and security of users. SLOPD reviews plans for new development projects i n
the downtown core area for these considerations . SLOPD's recommendations can result in design modifications of propose d
buildings to insure that adequate service is provided to the project in its operational phase . Mid-rise buildings that includ e
multiple uses within a single development are more complicated to police, therefore, the following mitigation measure i s
recommended to insure that SLOPD's concerns are addressed early in the design development process .
Mitigation Measure PS-2 :Planning Application Requirement . Planning applications submitted for new buildings betwee n
50 and 75 feet tall within the downtown core area shall include a security plan to cover all proposed parking areas, courtyard s
areas, public stairways, elevators and decks . The security plan will identify the locations of 911 capable phones in parkin g
areas, will establish rules and regulations for public use of courtyards and decks, and establish timeframes for private securit y
patrols to be in place . Applicants are encouraged to review proposed emergency access plans with the City's Police
Department prior to finalizing their building design and submitting their planning applications .
c)Proposed tall buildings located in the downtown core area will have no impact on area schools . New development project s
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 25 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL . CHECKLIST 200 6/
F-7
Attachment 1 2
Issues, Discussion and Supporting !nth .-iation Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
mtentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No
Impac t
ER # 50-06 Downtown Building Heightlntensity Limits Issues Unless
Mitigatio n
Incorporated
Impact
are required to pay school fees, which are used to offset increased demand for school facilities caused by new development .
d)The proposed project may increase the number of residents that live in the downtown core area . The Parks and Recreation
Element of the General Plan includes a standard for parkland of 10 acres per 1000 residents . The development of new
buildings in the downtown core area will contribute to the City's ability to achieve this policy standard through the payment o f
in-lieu fees. Fees are set at an amount that is intended to offset the impact of each new dwelling unit . Therefore, the effect o f
the proposed project on parks is expected to be less than significant .
e)No other public facilities have been identified that could be impacted by the proposed project .
Conclusio n
The proposed General Plan Amendments would enable the development of taller buildings in the downtown core area and
would result in a moderate increase to existing building height and intensity limits . Future projects that are developed under
the proposed policies will increase service demand for fire and police protection . Potentially significant impacts could occu r
if proposals for new development are not adequately evaluated to insure that these impacts do not occur . Therefore, the
following mitigation measures are required to insure that new planning applications include the necessary information for th e
City to evaluate its ability to provide fire and police protection to new development projects .
Mitigation Measure PS-1 :New Planning Application Requirement . Planning applications submitted for new building s
between 50 and 75 feet tall within the downtown core area shall include a fire and life safety access plan, which will show
how access to upper floors will be provided, consistent with the Uniform Fire Code and the requirements of SLOFD .
Applicants are encouraged to review proposed emergency access plans with the City's Fire Marshal prior to finalizing thei r
building design and submitting their planning applications .
Mitigation Measure PS-2 :Planning Application Requirement . Planning applications submitted for new buildings betwee n
50 and 75 feet tall within the downtown core area shall include a security plan to cover all proposed parking areas, courtyard s
areas, public stairways, elevators and decks . The security plan will identify the locations of 911 capable phones in parkin g
areas, will establish rules and regulations for public use of courtyards and decks, and establish timeframes for private securit y
patrols to be in place . Applicants are encouraged to review proposed emergency access plans with the City's Polic e
Department prior to finalizing their building design and submitting their planning applications .
The above mitigation measures insure that SLOFD and SLOPD play an active role in evaluating their ability to serve ne w
development in the downtown core area . Where SLOFD and SLOPD finds proposed plans unacceptable or inadequate, the n
modifications to the plans, or modifications to project design will be required . Overall, impacts to public services from th e
proposed project are considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated .
14. RECREATION . Would the •roect :
a) The proposed project may increase the number of residents that live in the downtown core area . The Parks and Recreation
Element of the General Plan includes a standard for parkland of 10 acres per 1000 residents . The development of new
buildings in the downtown core area will contribute to the City's ability to achieve this policy standard by paying Parkland in -
lieu fees . Fees are set at an amount that is intended to offset the impact of each new dwelling units . Therefore, the effect o f
the proposed project on parks is expected to be less than significant .
There is limited ability in the downtown core area to develop new recreation facilities, but the existing parks, includin g
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 26 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006/--
er
Attachment 1 2
Issues, Discussion and Supporting InfL ...'ation Sources Sources Potentially `
Significant
otentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
N o
Impact
ER # 50-06 Downtown Building Height/Intensity Limits Issues unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
Mitchell Park and Emerson Park are centrally located and provide good recreational opportunities for existing and futur e
residents . The downtown core area is also located adjacent to open space resources, such as trails on Cerro San Luis and th e
Railroad Safety Bicycle Trail, that provide exceptional recreational opportunities for City residents, including downtow n
residents . The proposed project, which would allow for a moderate increase in downtown building height and intensity limits ,
is expected to have a less than significant impact on these recreational facilities .
b) The proposed project does not involve or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that would hav e
and adverse physical effect on the environment .
Conclusion
The proposed project will have less than significant impacts on recreation facilities .
15 . TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC . Would the i ro'ect :
X
X
X
X
Evaluatio n
a), b) The City's Circulation Element of the General Plan classifies streets as arterial, collector and local, based on thei r
design characteristics and capacity . Key downtown streets that provide access to and through the downtown core includ e
Santa Rosa, Osos, Chorro and Broad on the east-west axis and Higuera, Marsh, and Monterey on the north-south axis .A
grided network of local streets provides access to and from the core area to surrounding neighborhoods . Highway 101 i s
located to the north and west of the downtown core area and primary access to the Highway is provided at Marsh, Broa d
southbound only), Osos (northbound only), and Santa Rosa .
As new buildings are developed within the downtown core, traffic travel patterns will change and generate additional vehicl e
trips . These additional demands will likely impact the operation of signalized and un-signalized intersections and ma y
degrade the level of service (LOS) at some intersections . The Circulation Element (CI) of the City's General Plan provides a
management strategy for addressing increased traffic congestion . CI Policy 7 .1 provides actions that the City will pursue a s
LOS decreases, including "institute programs that require the use of alternative forms of transportation and establish policie s
and programs that act as disincentives to the use of vehicles ." Depending on the specific distribution of traffic generated b y
new development, and whether or not on-site parking is provided, future projects may significantly impact intersection
operations . When intersections are potentially impacted by new development, the City routinely requires project applicants t o
submit a traffic study . An analysis of LOS impacts at intersections is a basic traffic study component and is required by th e
City's Transportation Impact Study Guidelines . Where impacts are identified, mitigation is required consistent with CI Polic y
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 27 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
ttcleh rt :3r 1
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Infd ..,ation Sources Sources Potentiall y
Significant
utentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
ER # 50-06 Downtown Building Height/Intensity Limits Issues Unles s
Mitigation
Impac t
Incorporated
7 .1 and other Circulation Element policies .
The traffics impacts of downtown development, including the construction of additional parking garages, was evaluatedin th e
draft Final Environmental Impact Report for the Parking and Downtown Access Plan (Parsons Transportation Group, 1999).
This report concluded that traffic impacts to area intersections and street segments would not exceed thresholds o f
significance (e .g. LOS E) established by the City's Circulation Element, and that specific mitigation may not be required .
While this report provides important background data and is an appropriate reference document, the specific impacts o f
proposed projects will need to be separately evaluated . Applications for new development projects that have the potential t o
exceed thresholds of significance for traffic are required to include traffic studies, per the City's Traffic Impact Stud y
guidelines . The impacts of the proposed project with respect to traffic increases is considered less than significant becaus e
the change represents a moderate increase in building height and intensity limits in the downtown core area, which is alread y
planned to accommodate significant retail floor area and residential density .
c)The project will have no impact on air traffic patterns .
d)The intensity of development associated with tall buildings may generate significant pedestrian demand that is no t
addressed by the City's current sidewalk system or signal system . This is an important consideration at intersections, wher e
conflicts between pedestrians and turning vehicles are most likely to occur . Recent improvements at intersections associate d
with the Court Street Project include improved pedestrian controls, such as countdown walk signs, and wider sidewalks insomelocations . In the case of the Court Street Project, wider sidewalks were provided by eliminating on-street parking alongtheproject's street frontage .
The City is currently working on a Downtown Pedestrian Access Plan, which may include standards for wider sidewalksthroughoutthedowntowncorearea . The preparation of the Downtown Pedestrian Access Plan is an on-going City program
that will address the long-term goals of providing safe pedestrian access to and throughout the downtown core area .
Implementation of the existing program will insure that impacts to pedestrians due to hazards will be addressed .
e)The downtown core area is located on a grided street network that provides adequate emergency response access . The first
responder to incidents in the downtown core is the SLO City Fire Department . Two stations, Station #1 (2160 Santa Barbara)
and Station #2 (136 North Chorro) are located outside of the downtown core, but within the City's response time goal of fou r
minutes.
f)Parking requirements in the downtown core area are set at a maximum of 1 parking space per 500 square feet of gross floo r
area for retail and office uses and 1 parking space per 350 square feet for restaurant uses . However, on-site parking is notrequired. Ordinance No . 1101, adopted in 1987, established parking in-lieu fees for the downtown core area . The fees were
most recently updated in 2004 by Resolution No . 9614 and are adjusted annually by the Consumer Price Index . The current
cost of a parking space for new construction is $12,456 . When there is a change in use that causes an increase in the parkin g
requirement for an existing building, such as a retail space converted to a restaurant, the fee is $3,I13 per parking space .
In-lieu fees that are collected through the program go to the City's Parking Fund, which supports parking operations and th e
construction and maintenance of new parking facilities in the downtown core . There are currently three parking garages in th e
project area, including two on Palm Street and the Marsh Street Garage . In total these garages include 917 parking spaces. In
addition to on-street parking, surface level parking, and private parking in the downtown core there are a total of 3,218parkingspaces .
