HomeMy WebLinkAbout208_20_18...zoneupdateTo:SLO City Council
Re:Item #17 - Update to the Zoning Regulations
From:Allan Cooper, Secretary Save Our Downtown
Date:August 20, 2018
Mayor Harmon and Council Members -
Save Our Downtown is urging you to continue consideration of these ordinance changes to a
future date. We are encouraging you to direct staff to conduct additional research on one or
more of the recommended ordinance components.
Per Save Our Downtown’s recommendations submitted to you over the past two years (see
below for a complete compilation of the letters we wrote both you and the Planning
Commission regarding this Update to the Zoning Regulations) this update could have
addressed the following Land Use Element Programs:
1.The approved work scope for the Zoning Regulation Update includes the following:
2.7.26 LUE Program 4.32 “Alcohol Use Permits” “The City shall incorporate into its
zoning regulations specic criteria for evaluating use permits for bars/taverns, night
clubs and late night drinking establishments.” However, not included in the Zoning
Regulations Update work scope is LUE 4.29 “Coordination of Late Night Environment”
which would enact additional regulations on Downtown drinking establishments, nor
was there any mention of the inclusion of a much-promised “Public Convenience and
Necessity" (PCN) policy which would give the City legally-defensible criteria for
permitting or not permitting alcohol outlets downtown.
This was not done.
2.The City is envisioning, but has not committed to, a Form-Based Code for the
downtown as a City-led process in conjunction with Cal Poly. The effort would be
informed by and follow the completion of the Downtown Concept Plan. In lieu of
developing and adopting a Form-Based Code, Save Our Downtown is recommending
that portions of our Community Design Guidelines be incorporated into the Zoning
Regulations similar to SLO County’s Design Guidelines.
This was not done.
3.From the input gathered throughout the Downtown Concept Plan outreach process,
the City’s consultant, Michael Baker International, has learned that the vast majority of
community members who have participated value the following things about our
downtown: “the small town feel and historic character” and meeting participants
broadly supported limitations on new building height.”Herein lies the rationale for
returning our downtown height limits to 50' through an update to our Zoning
Regulations.
This was not done.
4.Through Senate Bill 226, the State of California is supporting expedited
assessments of urban inll projects or “categorical inll development exceptions”
within existing neighborhoods because there is the mistaken belief that truncated
planning will bring down the cost of housing. We oppose circumventing the planning
process as a means to reduce the developer’s costs because there is no guarantee
that the developer will pass on these cost reductions to the public.An update to the
Zoning Regulations could address this pressing issue.
This was not done.
5.The Land Use & Circulation Element Update Citizen’s Task Force recommended
incorporating into the Zoning Regulations a Downtown Pedestrian Plan and a San Luis
Creek Masterplan. Save Our Downtown agreed with the Planning Commission that the
City should follow through on such LUCE Task Force program recommendations.
Again this was not done.
However, Save Our Downtown endorses the following key revisions:
1) Restructure the document to improve ease of use.
2) Simplify land use tables to consolidate similar uses (e.g., offices), reect modern land
use practices, and create exibility over time/
3) Create more objective standards for the review of multi-unit residential development and
mixed-use developments (in response to recent State law).
4) Create new development standards for the R-1 and R-2 zones to address neighborhood
compatibility concerns outlined in LUCE policies 2.12 and 2.13.
Edge Conditions regulations for higher intensive zones adjacent to lower density
zones
FAR limitations within the R-1 zone
5) Codify conditions routinely applied to specic uses (e.g., alcohol establishments, bed
and breakfast establishments).
6) Clarify provisions for mixed-use developments and require usable and purposeful
ground-oor commercial space for mixed-use developments.
7) Include specic regulations to address the City’s current Climate Action Plan (CAP), with
the understanding that the CAP is being updated and subsequent follow-up will likely be
required (and that many CAP programs are implemented through avenues other than the
Zoning Regulations).
8) Regulations for rooftop uses.
Save Our Downtown, on the other hand, does not endorse these key revisions:
1) Revise parking regulations for motor vehicles and bicycles to achieve the City’s 50%
mode shift objective and to provide more precise shared parking provisions
Parking requirements revised to reect ITE demand.
Consolidated parking reduction opportunities.
Our objection to across the board parking reductions is as follows: In an Uber and Lyft
study of nine major cities, Bruce Schaller (author of the inuential study “Unsustainable?”)
discovered that these new services “aren’t really causing people to drive less; they’re
pulling passengers who otherwise would walk, take the bus or just stay home." So the
argument that we will need less parking once we begin to rely more on Uber or
autonomous cars is a myth. This modal shift in transportation will actually increase,not
decrease, our traffic and parking demands. In fact, "the TNCs have caused a 94 million-
mile spurt in car driving in the city of Seattle” and they will ultimately make our urban core a
less desirable place to live if we do not accommodate this increase through more parking
facilities.
2) Respond to policy direction from the City Council at the April 10, 2018 study session
regarding:
Redene density calculations (upwards). Upzone housing in R-2, R-3 and R-4
neighborhoods.
The most compelling argument against doing this, if in fact increasing density is meant to
reduce the cost of housing, is to look at Seattle, WA. when its City leaders upzoned their
entire city back in 2006. In this case, increasing density will actually result in increasing
housing costs. In spite of rental housing increase of over 13.6% (accommodating 100,000
new renters) over this 12 year period, the average monthly rent for a 900 sq.ft. furnished
apartment increased from $1,366 to $2,164. With an increase in homeownership of 54,000
units over the same period, the median cost of a home increased from $501,000 to
730,000.
Find alcohol outlet regulations adequate.
A new LUE Policy states: “The City shall promote a healthy mix of downtown street-level
businesses that emphasizes retail stores, specialty shops and food service rather than
bars or taverns.” We currently do not have such a healthy mix. As a result of this the City
promised that staff and Council would look into implementing an over-concentration law.
Under "assessing and renewing Downtown”, staff included in its action plan the following:
Alcohol Concentration Evaluation and Adoption of Code Amendments." The completion
time for this was November of 2014. This was never done.
The Council was assured April 10th that crime was going down in San Luis Obispo.
Although there has been a decrease in alcohol-related crimes over the past year, there was
an increase over the past two years of alcohol offenses from 308 to 502, an increase in
sexual assaults over this same time period from 7 to 12 and an increase in aggravated
assaults from 10 to 17…all in our downtown core where most of our alcohol outlets are
concentrated! The City’s property crime rate was higher than the national property crime
rate average by 77.31%. In late September 2017, the FBI’s released its annual national
Uniform Crime Reporting database includes data on each of the county’s seven cities. In
2016 San Luis Obispo had the highest number of documented offenses, including 2,076
property crimes and 178 violent crimes.
Consolidate and streamline the development review process.
What can be said other than streamlining the review process by substituting administrative
approvals for review body approvals sties public input. Is this what we want?
Provision for tiny homes on wheels.
Our objection to extremely small living units incorporated into our backyards (whether they
be ADU’s or “tiny homes”) is that these units would most likely not be provided with
adequate parking. The parking impacts would spill over into all of our neighborhoods.
Moreover, we are not convinced that smaller units will necessarily be more affordable. A
case in point is The Academy located at 22 Chorro where two-bedroom units
accommodating four beds are currently renting at $1,350 to $1,450 per bed
3) Upper Monterey is proposed to be rezoned C-D to allow building heights up to 75 feet.
You should know that as of this writing change.org (see: https://www.change.org/p/save-
our-downtown-slo-under-threat/u/23153703) has 647 signatures supporting an initiative to
reduce building heights back down to 3 stories or 50 feet in our downtown core. Public
sentiment has overwhelmingly been opposed to these increased building heights.
Moreover, our objection to upzoning Monterey Street is that this decision is linked to Policy
No. 3.13 “Zoning Update for Visitor Services Uses, i.e., “The City shall review zoning
regulations to consider allowing visitor-service uses in office zones adjacent to
community commercial zones in the Downtown and adjacent to Monterey Street between
Johnson and Santa Rosa.” There is no correlation between Policy no. 3.13 and upzoning
Monterey Street to C-D. Because the LUCE EIR did not address the potential impacts
associated with the possible level of housing production associated with this policy
change, you should determine that more in-depth policy and CEQA investigation is required
before any action can occur. Staff should implement this direction as part of a subsequent
amendment once appropriate CEQA review has been completed. Moreover, the recently
adopted Downtown Concept Plan does not recommend buildings in excess of 4 stories for
blocks 15, 23, 35, 16, 24, 17 or 25.
Since January 10, 2018 I, on behalf of Save Our Downtown, have written 22 somewhat lengthy
critiques of the proposed changes to our zoning reg’s. I respect and know several of the Planning
Commissioners but to the best of my knowledge only one or two of our legitimate concerns have
been memorialized in the form of amendments, additions or edits to the zoning reg’s. Staff will tell
you that there has been a lengthy review of these changes involving study sessions at the end of
each Planning Commission meeting. But who in the public would have had the stamina to sit
through every PC meeting simply to contribute to these discussions? It was only in late October of
last year that zoning reg discussion topics were posted in each staff report. Before then, the public
had no knowledge of what was going to be discussed. Finally, the PC’s nal review and your nal
review of this update should not have been scheduled during the summer months. As a matter of
public record I feel, therefore, that it is incumbent on me to copy you below all of our
communications with the City regarding this monumentally important topic. Thank you!
The Following Comments Are Pertaining to the 2017 Stakeholder Meetings
February 26, 2017
March 10, 2017
The Following Comments Are Pertaining to These Planning Commission Meetings:
January 10, 2018
January 24, 2018
February 28, 2018
March 28, 2018
April 11, 2018
April 25, 2018
May 9, 2018
June 13, 2018
June 14, 2018
June 27, 2018
July 11, 2018
and To These City Council Meetings:
September 2, 2016
March 14 , 2017
April 9, 2017
October 17, 2017
April 10, 2018
August 14, 2018
August 15, 2018
August 16, 2018
August 17, 2018
To:SLO City Council
Re:Review Scope of Work for 2016 Zoning Regulations Update
From:Allan Cooper, Secretary Save Our Downtown
Date:September 2, 2016
Honorable Mayor and Council Members -
On behalf of Save Our Downtown, James Lopes has already submitted to you a letter
recommending additional LUE Implementation Subtasks. These additional LUE Implementation
Subtasks include, and I’m paraphrasing: 1) more diligent interpretation of the zoning
regulations by staff and 2) incorporation of the Community Design Guidelines into the
Zoning Ordinance.
More diligent interpretation of the zoning regulations by staff
A more diligent interpretation of the zoning regulations by staff” could be achieved, for example, if
Subsection h., “Other Policy Objectives” (see below), under 17.42.020 “Property Development
Standards” were a requirement for all Downtown-Commercial Zone projects rather than being used
as one of the two optionally required policy objectives for buildings exceeding 50 feet in height.
Subsection h: “The project directly implements specic and identiable City objectives as set
forth in the General Plan, the Conceptual Plan for the City’s Center, the Downtown Strategic
Plan or other key policy document, to the approval of the Planning Commission. (Sub-section h.
may be used to meet requirements for one policy objective)”
Moreover, where the following is stated under “Intent”, again under 17.42.020 Property
Development Standards…
Regardless of the number of objectives proposed (for buildings taller than 50 feet), the decision
making body must determine that the overall project is consistent with the General Plan,
including goals and policies for view preservation, historical resource preservation, solar
access and architectural character.”
it is often the case that staff will ignore this caveat where it can be argued that “the public benets
associated with the project signicantly outweigh any detrimental impacts from the additional
height.” Sadly, these “detrimental impacts” frequently include the loss of “view preservation,
historical resource preservation, solar access and architectural character” and we (and hopefully
you) do not nd this acceptable.
Therefore, we are recommending that the paragraph under “Intent” be reworded to substitute the
word “shall” for “must”.
Incorporation of the Community Design Guidelines into the Zoning Ordinance
Prior to the possible development of a form-based code for the downtown core, we are
recommending that the Community Design Guidelines be codied in such manner that they can be
included in the Zoning Ordinance. Again, like the Conceptual Plan for the City’s Center, the
subsections under the Community Design Guidelines are frequently “cherry picked” or dismissed by
staff because they come under the rubric of “guidelines”.
My contribution on behalf of Save Our Downtown is as follows: I am recommending to you, as I did
to the Planning Commission, inclusion of the following staff-omitted LUE Implementation Subtasks:
1) the omitted LUE Implementation Subtask 4.29 “Coordination of Late Night Environment” which
would enact additional regulations to ensure that the late night environment in and near Downtown
is safe and pleasant; 2) expand the scope of LUE Implementation Subtask 4.32 “Alcohol Use
Permits” to include a work program implementing an alcohol outlet "Public Convenience and
Necessity" (PCN) policy as well as a reexamination of Ordinance No. 1578; 3) the omitted LUE
Implementation Subtask 9.10 “Urban Forest” which would address the need for an update to the
master tree plan as well as a reexamination of Ordinance No. 1544; and 4) the omitted LUE
Implementation Subtask 2.14 “Neighborhood Wellness Action Plans” that would help devise
strategies to stabilize the rental/owner ratio, to maintain neighborhood character, safety, and
stability.The latter Subtask is important to us as we consider our Downtown to be a "neighborhood"
as well.
We would like to note that in “Attachment 2” there is a list of “stakeholders”, including mention of
Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN) but no mention of Save Our Downtown. We are
requesting that Save Our Downtown (SOD) also be included in this list.
Finally, we realize that there are many other worthy LUE Programs which cannot be incorporated
into revisions to the Zoning Regulations. However, Save Our Downtown is concerned that these
programs not “fall through the cracks”. Save Our Downtown would like to place particular emphasis
on 4.26. Visual Resource Study, 4.30. Master Plan for San Luis Obispo Creek, 4.31. Inventory of
Downtown Uses, 4.33. Modify Community Design Guidelines to Address Safety and Crime
Prevention, 4.34. Emergency Callboxes in Downtown, and 4.35. Enhanced Lighting in Downtown.
In conclusion, please add LUE 4.29, LUE 9.10, LUE 2.14 to your list of priority tasks, revisit
Ordinance Numbers 1578 and 1544 and expand the scope of LUE 4.32 to include a "Public
Convenience and Necessity" (PCN) policy. See below for a more detailed explanation of our
requests and thank you for your time and consideration!
Allan Cooper, Secretary Save Our Downtown
Include LUE Implementation Subtask 4.29 “Coordination of Late Night Environment”
What is missing in this proposed “Scope of Work” is LUE Program 4.29 “Coordination on Late Night
Environment”. “The City shall work with the Downtown businesses and residents, the BID, and
Chamber of Commerce to manage impacts from downtown drinking establishments, and if
necessary, enact additional regulations to ensure that the late night environment in and near
Downtown is safe and pleasant.”
Has staff already determined that “additional regulations” will not be necessary even though there
has been no such coordination among all the parties mentioned regarding managing impacts from
the downtown drinking establishments?
More specically, Save Our Downtown is urging you to revisit Ordinance No. 1578 & 17.11.040:
alcohol outlet public safety strategies and deemed approved alcoholic beverage sale
regulations”…
Ordinance 1578 states that “upon receiving a complaint from the public, or the Police Department…
of repeated nuisance activities within the premises or in close proximity of the premises…then a
public hearing will be scheduled before the Administrative Hearing Ofcer”.
To the best of our knowledge, such an administrative hearing has never taken place. This in spite of
the fact that there have been frequent noise complaints for the following establishments: Marston’s
Bar & Grill, Black Sheep Bar & Grill, McCarthy’s Irish Pub and SLO Brew. This in spite of the fact
that sexual assaults (44 this last year) and simple assaults (148 this year) have risen dramatically
over the past 3 years and this in spite of the fact that San Luis Obispo falls in the lowest decile of
safe cities in America .
Expand the Scope of LUE Implementation Subtask 4.32 “Alcohol Use Permits”
In your review of the “Scope of Work” you will see the following: 2.7.14 LUE Program 4.32 “Alcohol
Use Permits”. Staff time devoted to this topic is proposed to be a mere 12 hours and the costs of
undertaking this task will be $1,400.
1) The City promised that staff would develop a "Public Convenience and Necessity" (PCN) policy.
This never happened.
2) The City promised that staff and Council would look into implementing an over-concentration law.
Under "assessing and renewing Downtown, staff included in its action plan the following: "Alcohol
Concentration Evaluation and Adoption of Code Amendments." The completion time for this was
November of 2014. This never happened.
3) The City promised that the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update Committee would
address the long range management of alcohol outlets in the Downtown. This never happened.
So what we need now more than ever is a "Public Convenience and Necessity" (PCN) policy that
can be followed when evaluating on-premises alcohol sales establishments proposed to be located
in our over-concentrated Downtown Core. We could use the City of Montebello, CA as our model
which we’ve included for your information below. With this in mind, we are urging you to expand the
scope of 2.7.14 LUE Program 4.32 “Alcohol Use Permits” and to include back in LUE Program 4.29
Coordination on Late Night Environment”.