New commercial development in the downtown core, including tall buildings, will be required to pay in-lieu fees and in some
circumstances may provide on-site parking in garages . Over time, implementation of the City's Parking and Downtow n
Access Plan will insure adequate parking for new development by constructing new public parking garages . A parking garag e
at the corner of Nipomo Street and Monterey Street is currently being planned . The garage would include between 400 an d
600 new parking spaces .
Existing and planned parking provided for commercial uses is sufficient to meet parking demand, however, a potentiall y
significant impact has been identified with respect to residential parking . The City's current ordinance does not require on -.
CIT' OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 28 INrAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
b
d
h r
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Info,,,,ation Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
cotentiall y
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
ER # 50-06 Downtown Building Height/Intensity Limits Issues Unless
Mitigation
Impac t
Incorporated
site parking for residential uses in the downtown core area and overnight parking is not currently permitted in the City's
parking garages . Current proposals for new downtown residential development projects with on-site parking include th e
Marpomo Project (579 Marsh, 33 condominium units), the Chinatown Project (847 Palm Street, 63 condominium units), and
Garden Street Terraces (736 Marsh, 57 condominium units). Current proposals that include residential units but that do no t
include parking are the Ah Louis Building (800 Palm, 1 rental unit) and the redevelopment of the old Bladerunner buildin g
956 Monterey, 2 rental units). In general, it can be expected that the larger condominium projects will provide on-sit e
parking to attract a wider pool of potential buyers, whereas developers of projects with a smaller number of condominium o r
rental units may not provide on-site parking because it would be cost prohibitive to build parking for such a small number o f
units .
There are a range of considerations with respect to residential parking in the City's urban core . Parking for residential units i n
the core should not be pushed into surrounding neighborhoods . The City is considering a parking district in these areas ,
which would prohibit overnight parking except by neighborhood residents and guests . Parking for downtown core resident s
could be provided in the City's parking garages on a fee basis, but there are significant hurdles to overcome with respect t o
guidelines (hours, access, safety, and garage maintenance) before such a program could be established . Parking can be
required on-site for larger residential projects, however, this would result in fewer residential units and larger buildings t o
make room for the parking . On-site parking also creates problems with sidewalk continuity and vehicle access to garages ,
which should be minimized to maintain the pedestrian focus of the downtown core area . One way to address the issue woul d
be to prohibit on-site parking and focus on alternative transportation programs, which are emphasized in the City's
Circulation Element . If on-site parking is prohibited and no other parking is made available to residents of a downtow n
project, then deed or lease restrictions on vehicle ownership would be necessary to insure that residents are aware of parkin g
limitations and comply with the restrictions .
Under the City's current standards, a potentially significant impact could occur if a large residential project (25-75 units) i s
developed without on-site parking . Therefore the following mitigation measure is recommended :
Mitigation Measure Trans-1 :New Land Use Element Program . The City should revise the Access and Parkin g
Management Plan (2002) to include a Downtown access program for residents in the Downtown core area . The revision
should evaluate various strategies and long-term parking solutions and include implementation recommendations . Strategies
and solutions that may be considered include, but are not limited to :
1.A fee based program to allow limited residential parking in downtown parking structures owned and operated by th e
City.
2.Criteria for on-site parking (requirements and prohibitions) based on project size, project location, site acces s
criteria, housing type, and feasible alternative transportation options .
3.Determination if any Downtown core streets should have driveway access restricted .
4.Vehicle parking and storage areas located outside the downtown core area, such as Park and Ride style lots, that ca n
be used by downtown core residents .
5.The development of additional transit programs to increase options for downtown residents .
6.Credit towards parking requirements for projects that implement shared vehicle programs .
g) The proposed project will not conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs for alternative transportation . Th e
proposed project may result in increased residential development in the downtown core area, which would facilitat e
alternative forms of transportation such as walking, bicycling and transit because it will bring City residents closer t o
commercial services and existing public transportation resources .
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 29 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 200 6
Attachment 1 2
Issues, Discussion and Supporting 'nfo,,..ation Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
otentiall y
Significant
Less Tha n
Significant
No
Impac t
ER # 50-06 Downtown Building Height/Intensity Limits Issues Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
Conclusio n
The proposed project would involve a moderate increase to the downtown's building height and intensity limits and woul d
allow for the development of tall buildings (between 50 and 75 feet). The downtown core area is the City's most intensel y
developed location and is served by a grided street network in proximity to Highway 101 . The area is planned for significan t
commercial and residential development and the proposed project will not exceed the capacity of the downtown core area
circulation system to handle the additional development anticipated . Individual development projects that are proposed in the
future will be evaluated for their potential to increase traffic and impact intersections or create safety hazards . Existing City
standards for Level of Service and mitigation requirements for projects that exceed established thresholds are sufficient t o
mitigate potential traffic related impacts .
The following mitigation measure has been identified as necessary to deal with potential impacts relative to parking . On-site
parking is not required in the downtown core area and therefore, new projects that increase the number of residents livin g
downtown will also increase the number of vehicles parked in the core area . The City currently does not allow overnigh t
parking in its garages . A comprehensive program to address residential parking needs in the downtown core area is therefor e
warranted .
Mitigation Measure Trans-1 :New Land Use Element Program. The City should revise the Access and Parkin g
Management Plan (2002) to include a Downtown access program for residents in the Downtown core area . The revision
should evaluate various strategies and long-term parking solutions and include implementation recommendations . Strategies
and solutions that may be considered include, but are not limited to :
1.A fee based program to allow limited residential parking in downtown parking structures owned and operated by th e
City .
2.Criteria for on-site parking (requirements and prohibitions) based on project size, project location, site acces s
criteria, housing type, and feasible alternative transportation options .
3.Determination if any Downtown core streets should have driveway access restricted .
4.Vehicle parking and storage areas located outside the downtown core area, such as Park and Ride style lots, that ca n
be used by downtown core residents .
5.The development of additional transit programs to increase options for downtown residents .
6.Credit towards parking requirements for projects that implement shared vehicle programs .
With implementation of the above mitigation measure, the City will be in a position to implement a residential parkin g
program for downtown residents before impacts occur . If a large residential development project without on-site parking i s
proposed before the residential parking program is created, then the full range of parking options should be considered in th e
project's environmental review to insure that parking impacts do not occur .
16 . UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS . Would the , ro ect :
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 30 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 200 6,a
X
Attachment 1 2
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Infc>...iation Sources Sources Potentially .
Significant
otentially
Significant
Less Tha n
Significant
No
Impact
ER It 50-06 Downtown Building Height/Intensity Limits Issues Unles s
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
X
X
Evaluatio n
a)The City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department has indicated that the proposed project would not impact the City's
ability to meet applicable wastewater treatment requirements . Comments note that individual projects proposed downtow n
are subject to wastewater impact fees, which ensure that new development projects pay a fair share of the total cost o f
constructing the wastewater treatment and collection facilities that are needed to serve development citywide .
b)Individual development projects proposed in the downtown core area are evaluated by the Utilities Department on a cas e
by case basis to insure that City standards and the requirements of other applicable codes, such as the Plumbing Code, can b e
met . In the case of tall buildings, which may involve significant residential density, office, restaurant, retail and transien t
uses, the Utilities Department has two primary concerns . These include adequate water pressure to deliver potable water an d
fire flows to the upper floors of tall buildings and adequate capacity in the wastewater collection system . Resolution of thes e
issues is required by existing code, prior to issuance of construction permits. In practice, the City works with projec t
proponents to identify service deficiencies early on in the planning process for new development projects . The resolution to
these potential issues involves specific identifiable measures, such as pumps internal to the building to increase water pressur e
or upsizing of local collection lines to increase capacity . These are relatively minor aspects of new construction projects, bu t
upgrading utilities infrastructure in the downtown core does have-the potential to cause significant environmental impacts ,
particularly with respect to historical and archeological resources . As a result, the following mitigation measure is
recommended to insure that increased utilities infrastructure needs are identified early in the planning process for tal l
buildings downtown .
Mitigation Measure Util-1 :Planning Application Requirement . Planning Applications submitted to the City of San Lui s
Obispo for buildings between 50 and 75 feet tall shall include an engineer's evaluation of existing utilities infrastructure t o
ensure that the project will have adequate water pressure and that the collection system in the area surrounding the project i s
sufficient to meet the project's demand . Where deficiencies are identified, the project developer shall work with the Utilitie s
Department to identify needed improvements and shall be required as a condition of approval to perform those improvement s
as part of the future project .
c)Individual projects proposed in the future are required to comply with the drainage requirements of the City's Waterway s
Management Plan. This plan was adopted for the purpose of insuring water quality and proper drainage within the City's
watershed. The Waterways Management Plan requires that site development be designed so that post-development sit e
drainage does not exceed pre-development run-off . This can be achieved through a combination of detention and use o f
pervious surfaces to increase water absorption on-site . In most cases downtown, additional development will not creat e
additional run-off because most project sites are either currently developed or paved with surface level parking .
d)The Water & Wastewater Management Element and the Land Use Element of the General Plan projects the City wate r
needs at its ultimate build-out . Development of the downtown core area with additional residential uses has long bee n
considered under the General Plan . Residential density limits in the CD zone have been set at 36 units per acre since the 199 4
Land Use Element was adopted . No change to the residential density standard is proposed with the project . The proposed
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 31 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
Attachment1 2_
utentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impac t
Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
The project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce habitat or threaten an y
plant or animal community .
project may facilitate development of additional residential density in the downtown core area, but this growth is included i n
the anticipated General Plan build-out . The 2006 Water Resources Status Report indicates that there is currently 256 acre -
feet of water available to allocate to in-fill development and intensification projects (development within the 1994 Cit y
Limits). Another 256 acre-feet is available to serve the City's expansion areas, for a total of 512 acre feet of water availabl e
to allocate to development . The City is also pursuing multiple water supply projects including the water reuse project, th e
Nacimiento Pipeline Project, additional water conservation programs and the Salinas Dam transfer . Development of thes e
water supply resources would provide more than enough water to meet the City's projected water demand in the build-ou t
scenario of the City's current General Plan .
e) According to the City's Utilities Department, the City's Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) has adequate capacity to serve
future development downtown. The Wastewater Facilities Master Plan anticipates build-out under the General Plan an d
includes a program for upgrades to the collection system and the Water Reclamation Facility based on regulator y
requirements and projected demand . The City's impact fee program for wastewater is used to fund these anticipate d
improvements .
f), g) Background research for the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB939) shows that Californians dispose o f
roughly 2,500 pounds of waste per month. Over 90% of this waste goes to landfills, posing a threat to groundwater, ai r
quality, and public health . Cold Canyon landfill is projected to reach its capacity by 2018 . To help reduce the waste stream
generated by new development projects, consistent with the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element, recyclin g
facilities must be planned for, and a solid waste reduction plan for recycling discarded construction materials must be
submitted with new building permit applications . New development projects are already required by ordinance to includ e
facilities for recycling to reduce the potential waste stream, therefore, no mitigation is required .
Conclusion
The proposed project will have a less than significant impacts on water quality and drainage related issues, including flooding .
However, service systems such as the water distribution system and the wastewater collection system may need to b e
upgraded where individual projects proposed in the future do not meet City standards for service . Issues of adequate wate r
pressure and adequate sizing of sewer mains must be evaluated with each proposed project, per existing policies an d
standards . The following mitigation measure is recommended to insure that applications for new development projects in th e
downtown core area will include sufficient information for the City to evaluate these potential impacts .
Mitigation Measure UM-1 :Planning Application Requirement . Planning Applications submitted to the City of San Lui s
Obispo for proposed mid-rise buildings (between 50 and 75 feet tall) shall include an engineer's evaluation of existing utilitie s
infrastructure to ensure that the project will have adequate water pressure for domestic use and fire flows and that the
collection system in the area surrounding the project is sufficient to meet the project's impact . Where deficiencies ar e
identified, the project developer shall work with the Utilities Department to identify needed improvements and shall b e
required as a condition of approval to perform those improvements as part of the future project .
With implementation of the proposed mitigation measure, impacts to utilities and service systems will be less than significant .
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE .
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Inft ....ation Sources
ER # 50-06 Downtown Building Height/Intensity Limits
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo 32 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 200 6/—?
V
Attachment 1 2
Issues, Discussion and Supporting InfL ...,ation Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
otentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
ER # 50-06 Downtown Building Height/Intensity Limits Issues Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
19 . SOURCE REFERENCES.
1 .Conservation and Open Space Element, City of San Luis Obispo, 200 6
2 .Community Design Guidelines, City of San Luis Obispo, 200 3
3 .Downtown Development Handbook, ULI, 199 2
4 .Fundamentals of Urban Design, APA Planners Press, 198 4
5 .Farmland Mappin g
6 .APCD Clean Air Pla n
7 .City of San Luis Obispo Historical Resource Preservation Guideline s
8 .Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Buildings
9 .City of San Luis Obispo Informational Map Atlas
10.City of San Luis Obispo Safety Element, July 200 0
X
The proposed project clarifies existing General Plan policies and provides for a moderate increase to building height an d
intensity limits for the downtown core area . This area was planned for significant retail and residential development in th e
existing General Plan . Impacts that have been identified in this initial study include
X
The project does not involve environmental effects that will cause adverse effects on human beings .
18. EARLIER ANALYSES .
Final Environmental Impact Report . Land Use Element/Circulation Element Updates, City of San Luis Obispo, August 1994 .
SCH #9210100 6
Final Environmental Impact Report . Copeland's Project, City of San Luis Obispo, August 2002 . SCH #200203105 8
Final Environmental Tm .act Re 'ort . Parkin' and Downtown Access Plan, Ci of San Luis Obis 1999 .
No effects identified we addressed b miti • ation measures based on earlier anal sis .
No miti : ation measures were inco . orated from earlier documents .
INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 200 6/9s_CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 33
Attachment 1 2
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Infdi ...ation Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
otentialty
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
ER # 50-06 Downtown Building Height/Intensity Limits Issues Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
11 .City of San Luis Obispo, Waterways Management Plan,
12 .Flood Insurance Rate Map (Community Panel # 060310-0005C), July 7, 1981 .
13 .City of San Luis Obispo, Noise Guidebook, May 199 6
14 .City of San Luis Obispo, Noise Element, May 199 6
15 .City of San Luis Obispo, Parks and Recreation Element, June 2001
Attachments :$ee Gs.,•xc;gecat :5Fi tt.,
Vicinity Map (LUE Figure 4 )
Expanded Project Description and Propos -
Downtown Views Photo Representat
ntown Buildings Photo . -ations
District Boun . -.e
t D
ent 1 :
Atta • - 2 :
Attac
Attachment
Attachment 5 :
Attachment 6 :
Attachment 7 :
Attachment 8 :
Attachment 9 :
Attachme
Attac
esi e;A,-lines, Chapter 4 – Downtow n
City of a
COS
nspo Inventory of Historic Resource s
er .stone Preservation Policies
eeting Upda \8-28-2006 and 9-25-200 6
I• C Meeting Update : i -2006
1 : Computer Shadow Model Re • sentations
INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 200 6/
9(,
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo 3 4
Attachment 1 2
REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS
1) Mitigation Measure AES-i :New Land Use Element Program – The City will undertake a study o f
visual resources within the Downtown core area to identify potential locations for new publicly-owne d
open places with access to views of important scenic resources . The City will consider protecting thes e
views by creating open places through street closures and/or property acquisition, as encouraged by LU E
Policy 4 .7 . A range of options for property acquisition, including development agreements, will b e
considered, consistent with the City's fiscal policies and objectives .
Monitoring Program : The proposed Land Use Element program will incorporated into the projec t
and will be adopted at the same time as the proposed General Pla n
Amendments .
2) Mitigation Measure AES-2 :New Land Use Element Program - The Community Design Guideline s
shall be updated to include guidelines for tall buildings within the downtown core area, with a particula r
focus on guidelines for architectural transitions between new development and existing buildings withi n
the Downtown Historic District .
Monitoring Program : The proposed Land Use Element program will incorporated into the projec t
and will be adopted at the same time as the proposed General -Pla n
Amendments . The Architectural Review Commission has established a
subcommittee of its members to work with City staff on the proposed update .
3) Mitigation Measure AES-3 :New Planning Application Requirement - Planning application s
submitted for Architectural Review of new buildings between 50 to 75 feet tall shall include a sola r
shading analysis to illustrate shading caused by proposed buildings between the hours of 11 :00 AM an d
3 :00 PM during the winter solstice .
Monitoring Program : The proposed application requirements will be incorporated into the City's
standard checklists for planning applications after approval of the propose d
General Plan Amendments and the future ordinance, which will be propose d
to implement the changes .
4)Mitigation Measure PS-1 :New Planning Application Requirement . Planning application s
submitted for new buildings between 50 and 75 feet tall within the downtown core area shall include a
fire and life safety access plan, which will show how access to upper floors will be provided, consisten t
with the Uniform Fire Code and the requirements of SLOFD . Applicants are encouraged to revie w
proposed emergency access plans with the City's Fire Marshal pridr to finalizing their building desig n
and submitting their planning applications .
Monitoring Program : The proposed application requirements will be incorporated into the City's
standard checklists for planning applications after approval of the propose d
General Plan Amendments and the future ordinance, which will be propose d
to implement the changes .
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 35 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 200 6
92
Attachment 1 2
5) Mitigation Measure PS-2 :Planning Application Requirement . Planning applications submitted fo r
new buildings between 50 and 75 feet tall within the downtown core area shall include a security plan t o
cover all proposed parking areas, courtyards areas, public stairways, elevators and decks . The securit y
plan will identify the locations of 911 capable phones in parking areas, will establish rules an d
regulations for public use of courtyards and decks, and establish timeframes for private security patrol s
to be in place . Applicants are encouraged to review proposed emergency access plans with the City's
Police Department prior to finalizing their building design and submitting their planning applications .
Monitoring Program : The proposed application requirements will be incorporated into the City's
standard checklists for planning applications after approval of the propose d
General Plan Amendments and the future ordinance, which will be propose d
to implement the changes .
6) Mitigation Measure Trans-1 :New Land Use Element Program . The City should revise the Acces s
and Parking Management Plan (2002) to include a Downtown access program for residents in th e
Downtown core area . The revision should evaluate various strategies and long-term parking solution s
and include implementation recommendations . Strategies and solutions that may be considered include ,
but are not limited to :
1.A fee based program to allow limited residential parking in downtown parking structures owne d
and operated by the City .
2.Criteria for on-site parking (requirements and prohibitions) based on project size, projec t
location, site access criteria, housing type, and feasible alternative transportation options .
3.Determination if any Downtown core streets should have driveway access restricted .
4.Vehicle parking and storage areas located outside the downtown core area, such as Park and Rid e
style lots, that can be used by downtown core residents .
5.The development of additional transit programs to increase options for downtown residents .
6.Credit towards parking requirements for projects that implement shared vehicle programs .
Monitoring Program : The proposed Land Use Element program will incorporated into the projec t
and will be adopted at the same time as the proposed General Pla n
Amendments .