Finding Of “Public Convenience Or Necessity”
Local jurisdictions can participate in ABC’s licensing process when a geographic area has a high
rate of crime and an over concentration of alcohol outlets. When a new outlet is proposed in such
an area, the applicant must obtain a formal nding of Public Convenience or Necessity. Without this
nding, ABC will not grant a new license. Both high crime and over concentration are clearly dened
by ABC. PCN, however, is ambiguously dened which leaves it up to each municipality to dene for
itself. It is important that individual cities or counties make this denition clear and consistent. The
criteria for a nding of Public Convenience or Necessity should be clear to the decision makers,
community and the applicant and uniformly applied.
Montebello, CA
That the proposed conditional use:
A. Would not adversely affect the general welfare of the surrounding property owners;
B. Would not result in an undesirable concentration of premises for the sale of alcoholic
beverages, including beer and wine, in the area;
C. Would not detrimentally affect the nearby surrounding area after giving special consideration
to the proximity and nature of the proposed use with respect to other on-sale or off-sale
alcoholic beverage establishments, residential districts and uses, schools (public or private), day
care centers, public parks, playgrounds and other recreational facilities, churches and other
places of religious worship, hospitals, clinics or other health care facilities;
D. Would not aggravate existing problems created by the sale of alcohol (e.g. littering, loitering,
noise, public drunkenness, calls for service, and sales to minors);
E. Is in conformance with the goals, policies, and objectives of the general plan and the purpose
and intent of this code and any applicable specic plan; and
F. Serves the public convenience or necessity, based upon the factors outlined in Section
17.61.060 herein. This nding shall apply only to conditional use permit applications for bars,
off-sale alcoholic beverage establishments, and any other applications that the State
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control determines are located in an area of undue
concentration as dened by state law (California Business and Professions Code Section
23958.4.)
Section 17.61.060: Conditional use permit—Factors regarding public convenience or necessity. In
deciding whether to issue the conditional use permit, the planning commission, or the city council
on appeal, shall consider whether the public convenience or necessity is being served and make
the necessary ndings, as required in Section 17.61.050. A determination of whether public
convenience or necessity is being served shall be based upon review and consideration of relevant
factors, which shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
A. Whether the proposed use will result in a net employment gain in the city (especially of local
residents);
B. Whether the proposed use will result in a substantial increase in business taxes;
C. Whether the proposed establishment is a unique business addition to the community;
D. Whether the proposed use will contribute to the long-term economic development goals of
the community;
E. Whether the aesthetic character and ambiance of the proposed use will result in an overall
positive upgrade in the area and community;
F. The viability of the business to operate protably without alcohol sales.
LUE Implementation Subtask 9.10 “Urban Forest”
9.10. ‘Urban Forest’ would address the need for an update to the master tree plan and develop
recommendations to renew and maintain the urban forest and plant more trees.
Particular attention should be given to Ordinance No. 1544 (2010 Series). Because of recent
questions raised regarding the proposed clear cut of 48 old growth trees at 71 Palomar, we have
uncovered the need for more clarity on the protocols regarding evaluation of trees and evaluation of
cultural landscapes”. These protocols could address the following policies:
1.The City Arborist’s unilateral decision-making ability. Does he unnecessarily diminish the role of
the Tree Committee?
2.The Tree Committee’s right to initiate a discussion on any issue.
3.The role that an arborist consultant plays in determining the nal outcome. Also, discussion
could center on how these arborist consultants are selected.
4.The future of the Heritage Tree Program. Are we entirely dependent on the public to identify
trees suitable for this program or would it be better that the Tree Committee be more proactive
in this regard?
5.Can’t it be the responsibility of the Tree Committee to address how trees maintain biodiversity,
i.e., the role certain tree species play in providing refuge, nesting grounds and pollination
pastures for a wide range of insects and animals?
6.Can’t it be the responsibility of the Tree Committee to address the role trees play in
sequestering greenhouse gases? By the way, some species do this better than others.
7.Can’t it be the responsibility of the Tree Committee to address how various species of trees are
not only more drought tolerant but how older specimens use less water than newly planted
specimens?
8.Clarication is needed on existing, ambiguous and conicting policies. For example look at the
following link “San Luis Obispo Heritage Tree Program Information Packet” available online
see: http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=3373). This information packet states the
following: “The Tree Committee proposes the following plan to formalize this Heritage Tree
Program, so that citizens and groups may participate in this community program.”
How To Apply For Designation
a. Submit Heritage Tree proposal and agreement forms to Urban Forest Services
b. Proposal will be reviewed by Urban Forest Services staff
c. Proposal will be reviewed by Tree Committee
d. Proposal will be reviewed by City Council – adopt resolution – designation as Heritage
Tree”
What is not clear is when did the Tree Committee propose this plan and when does it
become effective? It is also not clear who comprises the “Urban Forest Services staff”?
Moreover a “Heritage Tree Program of San Luis Obispo Information Packet and Form”
contains the following verbiage:
There are three categories of Heritage Trees:
a. Public trees – parks, public buildings, playgrounds, etc.
b. Voluntary cooperation – privately owned trees.
c. Required cooperation – tree preservation in new developments, etc.
However there is serious ambiguity surrounding the term “required cooperation” for new
developments. Does this “required cooperation” override the owner’s consent?
To:MIG Consultants
Re:Stakeholder Meeting
From:Allan Cooper, Secretary Save Our Downtown
Date:February 26, 2017
Resident And Stakeholder Interviews - City Of San Luis Obispo Zoning Code Update
1. How do you use the zoning code? Are you a resident, developer, property owner, or business
owner? Other?
Answer: I am a resident and property owner.
2. What has the existing code been successful with? Where have good projects been built? What
types of development have the zoning regulations encouraged?
Answer: See the “onions and orchids” & “oranges and lemons” documents below.
3. What have been the failures? Have projects been built that are not in character with a
neighborhood or location, or have projects or uses resulted in adverse impacts? Which projects/
uses, and why?
Answer: See the “onions and orchids” & “oranges and lemons” documents below.
4. Are there specic standards or requirements that warrant attention (for example, parking,
building height, uses allowed)?
Answer: Note that parking reductions should be limited. If it turns out there is too much space
devoted to parking, part of the parking lot can be developed; but if there's not enough parking,
there is nothing that can be done. Note that increased densities can be increased downtown
without going up. That the prevailing height of 2-3 stories should be maintained downtown.
5. Are there issues associated with specic neighborhoods, business districts, or zoning districts
that need special attention during the update process?
Answer: Note that the City should take a more proactive stance on traffic congestion. The Housing
Accountability Act and Density Bonus Law recommends denial of housing projects that contribute
to traffic congestion. Also mention the need for more “S” overlay zone.
6. Are the regulations responsive to local economic conditions and community needs?
Answer: The current regulations are not responsive to community needs because they fail to codify
and reinforce the Downtown Concept Plan and Community Design guidelines - guidelines which
are often ignored by staff and the advisory bodies.
7. Are application and review processes clearly articulated? Where might improvements be made?
Answer: A form-based code overlaying our current zoning could help clarify the review processes.
8. What areas of the City could evolve or transform over time with regulatory changes to support
community goals? What (general or specic) types of regulatory changes would you like to see?
Answer: Our downtown should maintain its small town charm and historical ambience. There
should be very few “landmark” buildings and most buildings should be conned to 2-3 stories.
Increased density can be achieved through development of surface parking lots but more parking
should be provided for both Downtown residents, employees and shoppers by building more
parking garages.
9. Share any additional comments you may have.
Answer: View preservation, historical resource preservation, solar access and architectural
character:
Regardless of the number of objectives proposed (for buildings taller than 50 feet), the decision
making body must shall determine that the overall project is consistent with the General Plan,
including goals and policies for view preservation, historical resource preservation, solar access
and architectural character.”
Expand the scope of LUE Implementation Subtask 4.32 “Alcohol Use Permits” to include a work
program implementing an alcohol outlet "Public Convenience and Necessity" (PCN) policy as well
as a reexamination of Ordinance No. 1578. Additionally, Save Our Downtown is urging you to
revisit Ordinance No. 17.11.040: “alcohol outlet public safety strategies and deemed approved
alcoholic beverage sale regulations”...
Ordinance 1578 states that “upon receiving a complaint from the public, or the Police
Department...of repeated nuisance activities within the premises or in close proximity of the
premises...then a public hearing will be scheduled before the Administrative Hearing Officer”. To
the best of our knowledge, such an administrative hearing has never taken place. This in spite of
the fact that there have been frequent noise complaints for the following establishments: Marston’s
Bar & Grill, Black Sheep Bar & Grill, McCarthy’s Irish Pub and SLO Brew. This in spite of the fact
that sexual assaults (44 this last year) and simple assaults (148 this year) have risen dramatically
over the past 3 years and this in spite of the fact that San Luis Obispo falls in the lowest decile of
safe cities in America. The City promised that staff and Council would look into implementing an
over-concentration law. Under "assessing and renewing Downtown, staff included in its action plan
the following: "Alcohol Concentration Evaluation and Adoption of Code Amendments." The
completion time for this was November of 2014. This never happened.
The City promised that the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update Committee would
address the long range management of alcohol outlets in the Downtown. This never happened.
Reinstate the omitted LUE Implementation Subtask 9.10 “Urban Forest” which would address the
need for an update to the master tree plan as well as a reexamination of Ordinance No. 1544.
Because of recent questions raised regarding the proposed clear cut of 51old growth trees at 71
Palomar, we have uncovered the need for more clarity on the protocols regarding evaluation of
trees and evaluation of “cultural landscapes”. These protocols could address the following
policies:
1.The City Arborist’s unilateral decision-making ability. Does he unnecessarily diminish the role of
the Tree Committee?
2.The Tree Committee’s right to initiate a discussion on any issue.
3.The role that an arborist consultant plays in determining the nal outcome. Also, discussion
could center on how these arborist consultants are selected.
4. The future of the Heritage Tree Program. Are we entirely dependent on the public to identify
trees suitable for this program or would it be better that the Tree Committee be more proactive in
this regard?
5. Can’t it be the responsibility of the Tree Committee to address how trees maintain biodiversity,
i.e., the role certain tree species play in providing refuge, nesting grounds and pollination pastures
for a wide range of insects and animals?
6. Can’t it be the responsibility of the Tree Committee to address the role trees play in sequestering
greenhouse gases? By the way, some species do this better than others.
7. Can’t it be the responsibility of the Tree Committee to address how various species of trees are
not only more drought tolerant but how older specimens use less water than newly planted
specimens?
8. Clarication is needed on existing, ambiguous and conicting policies. For example look at the
following link “San Luis Obispo Heritage Tree Program Information Packet” available online (see:
http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=3373). This information packet states the
following: “The Tree Committee proposes the following plan to formalize this Heritage Tree
Program, so that citizens and groups may participate in this community program.”
How To Apply For Designation
a. Submit Heritage Tree proposal and agreement forms to Urban Forest Services
b. Proposal will be reviewed by Urban Forest Services staff
c. Proposal will be reviewed by Tree Committee
d. Proposal will be reviewed by City Council – adopt resolution – designation as Heritage Tree”
What is not clear is when did the Tree Committee propose this plan and when does it become
effective? It is also not clear who comprises the “Urban Forest Services staff”?
Moreover a “Heritage Tree Program of San Luis Obispo Information Packet and Form” contains the
following verbiage:
There are three categories of Heritage Trees:
a. Public trees – parks, public buildings, playgrounds, etc.
b. Voluntary cooperation – privately owned trees.
c. Required cooperation – tree preservation in new developments, etc.
However there is serious ambiguity surrounding the term “required cooperation” for new
developments. Does this “required cooperation” override the owner’s consent?
9. "Affordable unit" as dened by the state: These units are less expensive simply because they're
smaller. To accommodate workforce families, there should be a minimum size for affordable units
that exceeds studio units.
10. Direct staff to include consideration of a minimum percentage for commercial properties when
considering housing projects within commercial zones.
11. For Community Commercial (C-C) properties the problem is even more serious. At 36 units per
acre, this is a 50% greater density than that allowed in our R-4, high density residential, zones (24
units per acre). Review of allowing 36 units per acre in Community Commercial zones, with
consideration to reducing that amount.
To:MIG Consultants
Re:Stakeholder Meeting
From:Allan Cooper, Secretary Save Our Downtown
Date:March 10, 2017
Resident And Stakeholder Interviews - City Of San Luis Obispo Zoning Code Update
1. How do you use the zoning code? Are you a resident, developer, property owner, or business
owner? Other?
Answer:
I am a resident and property owner. I am member of Save Our Downtown and a member of the
Mission Orchard Neighborhood Association. I have served for over 14 years on both the Pismo
Beach Design Review Committee and the San Luis Obispo ARC & PC.
2. What has the existing code been successful with? Where have good projects been built? What
types of development have the zoning regulations encouraged?
Answer:
Pacic Courtyards provided a harmonious transition between the core area functions and neighbors
on the edges, in this case, the Old Town Neighborhood.
The Granada Hotel expansion adhered to the following Design Guideline: “Multi-story buildings
should be set back above the second or third level to maintain a street facade that is consistent with
the historic pattern of development, maintaining the general similarity of building heights at the
sidewalk edge.”
The Shell Station Development accented the entries and gateways to the downtown while
preserving in general the existing building height patterns of two and three stories.
Both the Hotel Serra and Chinatown projects considered the architectural style, shape and massing
of neighboring structures.
3. What have been the failures? Have projects been built that are not in character with a
neighborhood or location, or have projects or uses resulted in adverse impacts? Which projects/
uses, and why?
Answer:
New multi-family open-space and storage standards would address the needs of workforce housing
as opposed to becoming de facto student housing in the case of Monterey Place, 71 Palomar and
22 Chorro.
The Monterey Place project did not adhere to the following “Conceptual Physical Plan For The
City’s Center” recommendation: “Open up the creeks more to visual and physical access.”
Specically with regards to 1101 Monterey Street, there was overuse of Planned Development (PD)
zoning to justify "spot zoning”. Planned Development standards need to be rmed up.
If exceptions to development standards or easing of parking standards and building setbacks result
in trafc congestion using objective and quantiable criteria then the project should be modied or
denied. This was not done in the case of 22 Chorro.
Incorporate sustainability standards particularly as they would apply to preservation of existing trees
and optimal solar orientation. 71 Palomar failed to address the carbon sequestration functionality
and the bio-resource habitat of existing trees. There should be stricter adherence to the City’s
Historic Guidelines. 71 Palomar moved an historically listed property when viable alternatives were
readily available to keeping it in its present location.
Reduction in overall height and the installation of a temporary story pole as part of the application
requirements for buildings exceeding 40 feet in height would have helped in the case of the San
Luis Square and Fremont Square projects. San Luis Square towered over the Jack House and
Fremont Square towered over the Fremont Theater, both historical landmarks.
In the case of Discovery SLO there should have been stricter enforcement of the sign ordinance.
In the case of both Discovery SLO and the Libertine Marketplace there should have been in place a
public convenience and necessity policy” that could have limited the number of alcohol outlets
concentrated in one location.
In the case of the Olive Mixed Use and the 1135 Santa Rosa Mixed Use projects, there should have
been stricter compliance with the Community Design Guidelines.
Neighborhood stability would have been better achieved if there had been an “S” zone overlay in
place where the South Town 18 and the Lofts @ Nipomo projects are located.
4. Are there specic standards or requirements that warrant attention (for example, parking, building
height, uses allowed)?
Answer:
Parking reductions should be limited. If it turns out that there is too much
space devoted to parking then part of the parking lot can be developed. But if there's not enough
parking, there is nothing that can be done. There is presently an excessive emphasis on bike
access and bike parking in lieu of car access and car parking and this excludes the access needs of
the temporarily or permanently disabled and the elderly.
Greater emphasis should be placed on climate change. Emphasis should be placed on carbon
sequestration, rooftop skylights and solar panel arrays.
5. Are there issues associated with specic neighborhoods, business districts, or zoning districts
that need special attention during the update process?
Answer:
Note that the City should take a more proactive stance on trafc congestion, particularly in existing
neighborhoods. The Housing Accountability Act and Density Bonus Law recommends denial of
housing projects that contribute to trafc congestion.
Place "S" overlay zones on wildlife corridors and also over C-T and C-D zones contiguous to
residential neighborhoods, specically Dana Street and Lincoln Street.
36 units per acre for Community Commercial (C-C) properties is a 50% greater density than that
allowed in our R-4, high density residential zones (24 units per acre). Reconsider allowing 36 units
per acre in Community Commercial zones with the intent of reducing that amount.
To accommodate workforce families, there should be a minimum size for “affordable units” and that
size should exceed studio units. Studio units are less expensive simply because they're smaller so
the developer is not making any nancial concession by providing this type of affordable housing.