7)Mitigation Measure Util-1 :Planning Application Requirement . Planning Applications submitted
to the City of San Luis Obispo for buildings between 50 and 75 feet tall shall include an engineer's
evaluation of existing utilities infrastructure to ensure that the project will have adequate water pressure
for domestic use and fire flows and that the collection system in the area surrounding the project i s
sufficient to meet the project's impact . Where deficiencies are identified, the project developer shal l
work with the Utilities Department to identify needed improvements and shall be required as a conditio n
of approval to perform those improvements as part of the future project .
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 36 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 200 6
91'
Attachment 1 2
Monitoring Program : The proposed application requirements will be incorporated into the City's
standard checklists for planning applications after approval of the propose d
General Plan Amendments and the future ordinance, which will be propose d
to implement the changes .
21 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 37 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
Attachment 1 3
community Ocvctopmcnt Ocpaatmcn t
memonanOum
August 29, 200 6
To :Ken Hampian, CAO
From :John Mandeville, Community Development Directo r
By :Michael Codron, Associate Planne r
Subject :Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limits : CHC Revie w
Last night staff made a presentation to the CHC on the Downtown Building Heigh t
and Intensity Limits Discussion . Only four CHC members were present, and th e
Committee as a whole did not feel comfortable delving into the issue shorthanded .
Therefore, they continued their discussion to the next CHC meeting, scheduled fo r
September 25'". Before the CHC continued the discussion, Staff provided a detaile d
presentation of the issues at hand, and explained the two-step approach to addressin g
Council's direction provided at the conclusion of the March study session . First, th e
policy issues will be discussed and clarified by the City Council after input from th e
Advisory groups . Ordinance revisions will be proposed based on the clarifie d
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 Septembe r
meeting in order to bring them up to speed on the discussion so that the Septembe r
25 `h meeting will be productive .
Although last night's discussion did not really "take off," it was still a useful meetin g
with great public attendance . The Council Hearing Room was full and nine members
of the audience provided testimony . A summary of the testimony and CH C
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 becom e
landmarks . The city has lost of lot of landmark and taller buildings and h e
listed a few examples . Many of these buildings have been lost and th e
building mass needs to be returned . The taller first floor of buildings reflect s
the historic character that accommodated natural ventilation throug h
clerestory windows .
Current prices up to $3 .00 sq. ft . triple net, on the way to $4 .00 sq . ft . for retai l
space . By limiting square footage downtown, the result is increasing ren t
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 th e
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 expensiv e
66
Attachment 1 3
Page 2
to retain these interiors . The city needs to allow basements and not coun t
them toward FAR – this is the best place for storage and mechanica l
equipment. Currently, the only option is to store merchandise off-site and thi s
creates morning traffic as the trucks bring merchandise to stores . It doesn't
make financial sense to use retail floor area to store merchandise .
There is a SLO Chamber of Commerce sub-committee studying the heigh t
issue . The idea from the sub-committee (has yet to be vetted with Chambe r
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 ceilin g
height and tall windows on the ground level (see attached graphic). Height
limits are more important than story limitations . Visitors that come into th e
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 bu t
also accommodate taller buildings . Tiering and setbacks at upper floors wil l
make new taller buildings less obtrusive at the street level .
Speaker representing the American Institute of Architects (AIA) is glad th e
city is looking at the height issue . There is a reason that additional heigh t
needs to be accommodated – with safety issues and newer technology an d
HVAC requirements, there is a need for more interior space between floors . It
is more important to consider overall height than numbers of stories . Facade s
are important .
Parking needs to be accommodated in equation if residential units ar e
included in the buildings being proposed . The topography, clearance an d
ventilation required for development of a parking garage and the overall cos t
of construction makes projects that include residential units very expensive t o
build . There is a need to allow additional floors to increase the viability of th e
development and the affordability of the units . As the cost of the developmen t
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 unit s
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 t o
carefully consider the language that gets adopted so that it doesn't tie th e
hands of the decision makers and not allow them to consider all of the cit y
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 mor e
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 .
Attachment 1 3
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 Garde n
Street . If development is done carefully, away from the street, then it shoul d
be allowed to go higher .
Santa Barbara had a similar street to Garden Street and it is no longer ther e
because that city allowed development that didn't protect the existing
character . While the commenter doesn't live in San Luis Obispo, she has a n
appreciation of the historic character of the downtown . What is the possibilit y
of doing a moratorium until the decisions are made? It is sticky to be able t o
have residences downtown : in Avila Beach, these residences have becom e
vacation rentals .
The CHC discussed these issues as follows :
Tom Wheeler — the policies contain some complex wording and changes need to b e
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 tha n
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 gav e
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 view s
and fewer trees might open up some views .
Lynne Landwehr — historically, there were no trees downtown, but we don't want t o
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 woul d
like to see the policies/ordinance address how the height limit is measured . Histori c
buildings may have architectural elements that bring up height of building but tha t
don't increase building mass . Wants a definition that includes what is measurabl e
height and what is a building element . Also has some concerns about public viewin g
from upper floors of new buildings : if there are residences included in thes e
buildings, the residents may not like the public wandering about near their houses .
Attachment 1 3
community Oevelopment bepaiztment
memoaanau m
September 26, 2006
To :Ken Hampian, CA O
From: John Mandeville, Community Development Direct2fr1
By :Michael Codron, Associate Planner
Subject : Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limits : CHC Review
Last night, the CHC held a second public hearing for the Downtown Building Heigh t
and Intensity Limits discussion . Five CHC members were present during the staff
review of the issues and public comment portion of the meeting, but one member ha d
to leave prior to the Committee finalizing their recommendations .
Prior to last night's meeting, staff met with the three CHC members who were absen t
during the August meeting in order to bring them up to speed on the discussion . This
facilitated the process and resulted in a productive meeting .
Last night's meeting had less public attendance than the August meeting . Fou r
members of the public provided testimony for the CHC's consideration . A summary
of the testimony and the CHC's action follows :
Members of the public gave the following comments :
Maintain the flexibility and judge projects on their merits . It is not possible to
define rules that fit all situations . A 60' tall height is not that big a chang e
from the existing limit . If the City wants residential in the downtown area, i t
may need to allow 5 floors in buildings and 60' is too low to get 5 floor s
without going to low ceiling heights . Look at allowing up to 75' as upper en d
height. Perhaps the City should just use 75' as the allowed height . For
buildings between 50' and 75', set up guidelines for what features need to b e
incorporated .
Might want to consider using the language of the Secretary of the Interio r
regarding adaptive re-use of historic buildings . How to balance historic an d
other policies? (i .e . residential uses downtown and preventing urban sprawl).
Need to maintain latitude in standards and not take discretion away fro m
decision-makers who need to balance competing policies .
The issue is heights and not stories . You can do 5-6 stories in 70'. Scal e
relative to context is more important . "Landmark" is difficult to define . "I'll
know it when I see it" doesn't give enough direction to designers . The term
implies an historic building, but it is used for new buildings so we may wan t
to define a different term . What are we using as our benchmark for histori c
character? Around the turn of the century, buildings were higher in the
Attachment 1 3
Page 2
downtown area . How far back do we go to determine what's an appropriat e
height for downtown?
The SLO Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors has prepared a letter t o
submit to the CHC (see attachment). The Chamber supports infil l
development and a compact urban form so they are supportive of the propose d
changes to allow greater height in the downtown area . Their sub-committe e
made up of professionals including Andrew Merriam, Pierre Rademaker, Bil l
Thoma, and Barry Williams and they have recommended a 60' height limit a s
the base allowed height for a 4 story building . Interstitial spaces need to b e
bigger in new buildings to accommodate mechanical equipment . Taller firs t
floors are needed to maintain consistency with the historic character o f
existing downtown buildings . They also support allowing architectura l
features to extend 10' above height limit . The Chamber's letter include s
suggestions for policy wording changes .
On a 4-0 vote, the CHC provided the following direction and feedback to staff:
1.The CHC supports a moderate increase in the base building height limit ,
specifically to accommodate four story buildings, consistent with Counci l
direction to consider alternatives for a moderate increase to downtown buildin g
height and intensity limits to achieve General Plan goals, including housing, retai l
floor area and design amenities .
2.The CHC supports a use permit process for buildings taller than the base heigh t
that would involve special requirements such as affordable housing, energ y
efficiency, pedestrian connections, plazas, pubic access to upper level views, an d
historic preservation. The term "landmark" should not be used to describe thi s
process because landmarks, such as the Mission or the Fremont Theatre, are no t
normally defined by building height . There should not be a limit on the numbe r
of these tall buildings — there could be three in one block and none in othe r
blocks . Stories are not a useful standard, but the Community Design Guideline s
should provide guidance for the height of the first story, which is typically 12 t o
16 feet downtown .
3.The CHC recommends that any ordinance allowing taller buildings include th e
following mandatory finding for approval, which implements Conservation an d
Open Space Element Policy 3 .21 .2 :
The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan becaus e
historic resources on the project site will be retained and either
preserved or rehabilitated in a manner consistent with the Secretar y
of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties ,
unless demolition is necessary to remove a threat to health an d
safety and other means to eliminate or reduce the threat t o
acceptable levels are infeasible .
Attachment 1 3
Page 3
4.The CHC recommends that LUE Policy 4 .13 and 4 .16 .4 be amended to clarify th e
following land use strategy for the downtown core :
Use building design, street furniture and landscaping to provide a
comfortable sense of enclosure for pedestrians on the sidewalk ,
while preserving hillside views from carefully located public ope n
places, and encouraging public access to "new views ." Tree
selection in these public, open places should be consistent wit h
maintaining views, and frees with a dense canopy should b e
avoided .
5.The CHC recommends that the Community Design Guidelines be update d
to include guidelines on architectural transitions between existing
development and new buildings .
Attachment 1 3
community development Oepantment
memoaaneum
October 3, 2006
To :Ken Hampian, CA O
From :John Mandeville, Community Development Directo r
By :Michael Codron, Associate Planne r
Subject :Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limits : ARC Revie w
The Architectural Review Commission held a public hearing last night to discuss th e
Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limits project . The Council Hearing Roo m
was full and testimony was provided from 11 members of the public . Publi c
comments were varied and insightful and are summarized below .
The ARC's discussion was broad based and included several recommendations . Th e
ARC agreed with the CHC's recommendations and provided additional specific s
regarding a maximum building height limit and Floor Area Ratio standard .
The ARC also appointed a sub-committee made up of Chairman Michael Boudreau ,
Jim Lopes and Anthony Palazzo to work with staff on an update to the Communit y
Design Guidelines . The update would be part of the second step to the process, an d
would occur only after the Council considers changes to the policies for downtow n
development.
Members of the public gave the following comments :
The 50-55 foot height increase is a workable option . Chamber of Commerce
recommendation is also within reason . Neither staff or Chamber graphic s
illustrate a first floor recess . Performance standard and use permit approach may
be a way to accomplish goals for downtown . Project proponents should b e
required to demonstrate how projects contribute to City goals – earn amenit y
credits (Vancouver is example of how it is used). View protection – downtown
should focus on view protection and enhancement . Use performance guideline s
or standards to optimize public views especially if they were previously
obstructed or not available . Continuous tree canopy should not be a goal . Shade
or solar opportunities can be incorporated into performance standards or us e
permits . Public spaces in downtown SLO are overtaxed already with use r
intensity . There is need for public outdoor space or projects could contribute t o
downtown space acquisition and development . Do a study to determine where
these open spaces should occur . Building stair-stepping to accommodate grad e
differences should occur . New buildings that exceed four stories should b e
lighter on the eye and on the skyline . SLO downtown buildings could be double
the height of surrounding cities .
2c
Attachment 1 3
Page 2
It is a difficult task because we are trying to put restrictions in place for project s
that haven't even been submitted to the city yet . The idea of a 25% limit o n
height between adjacent buildings is difficult because there is a differenc e
between single purpose buildings and larger mixed-use projects . Historic
buildings exist and projects should pay respect to historic aspect and nature o f
SLO, but also it is impossible to retain an historic building and build up to 75' o n
top of it . Can keep facades or certain aspects of historic building but can't retai n
the whole structure . Look at width of streets and widths of sidewalks . Smalle r
towns have larger sidewalks of 10-14 wide which keeps a pedestrian focus .
Also, a block may have character of 2-3 story buildings along street and it need s
a larger monument building to make it interesting - we need to keep flexibility
for larger buildings .
What are we trying to do with downtown? We need to take a look at th e
economic realities of what Downtown was, what it has become and what it s
prospects for the future are . Downtown housing is second priority to its revenue -
producing ability . Look at this issue in the context of a general plan LUE that i s
12 years old . A lot of change has happened – politically and economically.
Take those issues into account since many of the LUE policies bog down th e
design process . Context of 2006 isn't being used as widely as we could . Are we
trying to limit creative juices of design community by arbitrary FARs, limits o n
height, window placement etc .? There is a lot of talk about views – a perso n
doesn't go downtown to look at views . He goes downtown to experience a well-
landscaped, well-articulated, downtown with vibrant buildings . City has built 3
parking lots and the top floor is used for parking – the views are incredible, pu t
community facilities up there and not automobiles . Favorable to concept of us e
permits for taller buildings – should recommend that they resurrect origina l
planned development ordinance . Ordinance has been bastardized by current use .
He can visualize a PD overlay over downtown and let the design community an d
forward thinking developers bring forward designs that forward economic an d
community goals .
All the times he looked from Mission plaza up Monterey street – he never think s
that putting 75' buildings along that street will enhance that . This effort is being
considered under an ostensible justification of housing for downtown employees .
How do we ensure affordability for downtown employees for these housin g
units? National retailers will pay low wages and these employees won't be able
to live there . High income earners will be the only ones who can afford to live i n
units .
Landmark" – building or site that has historical significance especially one tha t
has been recognized by national or local agency . Don't call them landmarks but
just call them "tall buildings". There are a lot of inconsistencies between lan d
use, ordinance etc . Ask the question of what are our goals for downtown ?
The ARC's deliberations need to focus on architectural and physical aspects o f
downtown . Takes issue with prior speaker that main goal of downtown is solel y
o7
Attachment 1 3
Page 3
for revenue production . A diversity of uses is needed downtown . Housin g
should be accommodated downtown on second or higher floors and will benefi t
retail economy . Marpomo and Court street projects met 50' height limit . Do we
really need to go to 55' or 60'? There is inconsistency in general plan that need s
addressing . Also agrees with poor choice of word being "landmark" – call it
signature or taller building . We are falling into trap – we will end up at end o f
process just reacting to projects that are being considered now . Goes downtow n
to relate to surroundings – view of Cerro San Luis at corner of Palm and Chorr o
is towering and identifies SLO . Prospect of buying air rights over Chongs cand y
store in order to maintain visual context should be considered . Urban experience
is enhanced by the Cerro San Luis view . Identify where views withi n
downtown exist . Use Transer of Development Credits (TDCs) to increase FA R
or building height from visual corridors to buildings in core .
Problem with suggested wording of 4 .16 .4 – what gives person the right to put
up a four stow building vs a 2-3 story building? Take subjectivity out o f
planning and decide which locations are allowed to go to 2 stories, 3 stories an d
4 stories . Pick spots where you're going to have to protect views . It's not right
to allow 55 feet in one place and not in another right next door . Generate a plo t
map of allowable heights that are site or block-specific . Downtown is not abou t
views but is about sunlight . Housing – won't be affordable downtown regardles s
of supply . Good ideas on FAR – consider defining ground floor coverage an d
first floor height and setback ; and setback at higher floors depending on wha t
view maps show .
The Chamber of Commerce submitted a letter and illustration to the ARC . The
Chamber believes in compact urban form and efficient use of land . Looked at
moderate height increase with a subcommittee made up of a group o f
professionals (Bill Thoma, Pierre Rademaker, Randy Detmer, Barry Williams)–
what height would make sense? Illustration shows 60' – 1 s`floor should b e
higher to reflect tradition of higher first floor in historic character . Marpom a
made it fit 50' height limit but had to shorten floor heights and it would hav e
been a better development if they could have taken advantage of more height .
Mechanical equipment creates need for more interstitial space between floors ,
thus more height . Housing can be affordable . We love our downtown .
Downtown concept plan was created with a lot of heart . Diversity and variety
downtown is needed for vitality . We need to be able to accommodate new an d
different projects . Views – publicly-owned open places are the only views tha t
should be addressed . Take "rest" out of policy. Other features should be
included in the protected views – views of historic buldings, etc . Not that many
properties will be able to take advantage of increased height so don't limit to 55 '
because 60' will allow more creativity .
Expressed general support for increased heights downtown . Prior speaker said it
well in terms of responding to the needs of 2006 and not the needs of 1990 o r
bygone era. Interesting to see that behind the surface of the height limit is a n
issue of density . Density drives many desirable things in a community –
Ur
Attachment 1 3
Page 4
compact settlement pattern, vibrant retail core, transportation and affordabl e
housing — all pivot around density . City should be 21 st century city not just a 1 9`s
century city .Increased pressure on energy supplies are a factor for some — w e
must continue to evolve into a denser, higher rise urban form to respond to futur e
energy shortages and need to reduce energy use because of global warming .
Studies suggest patterns of retail consumption, that even to drive one bloc k
requires 1200-1500 housing units within a pedestrian radius . Downtown need s
to take care of itself regardless of Dalidio . Doesn't support those who sugges t
that we need to address all views all the time . Maybe something beyond th e
current identified views, such as identifying view corridors — spot zoning coul d
be used to address . Having lived in high density environments, issues of sunligh t
are important . The degree of sunlight/view protection next to public plac e
should be scaled to the size of the public space . Beyond second story, pedestria n
will not really notice height differences . Relax height limit .
Questions how infill projects on small lots would be able to accommodate
pedestrian walkways. No one has mentioned apartments — is it possible to d o
two or three levels of apartments and then townhouses above that? Hasn't see n
any projects proposing apartments .
Cost of building apartments is horrendous which is the reason we aren't seein g
them developed. Parking, retail uses, etc . — it is difficult to make it wor k
financially . Should never be talking about stories, talk about height limit in feet .
Can get variety of stories within feet limit .
By consensus, the ARC provided the following direction and feedback to staff:
1.The ARC supports increasing the base height limit for new buildings downtow n
to between 55 and 60 feet .
2.The ARC supports increasing the Floor Area Ratio limit to 3 .75,with limiting
factors . The maximum FAR should be limited to maintain appropriate buildin g
height to street width ratios, to maintain consistency with the context of the site ,
and to maintain an appropriate relationship to adjacent buildings .
3.The ARC supports the following revised definition for Floor Area Ratio :
The floor area of a building or buildings on a lot divided by the lot area . I n
calculating FAR, floor area shall mean the conditioned floor area of th e
building(s) (as defined by Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations),
excluding parking garages and basements, provided the finish floor elevation o f
the first floor is less than 30"above sidewalk grade ."
4.The ARC provided direction to staff to consider the current definition of buildin g
height as it applies downtown, and consider its effect on sloped sites .
Attachment 1 3
Page 5
5 . The ARC supports a use permit process for buildings above the base height .A
tall building use permit process should be used to encourage design amenities an d
features in tall buildings, such as :
The project is designed to exceed Title 24 requirements by a minimum of 5 %
and meets the solar access standards provided in Table 2 of the Conservatio n
and Open Space Element
The project provides for an adaptive reuse of a historical resource in a manne r
consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitatio n
The project provides a public viewing deck or similar feature to provid e
public access to views of surrounding natural features such as Cerro San Lui s
Minimum residential component of 18-units per acre
Inclusionary housing requirement is met on-site
Project provides public plaza, with seating and public ar t
Project provides major pedestrian connection between Higuera Street and th e
Creekwalk, Monterey Street and the Creekwalk, or between Higuera Stree t
and Marsh Street at a mid-block locatio n
Project plans are certified to meet Silver LEED or equivalen t
Project meets the City's definition of "affordable by design "
The project involves a public/private partnership with the purpose o f
providing affordable housin g
6.The ARC supports view protection from public spaces, and recommended that th e
City pursue a study of important views downtown that should be protected .