Direct staff to include consideration of a minimum percentage for commercial properties when
mixed-use housing projects are located within commercial zones.
There is a need for more City parks, especially in the North Broad Street Neighborhood. The Parks
and Recreation Commission has historically focused on recreation at the expense of the parks.
Protection of prime agricultural lands should take precedence over the need for more housing and
housing built under ight paths should be discouraged.
6. Are the regulations responsive to local economic conditions and community needs?
Answer:
The current regulations are not responsive to community needs because they fail to codify and
reinforce the Downtown Concept Plan and Community Design guidelines - guidelines which are
often ignored by staff and the advisory bodies.
Install necessary infrastructure (roads, bridges, water, sewer, ood control, etc.) prior to the
development of housing tracts and make development pay its own way. The costs of additional
schools, roads, re and police protection, utilities, sewer systems, water treatment, recreation
facilities, libraries, and waste disposal should all be borne by the newcomers who necessitated the
new services.
San Luis Obispo is presently experiencing unsustainable population growth, particularly excessive
growth in jobs which consistently outpaces the housing supply because of the use of an ineffective
metric to curb job growth, i.e., no more that 5% increase over ve years in total ”non-residential
square footage"
7. Are application and review processes clearly articulated? Where might improvements be made?
Answer:
A form-based code overlaying (not in place of) our current zoning could help clarify the review
processes.
8. What areas of the City could evolve or transform over time with regulatory changes to support
community goals? What (general or specic) types of regulatory changes would you like to see?
Answer:
Our downtown should maintain its small town charm and historical ambience. There should be very
few “landmark” buildings and most buildings should be conned to 2-3 stories. Increased density
can be achieved through development of surface parking lots but more parking should be provided
for both Downtown residents, employees and shoppers by building more parking garages.
Increased densities can be increased downtown without going up.
9. Share any additional comments you may have.
Answer:
Protect within the Downtown Core view preservation, historical resource preservation, solar access
and architectural character. This is not done for buildings in excess of 50 feet for the following
reasons:
In Chapter 17.42 “Downtown Commercial (C-D) Zone”, under 17.42.020 “Property Development
Standards”, C. “Maximum Height”, 3. “Policy Objectives” the third sentence should be changed so
that the word “must” (which is not legally enforceable) becomes “shall”.
Regardless of the number of objectives proposed (for buildings taller than 50 feet), the decision
making body must shall determine that the overall project is consistent with the General Plan,
including goals and policies for view preservation, historical resource preservation, solar access
and architectural character.”
Answer:
Expand the scope of LUE Implementation Subtask 4.32 “Alcohol Use Permits” to include a work
program implementing an alcohol outlet "Public Convenience and Necessity" (PCN) policy as well
as a reexamination of Ordinance No. 1578. Additionally, I am urging you to revisit Ordinance No.
17.11.040: “alcohol outlet public safety strategies and deemed approved alcoholic beverage sale
regulations”...
Ordinance 1578 states that “upon receiving a complaint from the public, or the Police
Department...of repeated nuisance activities within the premises or in close proximity of the
premises...then a public hearing will be scheduled before the Administrative Hearing Ofcer”. To the
best of our knowledge, such an administrative hearing has never taken place. This in spite of the
fact that there have been frequent noise complaints for the following establishments: Marston’s Bar
Grill, Black Sheep Bar & Grill, McCarthy’s Irish Pub and SLO Brew. This in spite of the fact that
sexual assaults (44 this last year) and simple assaults (148 this year) have risen dramatically over
the past 3 years and this in spite of the fact that San Luis Obispo falls in the lowest decile of safe
cities in America. The City promised that staff and Council would look into implementing an over-
concentration law. Under "assessing and renewing Downtown, staff included in its action plan the
following: "Alcohol Concentration Evaluation and Adoption of Code Amendments." The completion
time for this was November of 2014. This never happened.
The City promised that the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update Committee would
address the long range management of alcohol outlets in the Downtown. This never happened.
Answer:
Reinstate the omitted LUE Implementation Subtask 9.10 “Urban Forest” which would address the
need for an update to the master tree plan. We are also recommending a reexamination of
Ordinance No. 1544. Because of recent questions raised regarding the proposed clear cut of 54 old
growth trees at 71 Palomar, we have uncovered the need for more clarity on the protocols regarding
evaluation of trees and evaluation of “cultural landscapes”. These protocols could address the
following policies:
a.The Tree Committee’s right to initiate a discussion on any issue.
b. The role that an arborist consultant plays in determining the nal outcome. Also, discussion
could center on how these arborist consultants are selected.
c. The future of the Heritage Tree Program. Are we entirely dependent on the public to identify
trees suitable for this program or would it be better that the Tree Committee be more proactive
in this regard?
d. Can’t it be the responsibility of the Tree Committee to address how trees maintain
biodiversity, i.e., the role certain tree species play in providing refuge, nesting grounds and
pollination pastures for a wide range of insects and animals?
e. Can’t it be the responsibility of the Tree Committee to address the role trees play in
sequestering greenhouse gases? By the way, some species do this better than others.
f. Can’t it be the responsibility of the Tree Committee to address how various species of trees
are not only more drought tolerant but how older specimens use less water than newly planted
specimens?
g. Clarication is needed on existing, ambiguous and conicting policies. For example look at
the following link “San Luis Obispo Heritage Tree Program Information Packet” available online
see: http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=3373). This information packet states the
following: “The Tree Committee proposes the following plan to formalize this Heritage Tree
Program, so that citizens and groups may participate in this community program.”
How To Apply For Designation
i. Submit Heritage Tree proposal and agreement forms to Urban Forest Services
ii. Proposal will be reviewed by Urban Forest Services staff
iii. Proposal will be reviewed by Tree Committee
iv. Proposal will be reviewed by City Council – adopt resolution – designation as Heritage
Tree”
What is not clear is when did the Tree Committee propose this plan and when does it
become effective? It is also not clear who comprises the “Urban Forest Services staff”?
Moreover a “Heritage Tree Program of San Luis Obispo Information Packet and Form”
contains the following verbiage:
There are three categories of Heritage Trees:
i. Public trees – parks, public buildings, playgrounds, etc.
ii. Voluntary cooperation – privately owned trees.
iii. Required cooperation – tree preservation in new developments, etc.
However there is serious ambiguity surrounding the term “required cooperation” for new
developments. Does this “required cooperation” override the owner’s consent?
To: San Luis Obispo Mayor and Council Members
Re: SLO Zoning Regulations Update
From: Save Our Downtown
Date: March 14, 2017
Honorable Mayor Harmon and City Council Members:
Members of Save Our Downtown ask that the following concerns be addressed in the Zoning
Regulations Update:
1. Tall buildings downtown create the following problems:
Loss of small town ambience and associated reduction of tourist dollars (as the small town
ambience is a major draw for tourists)
Loss of sunlight on the sidewalks and public spaces
which is compounded by cool ambient
temperatures 6-8 months out of the year)
Loss of views of the surrounding hills
Loss of historic resources (due to economic
pressures to replace low-rise historic properties with
high-rise buildings)
Increased wind tunnel effect
Loss of solar access to adjoining buildings
Overwhelm landmark buildings (such as the
Fremont Theater or Jack House)
Overtax existing infrastructure (to accommodate
signicant increase in density)
Overwhelm both vehicular and pedestrian traffic
Drive up rents and drive out diversity (i.e., franchises and chain stores that can afford the
high rents will replace locally-owned businesses)
Complicates evacuation plans in the event of a ood downtown
Saturates the market for downtown housing (particularly housing lacking on-site parking
and open space amenities)
Buy in” not likely from the residents of SLO
We are therefore urging you to lower the downtown height limits to return to the 50’ maximum. If
this is not within the scope of the Zoning Regulations Update then we are urging you to consider
doing the following as an intermediate measure: Under 17.42.020.C Maximum height: 50 feet 2.
We are asking the City to consider modifying the following language: “The Architectural Review
Commission (ARC) may approve building height up to 60 feet if the ARC determines that the
project includes at least two three objectives from the following sections (lettered a. through g.),
with no two being from the same lettered section.
The Planning Commission may approve a use permit allowing maximum building height of 75 feet
upon determining that at least two three of the following policy objectives (with no two being from
the same lettered section) are met, and at least one Affordable and Workforce Housing Objective
must be chosen.”
Our argument is that it is far too easy for the developer to include two of the following: “affordable
and workforce housing” or “pedestrian amenities” such as providing at a mid- block location a
pedestrian connection or “view access and preservation” such as providing a public viewing deck
or “economic vitality” such as providing two levels of retail sales or hospitality or “historic
preservation” through preservation of an on-site historically listed property or “open space
preservation” or “energy efficiency” by exceeding the Title 24 by a minimum of 30% or “other
policy objectives” as set forth in the General Plan, the Downtown Conceptual Plan, the Downtown
Strategic Plan or other key policy document, to the approval of the Planning Commission.
Reduction in overall height and the installation of temporary story poles as part of the application
requirements for buildings exceeding 40 feet in height would have helped in the case of the San
Luis Square and Fremont Square projects. San Luis Square towered over the Jack House and
Fremont Square towered over the Fremont Theater, both historical landmarks.
Therefore, with regards to requirements for planning applications submitted for new buildings over
40 feet tall, we are urging the following item be added to your list:
Application requirements should also include for buildings exceeding 40 feet in height the
temporary installation of a story poles that can be easily viewed by the public.”
Specically with regards to the mixed-use project proposed at 1101 Monterey Street, there was
overuse of Planned Development (PD) zoning to justify a 75 foot tall building. Our Planned
Development standards need to be rmed up and “spot zoning” should be avoided.
Under Chapter 17.62 Planned Development 17.62.045 Decision and Findings, make the following
change: A. Mandatory project features. “The review authority may recommend or approve a
rezoning to apply the PD overlay zoning district only for a project that incorporates a minimum of
two three of the following four features.”
In Chapter 17.42 “Downtown Commercial (C-D) Zone”, under 17.42.020 “Property Development
Standards”, C. “Maximum Height”, “Policy Objectives” the third sentence should be changed so
that the word “must” (which is not legally enforceable) becomes “shall”. “Regardless of the number
of objectives proposed (for buildings taller than 50 feet), the decision making body must shall
determine that the overall project is consistent with the General Plan, including goals and policies
for view preservation, historical resource preservation, solar access and architectural character.”
2. In the case of both Discovery SLO and the Libertine Marketplace there should have been in
place a “public convenience and necessity policy” that could have limited the number of alcohol
outlets concentrated in these locations.
The over-concentration of alcohol outlets downtown breeds crime, places economic hardships on
existing retail businesses, is a public health and sanitation nuisance, presents a livability problem
for downtown residents and hotel patrons and reduces economic diversity by displacing existing
retail stores and offices.
We are therefore urging you to limit the number of bars and bars with restaurants having more than
10 seats and/or entertainment/dance areas, per each block face so that no more than one or two
bars/restaurants/clubs are located on any block.
This can be accomplished by expanding the scope of LUE Implementation Subtask 4.32
Alcohol Use Permits” to include a work program implementing an alcohol outlet "Public
Convenience and Necessity" (PCN) policy as well as a reexamination of Ordinance No. 1578.
Additionally, We are urging you to revisit Ordinance No. 17.11.040: “alcohol outlet public safety
strategies and deemed approved alcoholic beverage sale regulations”...
Ordinance 1578 states that “upon receiving a complaint from the public, or the Police
Department...of repeated nuisance activities within the premises or in close proximity of the
premises...then a public hearing will be scheduled before the Administrative Hearing Officer”. To
the best of our knowledge, such an administrative hearing has never taken place. This in spite of
the fact that there have been frequent noise complaints for the following establishments: Marston’s
Bar & Grill, Black Sheep Bar & Grill, McCarthy’s Irish Pub and SLO Brew. This in spite of the fact
that sexual assaults (44 this last year) and simple assaults (148 this year) have risen dramatically
over the past 3 years and this in spite of the fact that San Luis Obispo falls in the lowest decile of
safe cities in America.
The City promised that staff and Council would look into implementing an over-concentration law.
Under "assessing and renewing Downtown, staff included in its action plan the following: "Alcohol
Concentration Evaluation and Adoption of Code Amendments." The completion time for this was
November of 2014. This never happened.
The City promised that the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update Committee would
address the long range management of alcohol outlets in the Downtown. This would involve the
implementation of LUE Subtask 4.29: “Coordination of Late Night Environment” which would
enact additional regulations to ensure that the late night environment in and near Downtown is safe
and pleasant. This never happened.
3. The Monterey Place Mixed-Use project did not adhere to the following “Conceptual Physical
Plan For The City’s Center” recommendation: “Open up the creeks more to visual and physical
access.” In the case of the Olive Mixed-Use project, the 1135 Santa Rosa Mixed-Use project, the
South Town 18 project and the Lofts @ Nipomo project there should have been stricter compliance
with the Community Design Guidelines.
Therefore, we are urging you to incorporate the Downtown Concept and Community Design
Guidelines into the zoning regulations as design standards, similar to the County’s ordinance. We
are also urging you to initiate an illustrated Urban Design section in the Zoning Regulations, to
address how the visual character or setting should be incorporated and reected in new
development projects, and how neighborhood and community commercial areas should be laid
out in site planning. This does not have to be a “form based code,” which may be too limiting or
diagrammatic.
4. It is well documented that national chains do not generate the sustainable income and revenues
locally owned businesses do, especially in smaller cities. This is known as the multiplier effect.
National chains are not what sustain a self-sustaining business environment. While they add to the
overall tax base, the money earned by these businesses do not remain in the community.
Therefore we are urging you to initiate an ordinance similar to the one San Francisco has that
would require a conditional use authorization application for chain stores or “formula retail uses”.
Such an ordinance could, like San Francisco’s Hayes- Gough NCD, North Beach NCD and
Chinatown Visitor retail district, prohibit any additional formula retail ‘uses in SLO’s downtown
core.
In addition the City should begin an economic development strategy to protect and encourage
small-scale, locally-owned businesses. More local stores are good for tourism and good for the
economy.
5. Initiate a General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendment to determine the appropriate housing
density and height in downtown, given a reduced 50’ height limit and a well- practiced urban
design. A city-wide inventory and analysis of housing capacity should be done of the commercial
districts (including downtown and shopping centers), as well as residential districts, to determine
the “right locations and t” for additional housing stock for low to moderate incomes. Changes to
the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance would come from this analysis, to highlight where
limitations to increased housing density are benecial, and where added housing densities will be
more appropriate.
6. As regarding staff’s suggestion for a “White Paper” on “exible density downtown”: We wish to
remind the City that, per Christine Theodoropoulos, AIA, PE, Dean of Cal Poly’s College of
Architecture and Environmental Design, we “do not have to increase height in order to increase
density”.
Because of recent questions raised regarding the proposed clear cut of 54 old growth trees at 71
Palomar, we have uncovered the need for more clarity on the protocols regarding evaluation of
trees and evaluation of “cultural landscapes”.
We are therefore urging you to reinstate the omitted LUE Implementation Subtask 9.10 “Urban
Forest” which would address the need for an update to the master tree plan.
But, more importantly, we are also recommending a re- examination of Ordinance No. 1544. This
re-examination could address the following policies:
Reordering the sequence of the review process when a Tree Committee denial could over-
ride previous administrative or advisory body approvals.
The Tree Committee’s right to initiate a discussion on any issue.
The role that an arborist consultant plays in determining the nal outcome. Also, discussion
could center on how these arborist consultants are selected.
The future of the Heritage Tree Program. Are we entirely dependent on the public to identify
trees suitable for this program or would it be better that the Tree Committee be more
proactive in this regard?
Can’t it be the responsibility of the Tree Committee
to address how trees maintain biodiversity, i.e., the role certain tree species play in
providing refuge, nesting grounds and pollination pastures for a wide range of insects and
animals?
Can’t it be the responsibility of the Tree Committee to address the role trees play in
sequestering greenhouse gases? By the way, some species do this better than others.
Can’t it be the responsibility of the Tree Committee to address how various species of trees
are not only more drought tolerant but how older specimens use less water than newly
planted specimens?
Clarication is needed on existing, ambiguous and conicting policies. For example look at
the following link “San Luis Obispo Heritage Tree Program Information Packet” available
online
see: http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument id=3373). This information packet states
the
following: “The Tree Committee proposes the following plan to formalize this Heritage Tree
Program, so that citizens and groups may participate in this community program:
i. Submit Heritage Tree proposal and agreement forms to Urban Forest Services
ii. Proposal will be reviewed by Urban Forest Services staff
iii. Proposal will be reviewed by Tree Committee
iv. Proposal will be reviewed by City Council – adopt resolution – designation as Heritage Tree”
What is not clear is when did the Tree Committee propose this plan and when does it become
effective? It is also not clear who comprises the “Urban Forest Services staff”?