7.The ARC established a sub-committee made up of Chairman Michael Boudreau ,
Jim Lopes and Anthony Palazzo to work with staff on an update to th e
Community Design Guidelines to include guidelines on architectural transition s
between existing and new development .
Attachment : ARC Agenda Report, 10-02-2006
Attachment 1 3
community Ocvelopmcnt Ocpantmcnt
memonanaum
December 28, 2006
To :Ken Hampian, CA O
From :John Mandeville, Community Development Directo r
By :Michael Codron, Associate Planne r
Subject :Downtown Height and Intensity Limits : Planning Commission Revie w
On December 13, 2006, the Planning Commission held their first public hearing t o
review staff recommendations regarding downtown building height and intensit y
limits . The meeting was well attended and testimony was provided from 10 member s
of the public. Public comments were varied and insightful and are summarize d
below .
The Planning Commission focused their discussion on the recommended Genera l
Plan amendments, which are proposed to clarify existing policies and t o
accommodate a moderate increase in building height and intensity limits, as directe d
by the City Council. The Planning Commission also discussed the propose d
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project .
The meeting was attended by five Commissioners (Chair Miller, Vice-Chai r
Christianson, Ashbaugh, McCoy and Stevenson). After the first of the year, two ne w
Commissioners will be seated . The Commission discussed the project for over tw o
hours and voted unanimously to continue the public hearing to January 10, 2007 .
Members of the public gave the following comments :
Speaker noted that builders know what the existing rules are and have purchase d
property based upon that understanding of the site's potential . Allowing taller
buildings allows a windfall to current owners . This would be fine IF the Cit y
received some benefit as a result . However, the taller height will result in a
negative impact to the downtown . Workforce housing will not happen . Only
costlier housing will be built . Chinatown is only proposing 3 .3 affordable unit s
and 49 market rate units . Muzios upstairs residences have been vacated . Thes e
units were true workforce housing units and will be replaced with the
development of higher end housing . The City will not be getting what they want .
Speaker noted that he has studied downtown retail areas worldwide and felt the
main concerns should not be views but sunlight and the unique downtow n
shopping experience as opposed to the suburban shopping mall . All successfu l
downtowns have several key ingredients . The main purpose for a downtown is
for good retail . It is a tourist draw too — they would rather shop downtown tha n
shop in a generic center outside of town . Access to sunlight is also a ke y
ingredient — important to maintain so keep that in mind when making decisions .
Attachment 1 3
Page 2
Views are important for public open plazas but not for sidewalk views . You
want pedestrians to focus on the street wall next to them . Key ingredients =
intensity and continuity of retail development .
Speaker generally supports increased building height downtown . He believes the
proposal is too timid . Allow heights to increase to the same as the Anderso n
hotel or the Anderson hotel plus one floor . Flexibility allows many scenarios .
Housing — put mechanisms in place to ensure affordable housing is implemented .
Don't look at density as evil . There is a public benefit of retail and foot traffic i s
needed . There needs to be lots of residential units in proximity to the retail core .
More density is required today to support enough foot traffic and to support mas s
transit.
Speaker generally supports this proposal . He believes it to be a moderat e
proposal . If FAR defmition excludes conditioned floor area, the City should b e
aware that this also excludes all mechanical areas that are unconditioned (whic h
can be up to 15% of a mid-rise building). Views and trees are not as importan t
when weighing priorities . Not appropriate to value trees over buildings and als o
need to preserve views of some of our very special buildings and their associate d
detailed architecture . Maximum density currently allowed downtown is 3 6
du/acre, but this needs to be increased if we want housing downtown . In Santa
Barbara and southern California, there are wonderful projects that have 10 8
du/acre in the downtown area . He fully supports the use of TDCs — especiall y
where it protects historic resources .
Speaker felt it is useful to be able to have this discussion and go through th e
evaluation process at the same time that several projects are being considered s o
that it is possible to see how the ideas might be implemented . Often we attemp t
to create regulations in a vacuum but this process has helped to define their
project . She recommends support of the changes . They are proposing som e
affordable by design units as well as deed-restricted affordable units as part o f
Garden Street Terraces .
Speaker said that when it costs anywhere from $300-$400 per sq . ft . to buil d
downtown, you may see infill on vacant parcels, but probably not a lot o f
buildings being torn down and rebuilt due to cost . Trees and canopies shad e
sidewalks more than buildings do . He questioned whether residences wer e
included as part of FAR . FAR of 3 .75 is too restrictive . Atriums and othe r
architectural details/features can make or break a design and shouldn't coun t
towards FAR.
Speaker said that workforce housing has a greater possibility of bein g
constructed if the density limits are raised . He also represents the local chapte r
of the AIA and worked with the Chamber of Commerce in developing a heigh t
recommendation and they support the proposed language changes .
Speaker said that the way to preserve views is to put development in th e
downtown area rather than expanding outward into the hills . Affordability is a
Attachment 1 3
Page 3
challenge . There are a variety of streets downtown . Sidestreets are narrower an d
may not accommodate taller buildings as well as wider streets . Don't make
canyons . "Landmark" — these feature buildings are important in a downtown bu t
are not just the taller buildings .
Speaker expressed support for staff recommendation . The list of amenities unde r
LUE 4 .16 .4 could be modified — the item that talks about providing pedestria n
connections between various streets should allow other areas for pedestria n
connections rather than limiting where these might happen .
Speaker voiced concerns with work-force housing, parking problems and th e
need for diversity in housing . Be careful that gentrification of old building s
doesn't eliminate diversity . Diversity is what makes our downtown unique .
The Planning Commission provided the following comments :
Commr . Ashbaugh had concerns with current and future projects meeting th e
City's housing needs, expressed the importance that views not be sacrificed, an d
noted he was considering a no-project option .
Commr. Christianson asked about the height and number of stories of particula r
current buildings downtown so that she and the public had some perspective . Sh e
noted that she would not support Commr . Ashbaugh's idea of a no-project option .
She noted that work-force housing represents all types of workers, not just low -
income ; noted that the need to preserve open space is a priority that reflects th e
need for added retail and increased density downtown, and although the proposal s
are timid, she voiced support for them, noting there should be basic, soli d
guidelines with case-by-case evaluations .
Commr . Stevenson noted appreciation for the public comment and would like t o
see further review. He had general concern on the Mitigated Negativ e
Declaration, and noted there is a need for a visual impact analysis and new desig n
guidelines . He noted that he would like to see affordable by design housing .
Commr. McCoy expressed concern about continuing discussion if th e
Commission was not in majority . It was noted that all comments made by th e
Commission will go to the City Council .
Commr . Miller agreed that the Commission should go through the five points an d
environmental review instead of making general comments, and the need fo r
sunlight in the downtown, meeting areas, keeping density downtown therefor e
eliminating sprawl . She was excited by the mixed use concept with retail, offic e
and housing and felt that staff gave a great presentation .
The Planning Commission went on to discuss each proposed amendment and wil l
continue to do so at the January 10, 2007, meeting . Staff will report the results of th e
Commission's deliberations after the meeting . The Commission's agenda report i s
attached .
Attachment 1 3
community Ocvelopment Ocpantmcnt
memonaneum
January 16, 200 7
To :Ken Hampian, CAO
From :John Mandeville, Community Development Directo r
By :Michael Codron, Associate Planne r
Subject :Downtown Height and Intensity Limits : Planning Commission Revie w
On January 10, 2007, the Planning Commission held their second public hearing t o
review staff recommendations regarding downtown building height and intensit y
limits . Chairwoman Miller called for additional public testimony at the beginning o f
the meeting and three additional people spoke . After public testimony, th e
Commission continued working through the proposed General Plan amendments one-
by-one before discussing the project's environmental review .
After discussion of each of the proposed amendments, the Commission voted 6-1
Ashbaugh) to approve a recommendation to the City Council to approve General
Plan amendments that would provide for a moderate increase to downtown buildin g
heights and intensity limits . The Commission also recommended approval of a
mitigated negative declaration for the project .
The resolution approved by the Planning Commission with the proposed text of th e
amendments is attached, as is the brief agenda report submitted to the Commissio n
for the meeting .
The Planning Commission's recommendation will be considered by the City Counci l
during their regular meeting scheduled for February 6, 2007 .
Attachment 1 y
VIEWPOINT r ;10 ,10-1-o
How tall should taller buildings be :
No answers yet ,
but you are welcome
to participate in
the discussion
By KEN HAMPIAN
AND JOHN MANDEVILL E
Downtown San Luis Obispo
is changing—as it always
has. But the pace of physical
change has accelerated re-
cently, mostlybecause of th e
remodeling of existing build-
ings . Much of this remodelin g
has been sparked by th e
deadline for property owner s
to strengthen their unrein-
forced masonry buildings .
Some of the construction i s
new. Other "projects" are no t
really projects, but still only
ideas that have, nevertheless ,
generated attention and head -
lines .
Most cities must create re-
development agencies to en -
courage this kind of interes t
and investment in their down-
towns. San Luis Obispo does-
n't have one . Instead, our
downtown's success has been
driven primarily by private In -
vestment on the part of prop-
erty owners. Their investment
in downtown has been shape d
and supported by the vision
and "TLC" of successive cit y
councils and the community
itself.