Moreover a “Heritage Tree Program of San Luis Obispo Information Packet and Form” contains the
following verbiage:
There are three categories of Heritage Trees:
i. Public trees – parks, public buildings, playgrounds, etc.
ii. Voluntary cooperation – privately owned trees.
iii. Required cooperation – tree preservation in new developments, etc.
7. We understand that LUE Implementation Subtask 2.14: “Neighborhood Wellness Action Plans”
is ongoing. This subtask would help devise strategies to stabilize the rental/ owner ratio, to
maintain neighborhood character, safety, and stability.
We are in support of the following:
However there is serious ambiguity surrounding the term “required cooperation” for new
developments. Does this “required cooperation” override the owner’s consent?
LUE Implementation Subtask 2.11.2. Multifamily Open- Space and Storage Standards. This is
deemed desirable” as these amenities will then address the needs of our workforce as opposed
to becoming de facto “student housing”.
LUE Implementation Subtask 2.12 Downtown Residential Development
LUE Implementation Subtask 2.13 & the associated “white paper” on “edge conditions in the
City and neighborhood compatibility”.
LUE Implementation Subtask 3.10 Noise Control with the addition that other noise attenuation
measures be explored such as requiring balconies or rooftop decks to be enclosed with sound
attenuating material (such as glass or plexiglas).
However Save Our Downtown would like the City to take a more proactive stance on traffic
congestion, particularly in existing neighborhoods. The Housing Accountability Act and Density
Bonus Law recommends denial of housing projects that contribute to traffic congestion. We are
recommending the following addition be made to the Housing Element: “If ‘exceptions to
development standards’ or ‘easing of parking standards and building setbacks’ result in traffic
congestion using objective and quantiable criteria then the project can be modied or denied.”
Moreover, we are urging the City to place "S" overlay zones over C-T and C-D zones contiguous to
residential neighborhoods, specically Dana Street and Lincoln Street.
8. There is a need for more City parks, especially in the North Broad Street Neighborhood. The
Parks and Recreation Commission has historically focused on recreation at the
expense of the parks. We urge the Parks and Recreation Commission to focus on identifying the
location of, and funding for, a park in the North Broad Street Neighborhood.
9. With regards to staff’s suggested revisions to the “Table of Contents”: Under Article 1 -
Purpose and Applicability of the Zoning Regulations”, the following should be addressed:
The City could promote a more diligent administration of the Zoning Ordinance, by setting forth a
direction of duty,” with the following text recommendations:
Section 17.02.020 Purpose: “The Zoning Regulations express the specic interest and intent of
the residents of San Luis Obispo, as represented by their City Council, as the means and methods
by which to implement the City General Plan. It is the obligation of City representatives, appointed
commissioners, staff and contract employees to promote, interpret and implement these
regulations in accordance with the City General Plan.”
17.02.040 Interpretation: “Officials of the City of San Luis Obispo, including, but not limited to
staff, commissioners and City Council, shall diligently defend and uphold the Zoning Regulations.
Such officials shall obtain and provide useful and expert interpretations and guidance to applicants
and the public, which clarify and show how development and subdivision applications can become
consistent with these regulations.”
10. With regards to “Key issues requiring discussion with the City staff and community to
determine the best approach to implementing policies and programs”:
Provide for an enhanced pedestrian experience in the Downtown”. We are urging the City
to implement a Downtown Pedestrian Plan. Long-range planner Brian Laveille was
supposed to be working on a Downtown Pedestrian Plan. Moreover, we were promised that
community charrettes would be organized to further esh out this plan.
Consider transfer of development rights (TDR) approaches to transfer densities from
outlying areas to Downtown”. Shouldn’t this be the other way around? Shouldn’t we
maintain a predominately 2-3 story high downtown by encouraging a suburban developer
to purchase unused air rights above a downtown property?
Incorporate sustainability standards”. We endorse the formulation of these standards
particularly as they would apply to the carbon sequestration achieved through the
preservation of existing trees. We encourage the City to formalize site planning standards
that would factor in optimal orientation to solar and wind. We also encourage that the city
consider the impact of taller buildings on surrounding buildings in terms of solar access.
Sincerely,
Russell Brown Chair, Save Our Downtown
Elizabeth Thyne Vice Chair, Save Our Downtown
Allan Cooper Secretary, Save Our Downtown www.saveourdowntownslo.com
To:San Luis Obispo Planning Commission
Re:SLO Zoning Regulations Update
From:Save Our Downtown
Date:April 9, 2017
Honorable Chair and Commissioners:
Members of Save Our Downtown ask that the following concerns be addressed in the Zoning
Regulations Update.
Tall Buildings Downtown
1.Tall buildings downtown will create the following problems:
a.Loss of small town ambience and associated reduction of tourist dollars (as
the small town ambience is a major draw for tourists)
b.Loss of sunlight on the sidewalks and public spaces (which is compounded by
cool ambient temperatures 6-8 months out of the year)
c.Loss of views of the surrounding hills
d.Loss of historic resources (due to economic pressures to replace low-rise
historic properties with high-rise buildings)
e.Loss of solar access to adjoining buildings
f.Increases the “wind tunnel” effect
g.Overwhelms landmark buildings (such as the Fremont Theater or Jack House)
h.Overtaxes existing infrastructure (to accommodate signicant increase in
density)
i.Overwhelms both vehicular and pedestrian traffic
j.Drives up rents and drives out diversity (i.e., franchises and chain stores that
can afford the high rents will replace locally-owned businesses)
k.Complicates evacuation plans in the event of a ood
l.Saturates the market for downtown housing (particularly housing lacking on-
site parking and open space amenities)
m.“Buy in” is not likely from the residents of SLO
We are therefore urging you to lower the downtown height limits to a 50’ maximum or ve
stories whichever is less. If this is not within the scope of the Zoning Regulations Update then
we are urging you to consider doing the following as an intermediate measure:
Under 17.42.020.C Maximum height: 50 feet. We are asking the City to consider modifying
the following language: “The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) may approve building
heights up to 60 feet if the ARC determines that the project includes at least two four
objectives from the following sections (lettered a. through g.), with no two being from the
same lettered section.
The Planning Commission may approve a use permit allowing maximum building height of 75
feet upon determining that at least two four of the following policy objectives (with no two
being from the same lettered section) are met, and at least one Affordable and Workforce
Housing Objective must be chosen.”
Our argument is that it is far too easy for the developer to include two of the following:
affordable and workforce housing” or “pedestrian amenities” such as providing at a mid-
block location a pedestrian connection or “view access and preservation” such as providing
a public viewing deck or “economic vitality” such as providing two levels of retail sales or
hospitality or “historic preservation” through preservation of an on-site historically listed
property or “open space preservation” or “energy efficiency” by exceeding the Title 24 by a
minimum of 30% or “other policy objectives” as set forth in the General Plan, the Downtown
Conceptual Plan, the Downtown Strategic Plan or other key policy document, to the approval
of the Planning Commission.
Reduction in overall height and the installation of temporary story poles (a simple vertical
pole supported by guy wires simulating the true height of the proposed building) as part of
the application requirements for buildings exceeding 40 feet in height would have helped in
the case of the proposed San Luis Square and Fremont Square projects. San Luis Square
towered over the Jack House and Fremont Square towered over the Fremont Theater, both
historical landmarks.
Therefore, with regards to requirements for planning applications submitted for new buildings
over 40 feet tall, we are urging the following item be added to your list:
Application requirements should also include for buildings exceeding 40 feet in height the
temporary installation of a story pole that can be easily viewed by the public.”
Specically with regards to the mixed-use project proposed at 1101 Monterey Street, there
was overuse of Planned Development (PD) zoning to justify a 75 foot tall building. Our
Planned Development standards need to be rmed up and “spot zoning” should be avoided.
Under Chapter 17.62 Planned Development 17.62.045 “Decision and Findings”, make the
following change:
A. Mandatory project features. “The review authority may recommend or approve a rezoning
to apply the PD overlay zoning district only for a project that incorporates a minimum of two
three of the following four features.”
In Chapter 17.42 “Downtown Commercial (C-D) Zone”, under 17.42.020 “Property
Development Standards”, C. “Maximum Height”, 3. “Policy Objectives” the third sentence
should be changed so that the word “must” (which is not legally enforceable) becomes
shall”.
Regardless of the number of objectives proposed (for buildings taller than 50 feet), the
decision making body must shall determine that the overall project is consistent with the
General Plan, including goals and policies for view preservation, historical resource
preservation, solar access and architectural character, and that the project conforms to the
Community Design Guidelines.”
In the Land Use Element under Chapter 4 “Downtown” Policy 4.20.4. “Building Height” it
states that:
New buildings shall t within the context and scale of existing development, shall respect
views from, or sunlight to, publicly-owned gathering places such as Mission Plaza, and
should be stepped back above the second or third level to maintain a street façade that is
consistent with the historic pattern of development.”
There needs to be more precision here in specifying the depth of these step backs. For
example, a one- or two-foot step back will not achieve the objectives of reducing the
perceived height or scale of the building so a minimum step back needs to be established.
Over Concentration of Alcohol Outlets Downtown
2.In the case of both Discovery SLO and the Libertine Marketplace there should have been in
place a “public convenience and necessity policy” that could have limited the number of
alcohol outlets concentrated in these locations.
The over-concentration of alcohol outlets downtown breeds crime, places economic
hardships on existing retail businesses, is a public health and sanitation hazard, presents a
livability problem for downtown residents and hotel patrons and reduces economic diversity
by displacing existing retail stores and offices.
We are therefore urging you to either limit the number of bars and bars with restaurants
having more than 10 seats and/or entertainment/dance areas, so that no more than one or
two bars/restaurants/clubs are located on any one block or, through the enactment of an
over-concentration law”, prohibit the approval of any more alcohol outlets within the
downtown census tract.
This can be accomplished by expanding the scope of LUE Implementation Subtask 4.32
Alcohol Use Permits” to include a work program implementing an alcohol outlet "Public
Convenience and Necessity" (PCN) policy as well as a reexamination of Ordinance No.
1578. Additionally, We are urging you to revisit Ordinance No. 17.11.040: “alcohol outlet
public safety strategies and deemed approved alcoholic beverage sale regulations”...
Ordinance 1578 states that “upon receiving a complaint from the public, or the Police
Department...of repeated nuisance activities within the premises or in close proximity of the
premises...then a public hearing will be scheduled before the Administrative Hearing Officer”.
To the best of our knowledge, such an administrative hearing has never taken place. This in
spite of the fact that there have been frequent noise complaints for the following
establishments: Marston’s Bar & Grill, Black Sheep Bar & Grill, McCarthy’s Irish Pub and SLO
Brew. This in spite of the fact that sexual assaults (44 this last year) and simple assaults (148
this year) have risen dramatically within the City over the past 3 years and that San Luis
Obispo falls in the lowest decile of safe cities in America.
The City promised that staff and Council would look into implementing an over-concentration
law. Under "assessing and renewing Downtown, staff included in its action plan the following:
Alcohol Concentration Evaluation and Adoption of Code Amendments." The completion
time for this was November of 2014. This never happened.
Such an over-concentration law could take the form of an “alcohol outlet overlay zone”. This
zone (vis-a-vis, the City of San Diego) could prohibit the approval of new alcohol outlets
within the downtown census tract if such a proposed use is:
a.Within a census tract, or within 600 feet of a census tract, where the general crime
rate exceeds the citywide average general crime rate by more than 20 percent
b.Within a census tract, or within 600 feet of a census tract, where the ratio of alcohol
beverage outlets exceeds the standards established by California Business and
Professional Code section 23958.4 ;1
c.Within 600 feet of a public or private accredited school, a public park, a playground
or recreational area, a church, a hospital, or a welfare district office; and
d.Within 100 feet of a residentially zoned property.
BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE - BPC1
DIVISION 9. ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES [23000 - 25762]Division 9 added by Stats. 1953, Ch. 152. )
CHAPTER 6. Issuance and Transfer of Licenses [23950 - 24082]Chapter 6 added by Stats. 1953, Ch. 152. )
ARTICLE 1. Applications for Licenses [23950 - 23962]Article 1 added by Stats. 1953, Ch. 152. )
23958.4.
a)For purposes of Section 23958, “undue concentration” means the case in which the applicant premises for an original
or premises-to-premises transfer of any retail license are located in an area where any of the following conditions exist:
1)The applicant premises are located in a crime reporting district that has a 20 percent greater number of reported
crimes, as dened in subdivision (c), than the average number of reported crimes as determined from all crime reporting
districts within the jurisdiction of the local law enforcement agency.
2)As to on-sale retail license applications, the ratio of on-sale retail licenses to population in the census tract or
census division in which the applicant premises are located exceeds the ratio of on-sale retail licenses to population
in the county in which the applicant premises are located.
3)As to off-sale retail license applications, the ratio of off-sale retail licenses to population in the census tract or census
division in which the applicant premises are located exceeds the ratio of off-sale retail licenses to population in the
county in which the applicant premises are located.
b)Notwithstanding Section 23958, the department may issue a license as follows:
1)With respect to a non-retail license, a retail on-sale bona de eating place license, a retail license issued for a hotel,
motel, or other lodging establishment, as dened in subdivision (b) of Section 25503.16, a retail license issued in
conjunction with a beer manufacturer’s license, or a winegrower’s license, if the applicant shows that public convenience
or necessity would be served by the issuance.
2)With respect to any other license, if the local governing body of the area in which the applicant premises are located,
or its designated subordinate officer or body, determines within 90 days of notication of a completed application that
public convenience or necessity would be served by the issuance. The 90-day period shall commence upon receipt by
the local governing body of (A) notication by the department of an application for licensure, or (B) a completed
application according to local requirements, if any, whichever is later.
If the local governing body, or its designated subordinate officer or body, does not make a determination within the 90-
day period, then the department may issue a license if the applicant shows the department that public convenience or
necessity would be served by the issuance. In making its determination, the department shall not attribute any weight to
the failure of the local governing body, or its designated subordinate officer or body, to make a determination regarding
public convenience or necessity within the 90-day period.
c)For purposes of this section, the following denitions shall apply:
1)Reporting districts” means geographical areas within the boundaries of a single governmental entity (city or the
unincorporated area of a county) that are identied by the local law enforcement agency in the compilation and
maintenance of statistical information on reported crimes and arrests.
2)Reported crimes” means the most recent yearly compilation by the local law enforcement agency of reported
offenses of criminal homicide, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, theft, and motor vehicle theft,
combined with all arrests for other crimes, both felonies and misdemeanors, except traffic citations.
3)Population within the census tract or census division” means the population as determined by the most recent
United States decennial or special census. The population determination shall not operate to prevent an applicant from
establishing that an increase of resident population has occurred within the census tract or census division.
4)Population in the county” shall be determined by the annual population estimate for California counties published by
the Population Research Unit of the Department of Finance.
5)Retail licenses” shall include the following:
A)Off-sale retail licenses: Type 20 (off-sale beer and wine) and Type 21 (off-sale general).
B)On-sale retail licenses: All retail on-sale licenses, except Type 43 (on-sale beer and wine for train), Type 44 (on-sale
beer and wine for shing party boat), Type 45 (on-sale beer and wine for boat), Type 46 (on-sale beer and wine for
airplane), Type 53 (on-sale general for train and sleeping car), Type 54 (on-sale general for boat), Type 55 (on-sale general
for airplane), Type 56 (on-sale general for vessels of more than 1,000 tons burden), and Type 62 (on-sale
general bona de public eating place intermittent dockside license for vessels of more than 15,000 tons displacement).
6)A “premises-to-premises transfer” refers to each license being separate and distinct, and transferable upon approval
of the department.
The City promised that the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update Committee
would address the long range management of alcohol outlets in the Downtown. This would
involve the implementation of LUE Subtask 4.29: “Coordination of Late Night Environment”
which would enact additional regulations to ensure that the late night environment in and
near Downtown is safe and pleasant. This never happened.
Adherence to the Community Design Guidelines and the
Downtown Concept Plan
3.The Monterey Place Mixed-Use project did not adhere to the following “Conceptual Physical
Plan For The City’s Center” recommendation: “Open up the creeks more to visual and
physical access.” In the case of the Olive Mixed-Use project, the 1135 Santa Rosa Mixed-
Use project, the South Town 18 project and the Lofts @ Nipomo project there should have
been stricter compliance with the Community Design Guidelines.
Therefore, we are urging you to incorporate the Downtown Concept Plan and Community
Design Guidelines into the zoning regulations as design standards, similar to the County’s
ordinance (see attachment: the SLO County “Model to Codify SLO Community Design
Guidelines as Zoning Standards”). We are also urging you to initiate an illustrated Urban
Design section in the Zoning Regulations, to address how the visual character or setting
should be incorporated and reected in new development projects, and how neighborhood
and community commercial areas should be laid out in site planning. This does not have to
be a “form based code,” which may be too limiting or diagrammatic.