This kind of energy sparks
change, which in turn gener-
ates different reactions. When
change involves something
we cherish, like pur down -
town, reactions usually in-
clude some anxiety and a pro-
tective instinct This is a goo d
thing . Change needs to b e
thoughtfully and carefully
managed .
The city, with the help of
several advisory bodies an d
interested citizens, is going
through a thoughtful and
careful review of possible
changes to our downtow n
building height limits . This is
being done, in part, because
of another vision and goal —
that more housing is built in
the downtown. This review
has ?enerated some fear an d
speculation, too .
Here is the short story,
along with directions to th e
longer story and how citizens
can participate in the process .
First, the city is not consid :
ering new rules that would al-
low the entire downtown to
go "sky high" In addition t o
many buildings being unsuit-
able for added height, the pol-
icy considerations on the
table are far more discrete .
But they could lead to som e
change.
The city's General Plan
TRIBUNE PHOTO BY JAYSON MELLO M
San Luis Obispo, with the help of several advisory bodies an d
Interested citizens, Is going through a careful review o f
possible changes to downtown building height limits .
says that there may be a few
taller landmark" buildings
downtown, up to five storie s
or 75 feet tall . The zoning reg-
ulations that implement th e
General Plan, however, estab -
lish a maximum buildin g
height of 50 feet for all new
buildings. These differing
standards have created ambi-
guity and have been difficul t
to apply to proposals brough t
forward by property owners .
The city policy that requires
housing to be included in new
downtown development is a
more recent goal that has cre-
ated pressure for some taller
buildings, too . The housing
goal is a worthy one. In addi-
tiomto increasing San Lui s
Obispo's total housing supply,
most respected urban plan-
ners agree that housing is
very important to a vibrant
downtown . On the other hand,
no one wants to "go taller ^
without restraint What to do ?
Last March the council held
a study session to discuss ou r
goals for the downtown an d
how the goals relate to our
building height policies . Afte r
much public testimony, th e
council directed staff to evalu-
ate alternatives for clearing u p
the policy ambiguity, and in -
light of city housing and othe r
goals, to also bring back alter-
natives "for moderately in -
creasing the downtown build-
ing height and intensity lim-
its" beyond the current 50-foot
height limi t
Working through several
citizen advisory bodies — th e
Cultural Heritage Committee,
the Architectural Review
Commission, the Plannin g
Commission and the Down -
town Association — the pla n
is to return to council with
broad policy recommenda-
tions in early 2007, with more
detailed rules to follow . Given
strong community interest in
this topic, staff is making ex
tra efforts to let folks know
how to stay informed and par-
ticipate in this process-Here
are some of the things we are
doing.
Citizens can get a lot o f
information on our Web site ,
including past reports ("the
longer story "), meeting min-
utes, and upcoming hearings
and related reports at
http://www.slocityorg/com
munitydevelopment/dow n
town .
We have created a large
e-mail group to notify citizens
of upcoming meetings,pro-
vide status reports on past
meetings, address "rumors"
and answer questions . Tri-
bune readers who wish to b e
added to this group should e-
mail their interest to
mcodron@slocity .org.
All meetings on this topic
will be appropriately notice d
in the newspapeg including
through larger display ads ,
and our Downtown Associa-
tion will help in getting the
word out to downtown busi-
nesses.
The next hearing in the se-
ries is scheduled before th e
Architectural Review Com-
mission on Monday. Th e
meeting starts at 5 p.m. and is
located in the Council Hear-
ing Room (Room 9) at City
Hall, 990 Palm St
In reconciling policy issue s
and differing goals, the City
Council always has the tough-
est job—making the final de-
cisions. The City Council's
work is made easier, however,
though the input of intereste d
and informed citizens . We
hope this article has provided
helpful information about th e
issue and how to be involved .
Ken Hampian is city admin-
istrator of San Lids Obispo .
John Mandeville is the city's
community development
director.
Attachment 1 5
San Luis Obispo Downtown Associatio n
POSITION ON DOWNTOWN BUILDING HEIGH T
The Downtown Association Design Committee, Economic Activity Committee and Boar d
of Directors have discussed the matter of project development impacts including buildin g
heights over the past year as several large scale projects have come forward either i n
reality such as Mar Pomo or conceptually such as Chinatown or Garden Street Terrace .
In understanding why building heights—and their limitations or variances—are importanttoDowntown, one has to consider that for decades, downtowns have typically served a s
the commercial business districts of their communities and as such,have a need for th e
types of buildings that accommodate commercial, office, residential, service andprofessionaluses . If one were to recall days gone by, taller buildings than currently exis t
were not uncommon along the main streets where commercial, office and residential
might all be housed in one structure . That is not to say that Downtown should be
blanketed with tall structures, but that the City should be flexible in allowing projects that
best develop a space (infill) without damaging the character or historic significance of th e
surrounding area . Main Street revitalization movements encourage growth in downtown s
as a way to slow the advance of sprawl, as a way to re-use historic structures and to
transform old commercial districts into vital, safe,diverse places . As such, planning rules
and regulations, including those addressing building heights, need to allow for the types
of development that can both accommodate these principles and pencil out .
The Downtown Association looks at issues like proposed changes to existing building heigh t
limitations in light of how their potential impacts on the built environment affect members of th e
Downtown business community . The accommodation of taller, more intensive developmen t
Downtown offers the promise of more shoppers, more eyes on the street, and more urban life . I t
also raises concerns of damage to the light, views, and human scale that make the downtown
attractive to shoppers and visitors .
Generally, the Board feels that development proposals that exceed current height limitations havetobereviewedonacase-by-case basis, because the impacts of taller buildings are inherentl y
localized . Four story, five story, or even larger buildings can be accommodated but they should
be subject to the normal City review process . Ultimately, Downtown business owners want t o
know that permanent changes to the fabric of the Downtown will have a net positive effect at thesidewalk.
In addition to the aspects of building height that have been addressed by Communit y
Development staff, the CHC and the ARC, the Board recommends consideration of :
1.Light reflectance . Tall surfaces on the northeast side of the street can have the positiveeffectofreflectinglatesunintocoldspaces . Highly reflective tall surfaces can also negativel y
impact neighboring structures and spaces .
2.Wind effects . Tall surfaces need to be configured and placed so as to avoid venturi effects a t
the pedestrian level .
3.Material quality . Because taller surfaces can be more visually prominent the richness of theirsurfacescanhavealargerimpact . Material quality can be one of the available amenity trade -
offs for allowing increased height .
Regarding the content of the City Council's direction to Community Development staff, theBoardoffersthesethoughts :
Attachment 1 5
Floor Area Ratio .Removing basements and parking garages from the FAR calculation isreasonable. Exceeding the current FAR limit of 3 .0 should be allowed if justified by the meritsoftheproposedproject .
Landmark Proiects .The "landmark" concept is difficult to support, because it implies importance ,
and could be unwieldy in its subjectivity . Every project should be judged case-by-case, on its ow n
quality and merits, and building developers should be allowed to make an argument for the heighttheythinkisjustifiedonagivensite .
Clarification of General Plan Policies .Full consistency of affected General Plan goals and policiesmaynotbepossiblebecausethereareinherentconflictsbetweentheconceptsofcompacturbanformandviewprotection . The discussion should be directed toward the application of bestpracticesandreasonablecompromises . The measure should be the net quality of the publicexperience.
Transitions Between Buildinqs :Transitions between neighboring structures should not involv e
visible, blank property-line walls above the roofs of smaller buildings . Treatments like recessedlightshafts, artful material changes, or permanent murals should be encouraged for thesesurfaces.
As John Mandeville notes in his August 1 memo to the Council, there may not actually beverymanycandidatesforincreasedheightinthedowntown . However, the Downtown Associatio n
encourages the evolution of General Plan and Zoning Ordinance language in a way that allowstheDowntowntoaccommodateagrowingpopulationandcompeteforitsretailbase, usingqualityastheyardstickforacceptableintensification .
Attachment 1 6
Chamber makes the case for 60' height limi t
The Chamber's newly formed Downtown Height Limit Task Force is developin g
strong arguments for why the current 50 foot limit downtown doesn't work with
today's aesthetic, historical, energy, structural, and environmental requirements .
Increasing the allowable building height would solve several critical problems involve d
with high quality downtown development--
If new structures are to complement the existing historical buildings they must hav e
first floor ceiling heights consistent with quality older buildings . That puts th e
second floor at about the 20 foot level .
Modem retailers want expansive and exciting sales areas, and that means larg e
volumes and 16-18 foot ceiling heights on the first floor .
On upper floors, upscale office and residential users aren't satisfied today with th e
old standard of 8 foot ceiling heights . Nine to ten foot ceiling heights are becoming a
minimum standard .
Energy saving natural ventilation and natural daylight is more feasible with highe r
ceilings, taller windows, and transom windows .
Modem structural, ventilation and communications needs puts more and mor e
essential duct work, conduits, and structural beams between ceilings and the floor s
above, consuming about 2 feet of height per floor .
0
Attachment 1'e
SLO Chamber of Commerce, Page 2
The task force's proposal that included the height increase was approved by th e
Chamber Board last month and is gaining fraction at city hall . The concept of increasin g
the limit from the current 50 feet to between 55 and 60 feet has been embraced by bot h
the Cultural Heritage Commission and the Architectural Review Commission .
60' Total w/ parapet
Architectura l
appurtenance s
75' ma x
Attachment 1 6
11' roo f
9' ceilin g
13'floor
10 'ceiling
Progressively recess
upper levels to help i n
reduction of mass an d
providing for a mor e
open feeling at street
level .
13 'floo r
10' ceilin g
20'floor
16'ceiling
Tall windows at the street level ar e
traditional in the historic core . The
lower portion allows for the clea r
viewing of the merchandise while th e
upper transoms allow for natura l
ventilation . The tall windows als o
allow for natural light to penetrat e
deeper into a building . Ventilatio n
and natural light are 2 strong points
in making new buildings more use r
friendly.