Chain Stores Downtown
4.It is well documented that national chains do not generate the sustainable income and
revenues locally owned businesses do, especially in smaller cities. This is known as the
multiplier effect. National chains are not what sustain a self-sustaining business environment.
While they add to the overall tax base, the money earned by these businesses do not remain
in the community.
Therefore we are urging you to initiate an ordinance similar to the one San Francisco has that
would require a conditional use authorization application for chain stores or “formula retail
uses”. Such an ordinance could, like San Francisco’s Hayes-Gough Neighborhood
Commercial District (NCD), North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District (NCD) and
Chinatown Visitor Retail District, prohibit any additional “formula retail uses” in SLO’s
downtown core.
In addition, the City should begin an economic development strategy to protect and
encourage small-scale, locally-owned businesses. More local stores are good for tourism and
good for the economy
Housing Capacity Analysis For All Commercial Districts
5.Initiate a General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendment to determine the appropriate
housing density and height in downtown, given a reduced height limit and well-practiced
urban design principles. A city-wide inventory and analysis of housing capacity should be
done of the commercial districts (including downtown and shopping centers), as well as
residential districts, to determine the “right locations and t” for additional housing stock for
low to moderate incomes. Changes to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance would come
from this analysis, to highlight where limitations to increased housing density are benecial,
and where added housing densities will be more appropriate.
As regarding staff’s suggestion for a “White Paper” on “exible density downtown”: We wish
to remind the City that, per the Downtown Association’s August 10, 2016 panel discussion on
a lm about “urban life”, Christine Theodoropoulos, AIA, PE, Dean of Cal Poly’s College of
Architecture and Environmental Design stated that we “do not have to increase height in
order to increase density”.
Tree Preservation & Role of the Tree Committee
6.Because of recent questions raised regarding the proposed clear cut of 54 old growth trees
at 71 Palomar, we have uncovered the need for more clarity on the protocols regarding
evaluation of trees, tree habitat and evaluation of “cultural landscapes”.
We are therefore urging you to reinstate the omitted LUE Implementation Subtask 9.10
Urban Forest” which would address the need for an update to the master tree plan.
But, more importantly, we are also recommending a re-examination of Ordinance No. 1544.
This re-examination could address the following policies:
a.Reordering the sequence of the review process when a Tree Committee denial could
over-ride previous administrative or advisory body approvals.
b.The Tree Committee’s right to initiate a discussion on any issue.
c.The role that an arborist consultant plays in determining the nal outcome. Also,
discussion could center on how these arborist consultants are selected.
d.The City Arborist’s unilateral role as dened under
Ordinance Number No. 1544, 12.24.090 “Tree Removal”
D. “Removals for Tree Health or Hazard Mitigation” which
excludes advice and consent from the Tree Committee
except in the case where the Arborist cannot authorize
the tree removal.
e.Under Ordinance Number No. 1544, 12.24.090 “Tree
Removal” I. “Approval Conditions” the following changes
should be made: “In approving an application for tree
removal, the director, the tree committee, the
architectural review commission or the city council may
shall require planting of replacement trees and may
require a bond ensuring that replacement trees shall be
planted and maintained.”
f.The future of the Heritage Tree Program. Are we entirely
dependent on the public to identify trees suitable for this
program or would it be better that the Tree Committee be
more proactive in this regard?
g.Can’t it be the responsibility of the Tree Committee
to address how trees maintain biodiversity, i.e., the role
certain tree species play in providing refuge, nesting
grounds and pollination pastures for a wide range of
insects and animals?
h.Can’t it be the responsibility of the Tree Committee to
address the role trees play in sequestering greenhouse
gases? By the way, some species do this better than
others.
i.Can’t it be the responsibility of the Tree Committee to
address how various species of trees are not only more
drought tolerant but how older specimens use less water
than newly planted specimens?
j.Clarication is needed on existing, ambiguous and
conicting policies. For example look at the following link
San Luis Obispo Heritage Tree Program Information
Packet” available online
see: http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument
id=3373). This information packet states the
following: “The Tree Committee proposes the following
plan to formalize this Heritage Tree Program, so that
citizens and groups may participate in this community
program:
i. Submit Heritage Tree proposal and agreement forms to Urban Forest Services
ii. Proposal will be reviewed by Urban Forest Services staff
iii. Proposal will be reviewed by Tree Committee
iv. Proposal will be reviewed by City Council – adopt resolution – designation as
Heritage Tree”
What is not clear is when did the Tree Committee propose this plan and when does it
become effective? It is also not clear who comprises the “Urban Forest Services
staff”?
Moreover a “Heritage Tree Program of San Luis Obispo
Information Packet and Form” contains the following verbiage:
There are three categories of Heritage Trees:
i. Public trees – parks, public buildings, playgrounds, etc.
ii. Voluntary cooperation – privately owned trees.
iii. Required cooperation – tree preservation in new developments, etc.
However there is serious ambiguity surrounding the term “required cooperation” for
new developments. Does this “required cooperation” override the owner’s consent?
Neighborhood Wellness
7.We understand that LUE Implementation Subtask 2.14: “Neighborhood Wellness Action
Plans” is ongoing. This subtask would help devise strategies to stabilize the rental/owner
ratio, to maintain neighborhood character, safety, and stability.
We are in support of the following:
LUE Implementation Subtask 2.11.2. Multifamily Open-Space and Storage Standards.
This is “deemed desirable” as these amenities will then address the needs of our
workforce as opposed to becoming de facto “student housing”.
LUE Implementation Subtask 2.12 Downtown Residential Development
LUE Implementation Subtask 2.13 & the associated
white paper” on “edge conditions in the City and neighborhood compatibility”.
LUE Implementation Subtask 3.10 Noise Control with the addition that other noise
attenuation measures be explored such as requiring balconies or rooftop decks to be
enclosed with sound attenuating material (such as glass or plexiglas).
However Save Our Downtown would like the City to take a more proactive stance on
traffic congestion, particularly in existing neighborhoods. The Housing Accountability Act
and Density Bonus Law recommends denial of housing projects that contribute to traffic
congestion. We are recommending the following addition be made to the Housing
Element:
If ‘exceptions to development standards’ or ‘easing of parking standards and building
setbacks’ result in traffic congestion using objective and quantiable criteria then the
project can be modied or denied.”
Moreover, we are urging the City to place Special Consideration (S) overlay zones over
Commercial Tourist (C-T) and Downtown Commercial (C-D) zones contiguous to
residential neighborhoods, specically Dana Street and Lincoln Street.
There is a need for more City parks, especially in the North Broad Street Neighborhood.
The Parks and Recreation Commission has historically focused on recreation at the
expense of the parks. We urge the Parks and Recreation Commission to focus on
identifying the location of, and funding for, a park in the North Broad Street
Neighborhood.
Administration of the Zoning Regulations
8.With regards to staff’s suggested revisions to the “Table of Contents”: Under Article 1 -
Purpose and Applicability of the Zoning Regulations”, the following should be
addressed:
The City could promote a more diligent administration of the Zoning Regulations, by
setting forth a “direction of duty,” with the following text recommendations:
Section 17.02.020 Purpose: “The Zoning Regulations express the specic interest and
intent of the residents of San Luis Obispo, as represented by their City Council, as the
means and methods by which to implement the City General Plan. It is the obligation of
City representatives, appointed commissioners, staff and contract employees to promote,
interpret and implement these regulations in accordance with the City General Plan.”
17.02.040 Interpretation: “Officials of the City of San Luis Obispo, including, but not
limited to staff, commissioners and City Council, shall diligently defend and uphold the
Zoning Regulations. Such officials shall obtain and provide useful and expert
interpretations and guidance to applicants and the public, which clarify and show how
development and subdivision applications can become consistent with these
regulations.”
Other Key Issues Requiring Discussion
9.With regards to “Key issues requiring discussion with the City staff and community to
determine the best approach to implementing policies and programs”:
a.“Provide for an enhanced pedestrian experience in the Downtown”. We are urging the
City to implement a Downtown Pedestrian Plan. Long-range planner Brian Laveille
was supposed to be working on a Downtown Pedestrian Plan. Moreover, we were
promised that community charrettes would be organized to further esh out this plan.
b.“Consider transfer of development rights (TDR) approaches to transfer densities from
outlying areas to Downtown”. Shouldn’t this be the other way around? Shouldn’t we
maintain a predominately 2-3 story high downtown by encouraging a suburban
developers to purchase unused air rights above a downtown property?
c.“Incorporate sustainability standards”. We endorse the formulation of these standards
particularly as they would apply to the carbon sequestration achieved through the
preservation of existing trees. We encourage the City to formalize site planning
standards that would factor in optimal orientation to solar and wind. We advocate on
behalf of a light color palette for buildings that would not create heat islands nor cause
the need for cooling systems. We also encourage that the city consider the impact of
taller buildings on surrounding buildings in terms of solar access.
Sincerely,
Russell Brown Chair, Save Our Downtown
Elizabeth Thyne Vice Chair, Save Our Downtown
Allan Cooper Secretary, Save Our Downtown www.saveourdowntownslo.com
To: SLO City Council and Planning Commission
Re: Zoning Regulations Update
From: Allan Cooper, Secretary Save Our Downtown
Date: April 10, 2017
Honorable Mayor, Council Members and Planning Commissioners -
We have read through the report prepared by your staff and by your consultant MIG which includes
a “List of Issues to be Addressed” and the “Summary of Stakeholder Interviews”. Our reactions are
outlined below.
Under the “List of Issues to be Addressed” we are delighted that you will be revisiting your policy
on roof decks. We are not convinced that roof decks should be incentivized as a form of public
open space. We are also pleased that you will be revisiting the denition of “mixed use”. We
believe that you should establish a minimum pro rata square foot requirement for the underlying
zone enabling the mixed-use to qualify for parking reductions and other incentives.
On the other hand, we are concerned with the implication that you might reconsider the policy that
only commercial uses will be allowed on the ground oor in the downtown core. Our downtown will
die as a commercial center if we fail to maintain retail activities at the street level. We are also
concerned that you maintain the same incentives for accessory dwelling units on non-conforming
lots as well as for conforming lots. Most of the residential lots within the downtown core are non-
conforming yet this is where we would especially like to increase housing densities without
increasing building heights. Under “Land Use Regulations” we are concerned that you have
chosen to revisit “tattoo parlors” yet there is no mention under this same category of the much
greater negative impacts on public health and safety associated with the proliferation of alcohol
outlets downtown.
Under the “Summary of Stakeholder Interviews” we are delighted with the comments stating that
parking requirements should be based on how bedrooms are used and on the size of bedrooms
because large bedrooms can accommodate more occupants. We agree that bedroom count (and
perhaps size) should be the only way to calculate density.
However, we are concerned with comments suggesting that the “FoCho” district could
accommodate 5- to 6-story buildings particularly where these buildings are contiguous to R-1
neighborhoods. We are also concerned with the many comments about “frivolous” appeals
suggesting that public input on in-ll projects are no longer welcome. Under the category
Downtown”, we adamantly insist that the transfer of density credits not be applied to non-
contiguous downtown properties. Instead, properties within the Downtown Core should only be
able to transfer their density credits to properties outside the Downtown Core thereby maintaining
the overall height of downtown buildings at 2 to 3 stories. Finally, a height minimum precluding
one-story structures downtown should not apply when the lot is contiguous to a one-story historic
property.
Thank you for your time and consideration!
Critique of April 12, 2017 SLO Zoning Regulations Update: Issues to Address and “Fix It” List
List of Issues to be Addressed in the Zoning Regulations Update
Development Standards and Zones
Good:
Revisit use of interior space in single family homes to avoid conversion to bedrooms
Revisit roof decks and standards...S.O.D.: particularly with regards to qualifying as public open
space Revisit so called “community benets” tied to height increases
Bad:
S.O.D.: Do not revisit ground oor commercial requirement particularly in the Downtown
Core Missing:
S Overlay for C-T backing onto Lincoln Street - listed under “Comments” for “Zones”
S Overlay zone for C-D backing onto Dana Street - listed under “Comments” for “Zones”
Land Use Regulations
Good:
Revisit mixed use denitions. S.O.D.: To establish a minimum pro rata square foot requirement
for the underlying zone which would qualify for parking reductions and/or dene a maximum
percentage (20%) of a retail zone that can be used for office
Missing:
Revisit alcohol outlets - listed under “Comments” for “Other Specic Uses” (versus
addressing revisiting tattoo shops)
Accessory Dwelling Units
Bad:
S.O.D.: Do not differentiate between ADU’s on conforming and non-conforming lots
Summary of Stakeholder Interviews - Additional Issues to Evaluate & Consider
Opportunity Areas
Bad:
FoCho (Foothill Chorro) district could increase density to ve- or six-story buildings
S.O.D.: Where is the on-street parking in this district? What about contiguous to R-1
neighborhoods?
Residential
Missing:
Should require minimum square footage and/or number of bedrooms for affordable housing -
listed under “Comments” for “Multi-Family Standards”
Occupancy
Good:
Consider how bedrooms will be used (large bedrooms will be shared) Bedroom count should be
the only way of calculating density
Code Administration and Permitting Processes
Bad:
Streamlining the review process by substituting administrative approvals for review body
approvals. Sties public input
S.O.D.: Appeals by residents should not be based on cost recovery as this will stie public
input
Where are the comments below coming from? Developers?
Too many appeals occur.
The appeal process appears easy from the Code language but does not reect the work and cost
involved in responding to the appeal. All residential projects are getting appealed to the City
Council. Perhaps appeals should be based on cost recovery.
The section describing the appeal process could be much more descriptive, laying out the
limitations and responsibilities. This would put appellants on notice about what they will need to
present—and the efforts that will be involved—and would discourage frivolous appeals.
Appeals of projects should be clear about the scope of the appeal and the particular project
components of concern.
Downtown
Bad:
Prioritize residential development over commercial development
Consider expanding transfer of density credits. Re-examine the ability for density transfers to
noncontiguous properties within the Downtown core. S.O.D.: Why not re-examine transferring
density credits from Downtown into the surrounding suburban development?
Allow height increases for buildings if the rst story is used for stacked parking and mechanical
parking lift.
Include a height minimum requirement for Downtown to preclude one-story structures. S.O.D.:
What about development contiguous to one-story historical properties?
To: SLO City Council
Re: Climate Action Plan Implementation Strategies
From:Allan Cooper & David Brodie, San Luis Obispo
Date:October 17, 2017
Honorable Mayor and Council Members -
Climate change means more variability in the climate. Climate variability means higher
temperatures, prolonged droughts and more intense storms resulting in ash oods along our
riparian corridors.
Increase in population and commuter trips can result in more bad air days.
The reduction in our urban tree canopy can increase air temperatures, reduce ozone uptake, water
retention and carbon sequestration.
Increased temperatures, drought and the introduction of urban activities into our surrounding wild
lands can increase the incidence and spread of wildres. For example Inyo National Forest re
investigators determined that a bike pedal colliding with a rock on August 5, 2016 started the Rock
Creek Fire in California’s Eastern Sierra.
Increase in urban activities and wildres poses a threat to plant life, aquatic life as well as avian
and ground-dwelling wildlife.
Stripping away vegetation can alter drainage patterns, increase runoff, pollute our ground water
and pollute the air with particulate matter. Increasing the particulate content in the air can cause
asthma attacks, acute bronchitis, respiratory infections and spread diseases such as Valley fever.
What should SLO be doing in response to all this? SLO’s so-called climate action plan should -
though it does not presently - promote low impact development strategies for cool roofs and cool
paving and include mandatory conservation measures for water (i.e., rain cisterns) and energy (i.e.,
photovoltaic panels). SLO should preserve and enhance its existing tree canopy. SLO should work
toward reducing long commutes and curb overall growth. SLO should introduce more retention
basins, bio-swales and vegetative ground cover into its ood plains. SLO should insure that its
open spaces do not become urbanized.
More specically, we need to see an end to the rush to build non-NZE (Net Zero Energy)
residences prior to the 2020 deadline. We concur that we should expand incentive programs for
projects that exceed Title 24 energy efficiency standards. This would provide time for designers,
builders and developers to learn how to comply so that in 2020 there is a smoother transition. We
need to raise public awareness so that people understand what Net Zero Energy entails and start
asking questions prior to purchasing their homes.
We agree that without an ordinance requiring the encouragement of low impact development
strategies this will not be a priority for the City. We are not so certain that an update to the SLO
Design Guidelines would accomplish this since the ARC is given so much latitude in interpreting
the Guidelines. Even amending our Zoning Regulations to promote low impact development
strategies for cool roofs and cool paving (for example requiring real shade trees in parking lots) is
not enough. We must address head on all the factors that result in creating the urban heat island
effect (UHIE). UHIE refers to the build-up of heat in urban spaces due to heavy mass materials
concrete, asphalt and buildings), direct exposure of high mass objects to the sun, blockage of
breezes and lack of vegetative cover that mitigates heat absorption in natural areas. The typical
UHIE temperature boost differential can be 10-15 degrees compared to nearby natural or
agricultural areas. This heat boost, in turn, increases demand for air conditioning and increases the
A/C load (amount of energy used). SLO’s current thrust towards increasing “density” is
unfortunately escalating our UHIE.
We also contend that an ordinance should be incorporated into our update to the Zoning
Regulations that would mandate the use of photovoltaic installations when they are applicable.
Requiring them during the design review process may be too discretionary.
This report makes only one reference to lighting when it refers to exterior lighting being replaced
with night sky friendly LED lighting. However in commercial buildings, lighting accounts for about
50% of electric usage (35% for lights and the rest for dealing with excess heat from lighting).
Daylighting (i.e., using daylight to illuminate interiors) can make a huge dent in this at practically no
cost - if buildings are designed to capture daylight. All new single story commercial space should
be day lit through either “top-lighting” in which light enters overhead or “side-lighting” using
carefully congured windows, with devices like light shelves, to direct light inwards.
This report advocates improving the City’s jobs-housing balance to reduce VMT from commuting
by implementing Land Use Element Policy 1.5, Housing Element Policies 10.1 and 10.2 and
Housing Element Program 10.3. Though the General Plan build out period plans for the
construction of more than 4,300 new units by the year 2035 to provide housing for the City’s
workforce what is missing is an estimate of the number of jobs generated by the projected growth
in non-residential square footage. My concern is that build-out, based on the number of jobs
generated relative to housing, will actually exacerbate the unmet demand for affordable housing
and job-to-housing balance, resulting in more commutes. This will further compromise our air
quality. We should therefore consider establishing limits for the rate of non-residential development
if we are serious about improving the City’s current jobs-housing balance and reducing VMT from
commuting.
I fear that the current push to amend the Zoning Regulations in the scal years 2016-2018 to
increase the potential shared parking reduction from 10% to 30% will have unintended
consequences. Many under parked housing and commercial projects will actually generate more
CO2 emissions by virtue of the fact that those residents or customers with a car and nowhere to
park will generate more trips by searching in vain for on-street parking. The best way to reduce trip
generated CO2 emissions is to provide more funding for more clean air vehicle parking spaces,
enhanced funding to the SLO Regional Transit Authority (SLORTA) enabling them to provide
additional routes and reduced fares and promoting ride and car sharing.
In addition to a water rebate program, the City should bring back a water demand offset program
that would subsidize, for example, the installation of recycled water, grey water and/or rainwater
harvesting systems. Moreover, the City’s newly adopted Water Shortage Contingency Plan should
make these water demand offsets mandatory long before we are down to a 3 year water supply.
Even though there is merit in continuing to restore native vegetation in place of areas invaded
with non-native vegetation, it should be noted that some non-native vegetation is adapting better
to climate change than native vegetation. Because of the important role trees play in carbon
sequestration, tree preservation and maintenance should be given the same priority as restoration
plantings. However, when trees must be removed every effort should be made to recycle the
usable wood to a local mill for conversion into furniture or lumber product.
Finally, there is no mention in this report of the important role that subdivision layout plays in
minimizing VMT’s. All new residential subdivisions should be laid out to maximize each lot’s
capability to capture natural site energy ows (sun, wind, etc.). This makes passive energy captive
and makes sustainable NZE buildings possible.
Thank you!
See: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/08/140812-california-climate-change-global-
warming-science/
To: SLO Planning Commission, Doug Davidson and Kyle Bell
Re: Proposed Revisions to Ordinance 1130 and the S Zone
From:Allan Cooper, San Luis Obispo
Date:January 6, 2018
Honorable Chair Stevenson and Commissioners -
I applaud what the San Luis Drive neighborhood is attempting to do (see below) by tweaking the S
Zone. However, there is only one error in Dr. Lucas’s letter where he says “Aware that change is
inevitable, they draft an ordinance to ensure that such changes will be sensitive to the environment
as well as to the unique juxtaposition of their R-1 neighborhood next to a Commercial/Tourist
zoned area, the only such juxtaposition in San Luis.”
However, there is indeed another R-1 neighborhood separated by a sensitive riparian corridor from
a C-T zone. Those are the residents along the east side of Lincoln Street between Mountain View
to the South and Venable Street to the north. For that reason an S Zone should overlay the Tourist
Commercial properties anking the north and west sides of Olive Street and both sides of
Montalban Street west of Santa Rosa.
This cannot happen too soon. In 2016, a massive 4-story hotel located within this very same C-T
zone at 1042 Olive Street was appealed by a group of neighboring motel owners. They lost their
appeal. The property, along with the permitted plans, is now up for sale. But once the new property
owner completes the construction of this overbearing structure, the neighbors on Lincoln Street
will certainly take notice.
Perhaps more importantly, because of the development pressures occurring there presently, there
should be an S Zone overlaid onto the C-R and C-D zones that are separated by San Luis Creek
from the R-3-H Dana Street residents. The Dana Street neighborhood deserves the same
considerations given to the San Luis Drive neighborhood.
These residents conveyed the very same concerns articulated by the San Luis Drive neighbors in
their appeal (which they lost) of the 4-story South Town Eighteen project at 560 Higuera Street.
These concerns included 1) car headlights which should have been shielded from the Dana Street
homes; 2) car noise that would require a sound buffer (not just vegetation); 3) noise emanating
from the balconies; and 4) privacy concerns because of overlook onto the residences. These
residences had an additional problem, which San Luis Drive residents are spared, which was that
there were winter solstice shadows cast from this 4-story building onto Dana Street’s back yards
including some solar panel arrays. Just as the developers of the Monterey Hotel used the
implausible argument that a hotel smaller than 100 rooms wouldn’t “pencil out”, so did the
developers of South Town Eighteen argue that lowering the project’s density would increase the
project’s costs and that this was unacceptable.
As if this wasn’t enough, the Dana Street residents are now wrestling with another four story
building at 1027 Nipomo Street which is also separated from their neighborhood by San Luis
Creek. With the exception of the intrusion of car headlights, all of the previously mentioned
concerns obtained: noise emanating from the balconies, overlook concerns, long shadows plus
incompatibility with adjacent historic structures. Fortunately, this project was denied by the CHC
and continued by the ARC last September.
I am also asking you to consider an S Zone overlay on the C-T and C-R Zones which ank the
south side of upper Monterey between Grove and Johnson Streets. Even though the residences
abutting this area and located along the north side of Higuera Street are zoned Office (with the
exception of the block between Pepper and Johnson which is zoned R-3) and are not separated
by a sensitive riparian corridor, nearly all of these structures remain well-maintained, single story
residences. The imminent prospect of a 4-story (45 foot tall) structure replacing the existing one-
and two-story Los Padres Inn has already generated considerable controversy among these
neighbors. These neighbors also deserve the special considerations that an S-Zone affords.
Finally, like the North Higuera neighborhood where there is no intervening creek between the
contiguous commercial and residential zones, that portion of the C-C-SF Zone immediately
abutting the R-1 residences along the north side of Rougeot Place and a small portion of North
Chorro should have an S Zone designation. Had this happened earlier, the 4-story 22 Chorro
project would have had to address these additional S-Zone constraints. This would surely have
brought it more into scale with the adjacent R-1 neighborhood. Thank you!
Summary of Proposed Revisions to Ordinance 1130 - S Zone
Bob Lucas (representing San Luis Drive neighborhood)
Change the current ordinance from staggering setbacks facing the creek where “a building 25 feet
tall must be setback 20 feet from the from the creek (i.e., the relocated C/OS-5 boundary) to a
building 25 feet tall must be setback 50 feet”
Another proposed change involves reducing the maximum building height permitted in the 80 foot
setback from 45 feet to 35 feet.
By increasing minimum setbacks from the creek from 20 feet to 50 feet (consistent with C/OS
zones) then the staggering setbacks facing the creek must be changed to where a building 25 feet
tall must be setback between 50 feet to 80 feet of the creek and a building 35 feet tall must be
setback further than 80 feet from the creek.
Change “minimize” balconies and doors to “eliminate” balconies and doors
Add rooftop pools are prohibited.
Add glazing shall not reect sunlight toward the Creek.
Add windows facing the creek will be no larger than the minimum required by the Fire Code.
Add to “signicant damage to vegetation” to the prohibition of removing vegetation.
Add “The creekside setback area and/or the area beneath the high berm on the creekside shall not
be used for a public or urban trail”.
Add buildings functioning solely as conference/convention centers are not allowed.
Add rooms used primarily for social gatherings shall not face the creek.
Add openings into parking garages facing the creek are prohibited.
Add over-the-counter changes shall be a matter of public record.
Add any alteration to an existing development must be subject to a use permit approved by the
Planning Commission and Architectural Review Commission.
The argument that a hotel with fewer than 100 rooms with a 45 foot building height would “pencil
out” is belied by the fact that smaller hotels are thriving such as the San Luis Creek Lodge (25
rooms) and the the three story high Holiday Inn and Quality Suites.
The Monterey Hotel sets a precedent for other C/S zoned parcels nearby such as the Peach Tree
Inn and Daylight Gardens as they are candidates for future projects that could maximize
opportunities for inll.
To:SLO Planning Commission
Re: Continued discussion on alcohol-related safety problems in Downtown
From:Allan Cooper, Secretary Save Our Downtown
Date:January 23, 2018
Dear Honorable Chair Stevenson and Commissioners -
The Land Use & Circulation Element Task Force developed the following programs and policies
the bold type is mine):
1.New Program: The City shall incorporate into its zoning regulations specic criteria for
evaluating use permits for bars/taverns, night clubs and late night drinking establishments.
2.New Policy: City shall promote a healthy mix of downtown street-level businesses that
emphasizes retail stores, specialty shops and food service rather than bars or taverns.
3.New Program: The City shall prepare an inventory of uses in the Downtown Core. Particular
attention shall be given to identifying uses at the street level as these uses directly impact the
pedestrian experience and vibrancy of the Downtown. This information shall be used to target
business support and attraction to achieve a desirable mix of uses in the Downtown.
The City promised that staff and Council would look into implementing an over-concentration
law. Under "assessing and renewing Downtown”, staff included in its action plan the following:
Alcohol Concentration Evaluation and Adoption of Code Amendments." The completion time
for this was November of 2014.
Therefore we are urging you to revisit Ordinance No. 17.11.040: “alcohol outlet public safety
strategies and deemed approved alcoholic beverage sale regulations”. First the City does not
require the applicant to ll out a “Submittal Checklist” nor has it codied a “Public
Convenience and Necessity Policy”. Without the latter two requirements, all decisions
approving or denying outlets for both on-site and off-site alcohol sales are purely discretionary
and sometimes inconsistent or arbitrary). Instead follow the best practices of three other
California cities. For example, grant a Type 47 license through the CUP process if it is proven
that doing so would not “cause deterioration of bordering land uses or create special
problems for the area in which it is located” (see City of Orange). The Police Department
should recommend denial of an applicant’s request for a Type 47 license if the crime rate
within that census district is increasing (see City of La Palma). And nally, grant a CUP for2
any restaurant that wants to sell alcoholic beverages (i.e., any Type 41 or 47 alcohol outlet) on
the condition that the City can exercise local control over where alcohol outlets may operate
see City of Vallejo).
Finally I would like to address the issue of enforcement. Students coming back home from the
bars continue to create problems for residents living in outlying neighborhoods. Alcohol outlets
can be cited and even have their licenses revoked if it can be proven that they had over-served
alcohol to any of these 'bad actors'. However, the police never ask the inebriated student
committing these misdemeanors or felonies where they were last being served alcohol. This
explains why no alcohol outlet over the past 6 years has faced any disciplinary action, far less,
had their license revoked. We also learned that the complaint process, if it's pertaining to any
one alcohol outlet, must rst be directed to the Downtown Association (DA) before it is routed
to the City. This protocol has not been made public and should be. Of course our preference is
that all citizen or police department complaints should go directly to Doug Davidson, the
Administrative Hearing Officer. Thank you!
Source: “Dashboard” (see http://comstat.slocity.org/dashboard/Incidents/
Downtown April 14, 2015 to April 13, 2016 to Jan. 23, 2017 to
Neighborhood 5 April 12, 2016 April 17, 2017 Jan. 22, 2018
Non-Aggravated
Assault 15 60 46
Alcohol Offenses 308 554 502
Sexual Assault 7 16 12
Party Noise 21 31 39
Aggravated 10 22 17
Assault
Property Theft 91 197 185
To:SLO Planning Commission, Doug Davidson & Kyle Bell
Re:Zoning Regulations Update: Specic Items for Consideration are: a. Preliminary
Review of Article 2 (Zones, Allowable Uses, and Development and Design
Standards) b. Preliminary Review of Article 4 (Regulations for Specic Land Uses
and Activities) c. Informational Item: Draft White Paper on Flexible Densities
Downtown
From:Allan Cooper, Secretary Save Our Downtown
Note below that, according to “Dashboard”, the crime rate in Downtown has tabled off over the past year - 2
with the exception of noise complaints - but is still signicantly higher than over the period of April 2015 -
April 2016. Our understanding is that staff is showing a declining crime rate because they are conning their
hours to 10:00 P.M. to 2:00 A.M. and they are focussing their data on a smaller area of downtown. However,
alcohol-related offenses are committed at all hours of the day and bar activity bleeds out over a much larger
area - to include all of Neighborhood 5.
Date:February 25, 2018
Honorable Chair Stevenson and Commissioners -
Staff and the MIG Consultant Team are to be commended for their effort to move this Zoning
Regulation Update process along as expeditiously as possible. However, we’ve all had a
formidable task this week trying to read through this 100-plus page staff report.
Nonetheless, we would like to comment on the proposed updates you have before you.
As for the rst consideration, “exible density downtown”, we wish to remind you that the Housing
Element Program 6.27 does not mandate that you double the residential densities currently
allowed in the CN, O and CD zones. The Program simply requests that you “evaluate” and
consider” increasing these densities. Staff states: “The City of San Luis Obispo has a pivotal
opportunity through its Zoning Regulations Update to increase the amount of housing in
Downtown consistent with its land use policy objectives.” Save Our Downtown supports removing
barriers to construction of accessory dwelling units, particularly on substandard lots located within
the Downtown core, because we know that increased housing density can be achieved without
signicantly increasing building heights. However, the MIG Consultant Team’s “Flexible Densities in
Downtown” White Paper is placing too much of a burden on the C-D zone. By doubling oor area
ratios in order to absorb a still undetermined number of housing units (whether “workforce” or not)
we will be risking increasing building heights to unacceptable levels - at least “unacceptable” to
the public as determined through the recent Downtown Concept Plan workshops and survey
results.
With regards to incorporating Downtown Development Standards beyond the C-D zone into Upper
Monterey: We support this if this is combined with the following additional caveats: 1) that zoning
densities would necessarily be transferred out of (not to other parts of) the historic downtown core
and into outlying, less historically sensitive, areas such as Upper Monterey; 2) that this expanded
C-D zone be overlaid with a Special Consideration (S) Zone to address potential conicts with
adjoining residential neighborhoods; and 3) that neither the maximum height nor the maximum
FAR be increased in the historical downtown core.
Finally, we are delighted with some of the changes made to the requirements and ndings for
height increase in the C-D Zone. We agree with changing the verbiage from “must” to “shall”,
increasing the number of required community benets from two to three for buildings up to 60 and
75 feet and requiring that any additional oors be utilized solely for residential development.
However, we are still struggling with the following “public benets” listed: 1) the public viewing
deck when easy access may not be assured; 2) that the project be designed to achieve a LEED
Silver rating (not a “Net Zero Energy” rating) as this is the minimum rating required through
Executive Order B-18-12 for new or renovated State buildings; and
3) “other policy objectives”, objectives that are either nebulous (i.e., “the approval of the Planning
Commission”) and/or hard to measure (i.e., conformance with the “the Downtown Strategic Plan”).
Thank you!
To: San Luis Obispo Planning Commission, Doug Davidson & Kyle Bell
Re:White Paper: Implementing the Climate Action Plan in the Zoning Regulations
From:Allan Cooper, San Luis Obispo
Date:March 24, 2018
Honorable Chair Stevenson and Commissioners -
This White Paper is seriously awed. No doubt it is packed full of good intentions. But voluntary
guidelines that would be “enforced” by discretionary review bodies and voluntary incentives limited
by their application to only the PD overlay and C-D zones is “business as usual” in a world that is
perilously close to (if not already past) the “tipping point” - in a world where an irreversible carbon
feedback loop is looming nearer and nearer. We should be calling for mandatory, not voluntary,
measures to address climate change.
This is compounded by the fact that the bulk of the emphasis in this paper is being placed on
transportation when nearly half of all CO2 emissions come from the building sector (compared to
one third of all CO2 emissions being attributed to transportation). Instead of emphasizing a
stronger commitment to inter-urban mass transit this paper focusses on ways to wean residents,
commuters and tourists from using private automobiles. How? By eliminating parking spaces.