HEIGHT LIMIT ILLUSTRATIO N
Modern buildings require larger interstitia l
spaces between the ceiling and floors tha n
our historical buildings did ; larger structura l
members, water, sewer, communications ,
fire suppression and especially mechanica l
systems are housed in these spaces .
l-/20
Attachment 1 7
Council Resolution No . (2007 Series )
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUI S
OBIPSP APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS REGARDIN G
DOWNTOWN BUILDING HEIGHT AND INTENSITY LIMITS AND A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROJEC T
GPAIER 50-0 6
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearin g
on February 6, 2007, in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo ,
California, considering Planning Application GPA/ER 50-06, a project to amend certain Genera l
Plan Land Use Element policies regarding downtown building height and intensity limits ; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted publi c
hearings on December 13, 2006, and January 10, 2007, for the purpose of formulating and
forwarding recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding th e
proposed General Plan amendments ; an d
WHEREAS, the City Council initiated the project during a March 14, 2006, study sessio n
and directed staff to :
1)Revise the City's floor area ratio (FAR) definition to exclude basements an d
parking .
2)Confirm policy inconsistencies among General Plan policies and developmen t
standards for the downtown .
3)Bring back alternatives for moderately increasing the downtown buildin g
height and intensity limits, in order to achieve other General Plan goals an d
objectives, including design amenities, housing, and retail land uses .
4)Review alternatives and recommendations with the Cultural Heritag e
Committee, Architectural Review Commission, Planning Commission, an d
Downtown Association before returning to the Council ; an d
WHEREAS, the recommended General Plan amendments are based on input receive d
from the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) and the Architectural Review Commission (ARC),
including testimony received by the CHC and ARC during three public hearings on the propose d
project ; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the Initial Study and Mitigated Negativ e
Declaration of Environmental Impact (ER 50-06) for the project, and determined that th e
document adequately addresses the potential environmental effects of the proposed General Pla n
amendments ; an d
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimon y
of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented a t
said hearing .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Lui s
Obispo as follows :
A ttachment 1,7
City Council Resolution No . (2007 Series)
Page 2
Section 1 . Findings .Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the followin g
findings :
1.The proposed General Plan amendments will promote the public health, safety and welfar e
by ensuring that new tall buildings in the downtown core area provide features that ar e
necessary to achieve multiple policy objectives, including design amenities, housing and
retail land uses, while maintaining the downtown core area's sense of place .
2.The proposed General Plan amendments insure that development of tall buildings in th e
downtown core area will further General Plan goals that promote efficient use of urban lan d
and identify the downtown core area as the City's most intensely developed area, while als o
insuring that view protection is accomplished consistent with LUE Policy 4 .7 and COSE
Chapter 9 .0 .
3.The proposed General Plan amendments will provide for additional housing and economi c
development opportunities in the downtown core area, which furthers existing General Plan
policies and allows owners of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings, who are required to retrofit
their buildings, to potentially add additional building height and thereby generate additiona l
revenue to pay for retrofit projects .
4.The proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project adequately addresse s
environmental impacts in the areas of aesthetics, transportation, public services and utilitie s
and service systems and incorporates mitigation measures to insure that the impacts of th e
project are less than significant .
Section 2.Environmental Review .The City Council does hereby approve a Mitigate d
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for the project .
Section 3. Action .The City Council does hereby adopt the General Plan amendment s
included in Exhibit A .
On motion of seconded by and on
the following roll call vote :
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT :
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 6 `a day of February, 2007 .
Attachment 1 7
City Council Resolution No . (2007 Series )
Page 3
Mayor David F . Romero
ATTEST :
Audrey Hooper, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM :
a tJ?stf han Lowell, City Attorney
t
Attachment 1 7
Exhibit A
Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limit s
General Plan Amendment s
LU 4 .5 Walking Environmen t
Downtown should provide safe, exciting places for walking and pleasant places fo r
sitting . To invite exploration, mid-block walkways, courtyards, and interior malls shoul d
be integrated with new and remodeled buildings, while preserving continuous buildin g
faces on most blocks . Downtown streets should provide adequate space for pedestrians .
There should be a nearly continuous tree canopy along sidewalks, and planters shoul d
provide additional foliage and flowers near public gathering areas . To maintain th e
downtown's appeal for pedestrians, new buildings should not obstruct sunlight fro m
reaching sidewalks on the northwest side of Marsh Street, Higuera Street and Montere y
Street at noon on the winter solstice .
LU 4 .13 : New Buildings and View s
New downtown development nearby publicly-owned gathering places such as Missio n
Plaza, the Jack House Gardens, LC YC Cheng Park, and similar gathering spaces shal l
respect views of the hills, framing rather than obscuring them . Adjacent buildings shal l
be designed to allow sunlight to reach these open spaces, and when planting new trees th e
potential canopy shall be considered subordinate to maintaining views of hillsides . In
other locations downtown, views will be provided parallel to the street right-of-way, a t
intersections where building separation naturally makes more views available, and a t
upper-level viewing decks .
LU 4 .16 .4 : Building Height
New buildings shall fit within the context and vertical scale of existing development ,
shall not obstruct views from, or sunlight to, publicly-owned gathering places such as
Mission Plaza, and should be set back above the second or third level to maintain a stree t
facade that is consistent with the historic pattern of development . Generally, new
buildings should not exceed 60 feet in height . Tall buildings (50-75 feet) shall b e
designed to achieve multiple policy objectives, including design amenities, housing an d
retail land uses, such as :
Publicly accessible, open viewing spaces at the upper level s
Housing affordability in excess of the Inclusionary Housing Requiremen t
Energy efficiency beyond State mandated requirement s
Adaptive reuse of a historical resource in a manner consistent with the Secretar y
of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitatio n
High residential density (e .g . above 24 units per acre) achieved by a concentratio n
of smaller dwelling unit s
Street level features such as a public plaza, public seating and/or public art
Attachment 1 7
Planning Commission Resolution No . XXXX-06 Exhibit A
Page 2
A major pedestrian connection between Higuera Street and the Creekwalk ,
Monterey Street and the Creekwalk, between Higuera Street and Marsh Street, o r
at another acceptable mid-block locatio n
Increased retail floor area, including multi-story retai l
Directly implements specific and identifiable City objectives, as set forth in th e
General Plan, the Conceptual Plan for the City's Center, the Downtown Strategi c
Plan and other key policy document s
Receiving Transfer of Development Credits for open space protection or histori c
preservatio n
LU 4 .18 : Commercial Buildings Outside the Cor e
In General Retail areas adjacent to the commercial core, the pattern of buildings i n
relation to the street should become more like the core, with shared driveways an d
parking lots, and no street or side-yard setbacks (except for recessed entries an d
courtyards). Buildings should not exceed 45 feet in height .
LU 3 .1 .6 : Building Intensity
The ratio of building floor area to site area (FAR) shall not exceed 3 .0 .Additional floor
area, up to a FAR of 3 .75,may be approved for projects in the downtown core . FAR may
be approved up to 4 .0 for sites in the downtown core that receive transfer of developmen t
credit for either open space protection or historic preservation, or that receive densit y
bonuses for affordable housing . The Zoning Regulations will establish maximu m
building height and lot coverage, and minimum setbacks from streets and other propert y
lines, as well as procedures for exceptions to such standards in special circumstances .
Architectural review will determine a project's realized building intensity, to reflec t
existing or desired architectural character in a neighborhood . When dwellings are
provided in General Retail districts, they shall not exceed 36 units per acre . So long a s
the floor area ratio is not exceeded, the maximum residential density may be developed in
addition to nonresidential development on a site .
Land Use Element Definitio n
Floor Area Ratio (FAR):The floor area of a building or buildings on a lot divided b y
the lot area . In calculating FAR, floor area shall mean the conditioned floor area (a s
defined by Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations) of the building, excludin g
parking garages and basements, provided the finish floor elevation of the first floor is les s
than 30"above sidewalk grade .
1/24/2007 /-/
02 S-
Attachment 1 7
Planning Commission Resolution No . XXXX-06 Exhibit A
Page 3
Land Use Element Program s
LU 4 .20 : Visual Resource Stud y
The City will undertake a study of visual resources within the downtown core area t o
identify potential locations for new public-owned open places with access to views o f
important scenic resources . The City will consider acquisition of one or more of these
open places as resources permit . A range of options for property acquisition, includin g
development agreements, will be considered, consistent with the City's fiscal policies an d
objectives .
LU 4 .21 : Community Design Guidelines Updat e
The Community Design Guidelines shall be updated to include guidelines for tal l
buildings within the downtown core area, with a particular focus on guidelines fo r
architectural transitions between new development and existing buildings within th e
Downtown Historic District .
LU 4.22 : Parking for Downtown Resident s
The City should revise the Access and Parking Management Plan (2002) to include a
downtown access program for residents in the downtown core area . The revision shoul d
evaluate various strategies and long-term parking solutions and include implementatio n
recommendations . Strategies and solutions that may be considered include, but are no t
limited to, components of Housing Element Programs 6 .3 .2, 6 .3 .3 and 6 .3 .4, in addition
to :
1.A fee based program to allow limited residential parking in downtown parkin g
structures owned and operated by the City .
2.Criteria for on-site parking (requirements and prohibitions) based on project size ,
project location, site access criteria, housing type, and feasible alternativ e
transportation options .
3.Determination if any downtown core streets should have driveway acces s
restricted .
4.Vehicle parking and storage areas located outside the downtown core area, suc h
as Park and Ride style lots, that can be used by downtown core residents .
5.The development of additional transit programs to increase options for downtow n
residents .
6.Credit towards parking requirements for projects that implement shared vehicl e
programs .
1/24/2007 c&