However, a rapidly increasing demand for car parking along with urban sprawl will be exacerbated
not mitigated - by the arrival of the autonomous vehicle and the electric car because both will
make long commutes as well as vacation trips safer, more enjoyable and more affordable.
Increasing building densities is not a sustainable solution. The argument is that doing so will
prevent urban sprawl but both are currently happening. Increasing both downtown density and
sprawl will overtax our infrastructure and our biome carrying capacity (California’s ecological
footprint is 14 times its carrying capacity). Aggressive promotion of tourism, new hotel/motel
construction and growth in jobs must be stemmed. The City averages 2,700 overnight visitors in
motels and hotels plus 100’s more visitors in Airbnb’s. Add to this an unknown number of day
visitors plus some 24,300 out-of-town workforce commuters and our daytime population hovers
around 75,700+. Unlike the current cap on housing production, this daytime population is growing
far in excess of 1% per year.
Finally, there is no mention of water availability and conservation, no mention of wildlife and open
space protection, no mention of prime agricultural lands, no mention of the role trees and
landscaping play in carbon sequestration. These diminishing resources play a critical role in our
adapting to, or surviving, climate change.
Climate change is the most urgent issue confronting us today and we are falling far short of what
we should be doing. Time is of the essence. We have reached 410 ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere.
Irreversible carbon-cycle feedbacks set in at 450 ppm. “Business as usual” means we will be
reaching 450 ppm of CO2 within the next 10 years. The options for avoiding catastrophic climate
and weather changes are almost too late.And, the effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions has
not only to be taken individually but also at our local levels of government. Therefore what
should San Luis Obispo, at the urging of its Mayor and City Council, do - that it’s not now
presently doing - to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60% over the next 10 years?
SLO must require all future private and public development meet the 2020 “carbon neutral”
challenge and attain or exceed nothing less than the Platinum Level for LEED
certication.Cambridge, Massachusetts has set up a Net Zero Task Force to explore the
possibilities for Cambridge moving towards becoming a net zero energy community. This task
force was set up because a citizens group created a petition for all new construction in
Cambridge to become net zero and ooded the Planning Board and City Council meetings with
advocates for net zero. The city’s response was to set up an independent task force that includes
leaders in the eld of energy conservation and renewables, and then supported it with paid
consultants.
Moreover, the City, like many other California cities, should
1) require that developers install cool roofs and cool paving;
2) require developers to install photovoltaics on new roofs where appropriate;
3) provide rebates for planting drought tolerant trees that sequester high amounts of carbon and
discourage the unnecessary removal of existing trees and riparian habitat to make way for new
development;
4) require the purchase of “green power”;
5) set up micro-grids powered by wind or concentrated solar thermal with storage.
Even if we avoid two degrees of global warming, water in the Central Coast will become much
more scarce. Therefore the City must also:
6) require all developers to install vegetated bioswales and retention basins to recharge our
aquifers;
7) require developers to provide some form of rainwater harvesting (rooftop or surface);
8) reinstate SLO’s water demand offset program;
9) implement the expansion of rebate programs to include, but not be limited to, the following
types of water demand reductions: hot water recirculation, point-of-use water heaters, toilet leak
detection systems, dry toilets and grey water systems;
10) cap its population growth (including Cal Poly’s enrollment growth); and
11) cap or slow down its commercial growth particularly in the hospitality areas of food service,
sales and lodging as these by type and use are high water and energy consumers (see:https://
sustainabilityworkshop.autodesk.com/buildings/building-program-and-schedule).
The building sector is responsible for nearly half (44.6%) of U.S. CO2 emissions. By comparison,
transportation accounts for only 34.3% of CO2 emissions and industry just 21.1%. One key way to
reduce and ultimately phase out the CO2 emissions produced by the building sector is by
transforming the way buildings are designed, built, and operated. With regards to Goal BLD 2:
New Construction Energy Conservation: Encourage and incentivize new development to exceed
minimum CALGreen requirements: It is clearly not sufficient to conne incentives for exceeding
Title 24 energy efficiency standards to only planned development overlay and C-D zones. And new
development should be mandated - not incentivized - to install energy-efficient appliances as well
as cool roofs and cool paving surfaces. Similarly, renewable energy generation and/or solar power
for certain residential projects should be mandated, not incentivized. The implementation of these
goals should not fall under the Community Design Guidelines as guidelines can be easily ignored
or overlooked.
The City has adopted several development regulations that exceed CALGreen energy conservation
requirements, such as requiring buildings taller than 50 feet in the C-D zone to meet minimum
energy conservation requirements. The City has also established incentives in Development
Regulations that allow higher maximum building heights for projects that exceed Title 24 energy
requirements by at least 30 percent.
However, tall buildings are inherently energy inefficient because proportionately more of their
surface area is exposed to the sun and wind. Tall buildings use almost twice as much energy per
square foot as low-rise structures. Tall buildings require more steel and concrete, therefore contain
more embodied energy and are less sustainable than low rise buildings built largely of wood.
Concrete is 10 times more GHG-intensive than wood. In low-rise buildings the rooftop supply
available for solar energy is inevitably more in line with the energy demands of the building than it
is for mid- or high-rises. Most buildings that generate their own energy do it with solar
photovoltaics (PV). If we assume that a building has only its roof area available for mounting PV,
then a single-story building is much more likely to achieve net-zero than a high-rise. Getting to net-
zero is extremely difficult for buildings of more than four stories. If the project includes energy-
intensive data centers, labs, or other spaces, the challenge gets tougher. Thank you!
To: San Luis Obispo Planning Commission, Doug Davidson & Kyle Bell
Re:Draft White Paper – Re-Envisioning Personal Mobility
From:Allan Cooper, San Luis Obispo
Date:March 24, 2018
Honorable Chair Stevenson and Commissioners -
Predicating future car parking supply (see Table 1 “Zoning Regulation Parking Options/
Exceptions”) on the targeted mode split of 50% auto trip usage, 20% bicycle trip usage, 18%
walking (or motorcycle, golf cart, Segway, scooter or skateboard usage) and 12% transit usage
assumes that nearly
all 6,700 residents holding jobs in San Luis Obispo,
all 14,300 Cal Poly and Cuesta College students living off campus and in San Luis Obispo
and
all of the remaining 19,300 residents who neither work in San Luis Obispo (but may be
working in outlying communities) nor are students will be relying on bicycles, walking or
public transit to get around. The sum total for this group is 40,300.
Relying on automobile usage will be
the 24,300 workers (source: SLOCOG) commuting daily into San Luis Obispo from outlying
communities,
the 2,700 transient occupants who will be spending a night or two in a motel or hotel in San
Luis Obispo,
the hundreds more staying in Airbnb’s,
the approximately 1,100 out-of-town shoppers and day visitors,
the 5,700 residents 65 years of age or older who may have mobility issues due to age or
inrmity,
the 1,570 pre-school children,
an unknown number of residents who are employed in outlying communities and
the 3,950 Cal Poly and Cuesta College students living in outlying communities (source: Cal
Poly Masterplan DEIR).
The sum total for this group is 39,320. So roughly follows the 50-50 split.
What is not taken into account here is San Luis Obispo’s aggressive promotion of tourism, new
hotel/motel construction and the growth in hospitality-related, low-paying jobs. Unlike the current
cap on housing production, our daytime population is growing far in excess of 1% per year and
this will only increase our reliance on the use of the automobile. Secondly, where does the
projected increase in service vehicle/truck traffic factor in (i.e., Amazon, hospitality, special event,
restaurant, bar-related and personal service deliveries)? Thirdly, current statistics would indicate
that San Luis Obispo residents may not be so easily weaned of the convenience of personalized
transportation particularly as electric powered cars become more affordable. Ninety percent of all
households (17,157) in San Luis Obispo presently own 2 cars or more (7.8% own 5 or more cars!).
In 2015, 67% of commuters drove alone, 7.8% carpooled, 7.5% walked, 3% used public transit
and 9% bicycled to work . Even if the total number of vehicle trips decline over time, personalized3
transportation is essential for family-related grocery shopping, shopping for home improvements,
medical emergencies and weekend excursions. And fourthly, the Zoning Regulation Parking
Options/Exceptions found in Table 1 apply to all new development. It is my belief that for the
reasons stated above, all hospitality and commercial development as well as multi-generational
housing should be exempted from these provisions. Thank you!
Regarding Re-Envisioning Personal Mobility:
First, what is not taken into account here is the projected increase in service vehicle and truck
traffic particularly as it relates to the growth of online shopping and the growth in home delivery
services.
see: https://datausa.io/prole/geo/san-luis-obispo-ca/#category_transportation3
Second, the Zoning Regulation Parking Options and Exceptions apply to all new development. It is
my belief that all new hospitality and commercial development as well as multi-generational
housing - appealing to the very young or very old - should be exempted from these provisions.
Why? Because even though automobile-dependent students, workers and visitors currently
comprise 50% of the population this percentage is growing because of Cal Poly’s enrollment
growth and San Luis Obispo’s aggressive promotion of jobs, tourism and new hotel/motel
construction.
Third, ninety percent of all San Luis Obispo households own 2 cars or more. These statistics would
indicate that San Luis Obispo residents may not be so easily weaned of the convenience of
personalized transportation particularly as electric powered cars become more affordable and
common. Even if the total number of vehicle trips decline over time, personalized transportation is
essential for family-related grocery shopping, shopping for home improvements, medical
emergencies and weekend excursions.
Regarding Implementing the Climate Action Plan in the Zoning Regulations:
First, guidelines that would be “enforced” by discretionary review bodies and voluntary incentives
limited by their application to only the PD overlay and C-D zones are half measures.
Second, instead of emphasizing a stronger commitment to inter-urban mass transit this paper
focusses on ways to wean residents, commuters and tourists from using private automobiles.
However, a rapidly increasing demand for car parking along with urban sprawl will be exacerbated
not mitigated - by the arrival of the autonomous vehicle and the electric car because both will
make long commutes as well as vacation trips safer, more enjoyable and more affordable.
Third, increasing our downtown building heights will overtax our biome carrying capacity because
tall buildings use almost twice as much embodied energy per square foot as low-rise structures,
because getting to net-zero is extremely difficult for buildings of more than four stories and
because the rooftop supply available for solar energy is inevitably more in line with the energy
demands of low rise buildings.
Fourth, there is no mention of the City’s aggressive promotion of jobs, tourism and new hotel/motel
construction resulting in daytime population growth far in excess of 1% per year. This growth is
compounded by the fact that the hospitality areas of food service, sales and lodging are among
the highest water and energy consumers.
Fifth, there is no mention of water availability and conservation, no mention of wildlife and open
space protection, no mention of prime agricultural lands and no mention of the role trees and
landscaping play in carbon sequestration. Thank you!
To: SLO City Council
Re: Zoning Regulation Update Study Session
From: Allan Cooper, Secretary Save Our Downtown
Date: April 7, 2018
Honorable Mayor Harmon and Council Members -
You are starting to consider changes in our zoning regulations that would virtually pave the way for
developers to build higher density housing and perhaps taller buildings in all parts of the city.
Several of staff's proposals presented to you include extremely small living units both in our
downtown but also in our backyards. These units would most likely not be provided with adequate
parking. The parking impacts would spill over into all of our neighborhoods. Moreover, we are not
convinced that smaller units will necessarily be more affordable. A case in point is The Academy
located at 22 Chorro where two-bedroom units accommodating four beds are currently renting at
1,350 to $1,450 per bed.
We are also concerned that this is called a “study session” whereby no direction or action can be
provided, yet you will be making policy decisions at this study session by answering “yes” or “no”
to eight questions.
We are, nevertheless, listing those questions below followed in some instances by some analysis.
This will then be followed by our response.
1. Revise the density calculations as discussed for simplication and to continue
encouraging smaller housing units?
Analysis: Dene density as a dwelling regardless whether the dwelling is a studio, one-bedroom or
more. Currently R-2 is 12 density units per acre thereby limiting the maximum potential for a 6,000
sq.ft. lot to one three- bedroom unit, one two-bedroom unit, two one-bedroom units or three
studio apartments.
In order to increase density in multiple-family zones, staff is recommending allowing a minimum of
two two-bedroom units for a 6,000 sq.ft. lot, where only one would have been allowed, three
two-bedroom units in R-3 (18 units/ acre) where only two two-bedroom units are allowed and four
two-bedroom units in R-4 (24 units/acre) where only three would be allowed.
Revise the one-bedroom dwelling units under 600 sq.ft. (as opposed to under 1,000 sq.ft.) to be
reduced from 0.66 unit to the 0.50 unit (now only currently applying to studio apartments) and
eliminate the studio apartment. The UBC requires a minimum 150 sq.ft. for an "efficiency" dwelling
unit. So, looking at item "a" on the list, a studio apartment (though this category is being
eliminated) could be as small as 150 sq.ft. and up to 450 sq.ft. using the 0.50 density value. One-
bedroom units between 600 – 1,000 square feet would continue to count as 0.66 density units.
Response: We oppose this if increased density does not result in increasing the parking
requirements.
2. Allow exible density downtown by removing density limits from smaller (600 sq. ft.) units?
This would also include applying the downtown development standards to the Upper
Monterey corridor (to the railroad trestle) and bringing back the corresponding Ordinance
Overlay Zone map as part of this Zoning Regulations Update.
Analysis: Eliminating density requirements (i.e., 36 units/acre) altogether when the units are
smaller than 600 square feet. If the units are larger than 600 sq.ft. then the 36 units/acre would
apply. Within an allowed building envelope (or mass), the ground oor would not count as it is
assumed to be commercial. If you assume a 10,000 sq. ft. footprint, then the building sits on 0.230
of an acre. The density limit of 36 du/ac is 8.26 units (for units over 600 sq.ft.) on this 0.230 acre.
Let’s say each unit is 1,000 sq.ft. then these 8 units could all t on the second oor. Add to this two
more oors comprised of 600 sq.ft. units for a 50 foot tall building and the total could be 27
additional units over what is currently permitted. However, an FAR of 3.75 for a 50 foot tall building
would limit the overall square footage of the building to 37,500 sq.ft. So the remaining square feet
above the second oor would be 17,500 sq.ft. allowing for 23 more units. So, the proposal would,
at the very least, quadruple the density, if parking is provided or paid in lieu somewhere. What’s
not mentioned here but what is clearly implied are the “trade offs” or incentives that will be offered
developers if they agree to incorporate smaller than the 600
square foot units into their projects. And those incentives will be parking reductions and taller
buildings.
Response: We oppose this if this results in taller buildings downtown and/or if this leads to further
depleting the availability of parking downtown. Depleting the availability of parking will continue to
discourage shoppers and tourists from visiting our downtown. Save Our Downtown is also
skeptical of the concept of “affordable by design”. The Academy at 22 Chorro Street is a dormitory
style project comprised of units that will be renting for $1,350 to $1,450 per bed. This is not
affordable. But this is “stack and pack”. Continuing the downtown development standards to
Upper Monterey would be a problem for adjoining residential developments which ank upper
Palm and Higuera Streets.
3. Regulate rooftop uses by establishing setbacks, hours, size limits, and other standards to
balance the use and enjoyment of rooftop uses with the privacy of residential settings?
Response: We support this! However, roof decks should not be incentivized as a form of public
open space. We believe that roof decks do not qualify as one of the several community benets
that currently earn the developer the right to build above 50 feet.
4. Whether current alcohol outlet practices and the incorporation of conditions of approval
as standards are adequate to address safety concerns downtown?
Response: We support this but we want to extend the PCN to restaurants with bars. We see that
the City is revisiting “tattoo parlors” and setting limits on the possible location of stores selling
cannabis, yet there is no mention of the much greater negative impacts on public health and safety
associated with the proliferation of alcohol outlets downtown. We urge the City to expand the
scope of LUE Implementation Subtask 4.32 “Alcohol Use Permits” to include a work program
implementing an alcohol outlet "Public Convenience and Necessity" (PCN) policy as well as a
reexamination of Ordinance No. 1578. Additionally, we are urging you to revisit Ordinance No.
17.11.040: “alcohol
outlet public safety strategies and deemed approved alcoholic beverage sale regulations”. The City
does not require the applicant to ll out a “Submittal Checklist” nor has it codied a “Public
Convenience and Necessity Policy”. Without the latter two requirements, all decisions approving or
denying outlets for both on-site and off-site alcohol sales are purely discretionary (and sometimes
inconsistent or arbitrary). Instead grant a Type 47 license through the CUP process if it is proven
that doing so would not “cause deterioration of bordering land uses or create special problems for
the area in which it is located.” Moreover, the Police Department should recommend denial of an
applicant’s request for a Type 47 license if the crime rate within that census district is increasing.
Grant a CUP for any restaurant that wants to sell alcoholic beverages (i.e., any Type 41 or 47
alcohol outlet) on the condition that the City can exercise local control over where alcohol outlets
may operate.
The use permit process for bars, night clubs, and late-night restaurants serving alcohol requires a
nding that the alcohol outlet use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of persons
working or living at the site or within the vicinity. To more fully implement Policy 4.328, the
amended Zoning Regulations will include specic criteria for use permits by incorporating the
late-night alcohol standard conditions of approval (developed during the Alcohol Outlet
Amendments process) into the Ordinance.
5. Whether to incorporate an opportunity for tiny homes on wheels as part of the Zoning
Regulations Update?
Analysis: Tiny homes on wheels are considered Recreational Vehicles (RV) according to the
California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and regulated as motor
vehicles by the State Department of Motor Vehicles. In response to community and Council
interest in allowing tiny homes in the City, staff has focused on how existing regulations might be
revised to accommodate tiny homes on wheels in backyards of single-family homes.
Response: We are not supporting this. Again, there are unmitigated parking impacts associated
with this. It would be better if these tiny homes could be concentrated in one location where
parking is available.
6. Remove specic barriers to ADU construction? Frontage improvements and/or impact
fees?
Analysis: Key provisions included eliminating the requirement for parking and allowing existing
garages to be converted to ADUs without replacement of the garage for the primary unit.
Another key provision was a prohibition on requiring re sprinklers for the ADU if the primary unit
on the property doesn’t have re sprinklers. Furthermore, the City has reduced the development
impact fees for ADUs and is allowing a single water meter on R-1 properties with an ADU. Explore
options to reduce the extent of required frontage improvements triggered by ADUs – curb, gutter,
sidewalks, and ADA driveway upgrades.
Response: We support ADU’s if they are owner-occupied and particularly if they are located
downtown because they will increase density without increasing height. We are opposed to
eliminating parking spaces to make way for ADU’s. We are encouraging the City to maintain the
same incentives for accessory dwelling units on non-conforming lots as are available to
conforming lots. This will allow greater housing density Downtown (where non-conforming lots
prevail) without increasing building heights.
7. Consolidate and streamline the review process for more simplicity, as outlined in the
report?
Analysis: No public input at administrative hearings except when a use permit is being considered.
All ARC and CHC decisions will be relegated to “recommendations” to either the Community
Development Director or the PC. Only the CCD or the PC will have the purview to make the nal
decision.
ARC will see more projects at the conceptual review stage when there is little detail available
relative to oor plans or landscaping.
The ARC will no longer provide input on environmental review as this will be the sole purview of the
PC.
ARC and CHC review will take place concurrently so that the ARC will no longer receive direction
from the CHC.
Only projects larger than 10,000 sq.ft. or more than 5 units will be considered by the Planning
Commission (unless appealed).
The Tree Committee will no longer review tree removal within the public right-of-way. As is
currently the case, tree removal in new developments will remain outside their purview. And we are
concerned that the ARC will no longer receive insights from the Cultural Heritage Committee. This
will result in each advisory body becoming a “silo”.
Response: We denitely oppose this! The residents of San Luis Obispo oppose this because they
do not want to be deprived of their prerogative to comment on any projects that come before the
City. Nor do the residents want most nal decisions to be made by the Community Development
Director or Administrative Hearing Officer. We oppose limiting the ARC to conceptual review and
barring the Tree Committee from commenting on tree removals in the public right-of-way. We
would like to expand the Tree Committee’s purview to include tree removals in new developments.
8. Whether parking requirements should be adjusted to reect the City’s multi-modal
objectives in conjunction with revised and modied parking reduction standards?
Analysis: Parking requirements should be based on gross oor area rather than a breakdown of
the use of the space. Twenty percent (20%) of all trips should be for bicycles. Includes a statement
that provides the Director the ability to require more bicycle parking than otherwise required.
Parking reductions for small projects and changes in use in existing buildings could be approved
by a Director’s Action while parking reductions for projects requiring a use permit would be
reviewed by the decision-making body. These would include reducing the parking requirements to
be more consistent with ITE standards, lowering the level of review for parking reductions, and
relying on project- specic parking studies to determine the proper type and percentage of the
reduction.
Response: We oppose this! The public should have a voice in determining where parking
reductions are appropriate. Anecdotal information provided by residents is often a useful
supplement to project-specic parking studies.
The following issues are not being addressed as “topics requiring discussion and policy
direction” at your April 10, 2018 Council Study Session. However, they are also of singular
importance to us.
1. Compatibility and Edge Conditions
Analysis: Direction on use conversions: The Office (O) zone currently functions as a mixed-use
zone, allowing for a range of residential and nonresidential uses. Yet, limited standards regulate
the conversion of residential uses to nonresidential uses in the Office zone, or to allow
multifamily housing adjacent to an R-1 or R-2 zone, which has the potential to lead to surprising
outcomes for neighboring residents.
Response: The text fails to address Downtown. We are suggesting that Downtown and other
commercial zones be included since they often border residential zones. In fact, design standards
should be adopted to leave no question whether or how they are to be met. “S” Zone overlays
should be considered for Tourist/Commercial or Downtown/Commercial adjoining residential
neighborhoods. Because of the development pressures occurring there presently, there should be
a Special Consideration (S) Zone overlaid onto the C-R and C-D zones that are separated by San
Luis Creek from the R-3-H Dana Street residents. The Dana Street neighborhood deserves the
same considerations given to the San Luis Drive neighborhood. Explore other areas that qualify for
the same overlay zone such as the Upper Higuera Street, Lincoln Street, Rougeot Place and
Rockview Place neighborhoods.
2. SLO Chamber of Commerce Housing Task Force “Height for Housing”
Response: The residents of San Luis Obispo do not want to give up their right to address building
heights no matter where these buildings may be located. Therefore we oppose the Chamber’s 50
foot “by right” rule where discussion on height is taken off the table. The residents of San Luis
Obispo do not want buildings to be taller than 35 feet (or 2-3 stories in height). A 50 foot building
should not be located immediately next to a 1-2 story building, particularly a low-rise, historically-
listed building as there could be no appropriate visual
transition between the two buildings. We question the legality of the Chamber’s enforcement
mechanisms that would have to be put in place requiring owner-occupied purchase agreements
and residents of San Luis Obispo County purchase agreements. According to a March 27, 2018
legal memorandum prepared by Best, Best & Krieger LLP, it is legally difficult for the City to impose
on private developers owner-occupancy rules on housing developments.
3. March 27, 2018 legal memorandum prepared by Best, Best & Krieger LLP
Response: The residents of San Luis Obispo do not want the City to abandon our high-occupancy
in excess of six or more adults) residential use regulations for R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods
predicated on the legal interpretation that these regulations may violate the right of privacy
guaranteed by the California Constitution. Losing these regulations will adversely impact available
on-street parking in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods and this could only be partially mitigated through
the establishment of parking districts. Lacking high- occupancy use regulations, rents will go up,
the neighborhoods will deteriorate and the proportion of owner-occupied housing will continue to
decline. And this will increase the cost of housing in San Luis Obispo. 1) I recommend a "fair
share" (so long as it is "fair" to the City) MOU between the City and Cal Poly regarding Cal Poly's
nancial obligations to pay for upgrades to our infrastructure such as traffic upgrades, expansion
impacts to wastewater service, re response, emergency response and mass transit. What should
be "off the table" is the City entering into any agreement to increase Cal Poly's share of our water
as the City will need all the water it can procure given prospects for increasing droughts in the near
future.
We recommend an MOU between the City and Cal Poly attempting to work out a housing plan and
phasing commitment linked to enrollments similar to the Santa Cruz agreement. We recommend a
plan whereby campus property is leased to a private company who then builds housing for use by
a variety of campus-related people. This could accelerate the construction of more on- campus
housing. We recommend adopting an ordinance, like Berkeley's, that establishes operating
standards for all "mini-dorms" dened to mean residential properties occupied by six or more
adults (this is assuming that we lose our high occupancy use regulations). The caveat to this is that
these standards may be hard to enforce.
This legal memorandum recommended that the City amend its zoning regulations to permit the
construction of dormitory type housing (i.e., housing rented out on a per-bed basis) and located
preferably near Cal Poly. This is de facto already happening. However, Cal Poly students (and
many of the Cuesta College students) come from affluent families (Cal Poly is ranked near the top
of all universities in terms of family affluence) and they would prefer to live, and can afford to live, in
single family-residences.
4. Draft White Paper - Flexible Density Downtown
Response: The residents do not want height or density transfers to be introduced into the
Downtown Core. We disagree with the policy that the transfer of density credits not be applied to
non-contiguous downtown properties. If density transfers are implemented, properties within the
Downtown Core should only be able to transfer their density credits to properties outside the
Downtown Core thereby maintaining the overall height of downtown buildings at 2 to 3 stories. A
height minimum precluding one- story structures downtown should not apply when the lot is
contiguous to a one-story historic property
5. Draft White Paper - Re-Envisioning Personal Mobility
Response: Nothing in the Housing Accountability Act shall be construed to relieve the local
agency from complying with the congestion management program. Therefore, if “exceptions to
development standards” or “easing of parking standards and building setbacks” result in traffic
congestion using objective and quantiable criteria then the project should be modied or denied.
This verbiage should be included in the Housing Element to guide input from staff, the Council and
Advisory Bodies. Establish a minimum pro rata square foot requirement for the underlying zone
enabling the mixed-use to qualify for parking reductions and other incentives. Parking
requirements should be based on how bedrooms are used and on the size of bedrooms
because large bedrooms can accommodate more occupants. We agree that bedroom count (and
perhaps size) should be the only way to calculate density.
Predicating future car parking supply (see Table 1 “Zoning Regulation Parking Options/
Exceptions”) on the targeted mode split of 50% auto trip usage, 20% bicycle trip usage, 18%
walking (or motorcycle, golf cart, Segway, scooter or skateboard usage) and 12% transit usage
assumes that nearly
all 6,700 residents holding jobs in San Luis Obispo,
all 14,300 Cal Poly and Cuesta College students living off campus and in
San Luis Obispo and all of the remaining 19,300 residents who neither work in San Luis
Obispo (but may be working in outlying communities) nor are students will be relying on
bicycles, walking or public transit to get around. The sum total for this group is 40,300.
Relying on automobile usage will be
the 24,300 workers (source: SLOCOG) commuting daily into San Luis Obispo from outlying
communities,
the 2,700 transient occupants who will be spending a night or two in a motel or hotel in San
Luis Obispo,
the hundreds more staying in Airbnb’s,
the approximately 1,100 out-of-town shoppers and day visitors,
the 5,700 residents 65 years of age or older who may have mobility issues
due to age or inrmity,
the 1,570 pre-school children,
an unknown number of residents who are employed in outlying
communities and
the 3,950 Cal Poly and Cuesta College students living in outlying
communities (source: Cal Poly Masterplan DEIR).
The sum total for this group is 39,320. So roughly follows the 50-50 split.
What is not taken into account here is San Luis Obispo’s aggressive promotion of tourism, new
hotel/motel construction and the growth in hospitality-related, low-paying jobs. Unlike the current
cap on housing production, our daytime population is growing far in excess of 1% per year and
this will only increase our reliance on the use of the automobile. Secondly, where does the
projected increase in service vehicle/truck traffic factor in (i.e., Amazon, hospitality, special event,
restaurant, bar-related and personal service deliveries)? Thirdly, current statistics would indicate
that San Luis Obispo residents may not be so easily weaned of the convenience of personalized
transportation particularly as electric powered cars become more affordable. Ninety percent of all
households (17,157) in San Luis Obispo presently own 2 cars or more (7.8% own 5 or more cars!).
In 2015, 67% of commuters drove alone, 7.8% carpooled, 7.5% walked, 3% used public transit
and 9% bicycled to work1. Even if the total number of vehicle trips decline over time, personalized
transportation is essential for family-related grocery shopping, shopping for home improvements,
medical emergencies and weekend excursions. And fourthly, the Zoning Regulation Parking
Options/Exceptions found in Table 1 apply to all new development. It is my belief that for the
reasons stated above, all hospitality and commercial development as well as multi-generational
housing should be exempted from these provisions.
6. Draft White Paper - Implementing the Climate Action Plan
Response: This White Paper is seriously awed. No doubt it is packed full of good intentions. But
voluntary guidelines that would be “enforced” by discretionary review bodies and voluntary
incentives limited by their application to only the PD overlay and C-D zones is “business as usual”
in a world that is perilously close to (if not already past) the “tipping point” - in a world where an
irreversible carbon feedback loop is looming nearer and nearer. We should be calling for
mandatory, not voluntary, measures to address climate change.
This is compounded by the fact that the bulk of the emphasis in this paper is being placed on
transportation when nearly half of all CO2 emissions come from the building sector (compared to
one third of all CO2 emissions being attributed to transportation). Instead of emphasizing a
stronger commitment to inter-urban mass transit this paper focusses on ways to wean residents,
1 see: https://datausa.io/prole/geo/san-luis-obispo-ca/#category_transportation
commuters and tourists from using private automobiles. How? By eliminating parking spaces.
However, a rapidly increasing demand for car parking along with urban sprawl will be exacerbated
not mitigated - by the arrival of the autonomous vehicle and the electric car because both will
make long commutes as well as vacation trips safer, more enjoyable and more affordable.
Increasing building densities is not a sustainable solution. The argument is that doing so will
prevent urban sprawl but both are currently happening. Increasing both downtown density and
sprawl will overtax our infrastructure and our biome carrying capacity (California’s ecological
footprint is 14 times its carrying capacity). Aggressive promotion of tourism, new hotel/motel
construction and growth in jobs must be stemmed. The City averages 2,700 overnight visitors in
motels and hotels plus 100’s more visitors in Airbnb’s. Add to this an unknown number of day
visitors plus some 24,300 out-of-town workforce commuters and our daytime population hovers
around 75,700+. Unlike the current cap on housing production, this daytime population is growing
far in excess of 1% per year.
Finally, there is no mention of water availability and conservation, no mention of wildlife and open
space protection, no mention of prime agricultural lands, no mention of the role trees and
landscaping play in carbon sequestration. These diminishing resources play a critical role in our
adapting to, or surviving, climate change.
Climate change is the most urgent issue confronting us today and we are falling far short of what
we should be doing. Time is of the essence. We have reached 410 ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere.
Irreversible carbon-cycle feedbacks set in at 450 ppm. “Business as usual” means we will be
reaching 450 ppm of CO2 within the next 10 years. The options for avoiding catastrophic climate
and weather changes are almost too late. And, the effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions has
not only to be taken individually but also at our local levels of government. Therefore what
should San Luis Obispo, at the urging of its Mayor and City Council, do - that it’s not now
presently doing - to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60% over the next 10 years?
SLO must require all future private and public development meet the 2020 “carbon neutral”
challenge and attain or exceed nothing less than the Platinum Level for LEED certication.
Cambridge, Massachusetts has set up a Net Zero Task Force to explore the possibilities for
Cambridge moving towards becoming a net zero energy community. This task force was set up
because a citizens group created a petition for all new construction in Cambridge to become
net zero and ooded the Planning Board and City Council meetings with advocates for net zero.
The city’s response was to set up an independent task force that includes leaders in the eld of
energy conservation and renewables, and then supported it with paid consultants.
Moreover, the City, like many other California cities, should:
1) require that developers install cool roofs and cool paving;
2) require developers to install photovoltaics on new roofs where appropriate;
3) provide rebates for planting drought tolerant trees that sequester high amounts of carbon and
discourage the unnecessary removal of existing trees and riparian habitat to make way for new
development; 4) require the purchase of “green power”;
5) set up micro-grids powered by wind or concentrated solar thermal with storage.
6) require all developers to install vegetated bioswales and retention basins to recharge our
aquifers;
7) require developers to provide some form of rainwater harvesting (rooftop or surface);
8) reinstate SLO’s water demand offset program;
9) implement the expansion of rebate programs to include, but not be limited to, the following
types of water demand reductions: hot water recirculation, point-of-use water heaters, toilet leak
detection systems, dry toilets and grey water systems;
10) cap its population growth (including Cal Poly’s enrollment growth); and
11) cap or slow down its commercial growth particularly in the hospitality areas of food service,
sales and lodging as these by type and use are high water and energy consumers (see: https://
sustainabilityworkshop.autodesk.com/buildings/building-program-and-
schedule).
The building sector is responsible for nearly half (44.6%) of U.S. CO2
emissions. By comparison, transportation accounts for only 34.3% of CO2
emissions and industry just 21.1%. One key way to reduce and ultimately
phase out the CO2 emissions produced by the building sector is by
transforming the way buildings are designed, built, and operated. With
regards to Goal BLD 2: New Construction Energy Conservation: Encourage
and incentivize new development to exceed minimum CALGreen
requirements: It is clearly not sufficient to conne incentives for exceeding
Title 24 energy efficiency standards to only planned development overlay and
C-D zones. And new development should be mandated - not incentivized - to
install energy-efficient appliances as well as cool roofs and cool paving
surfaces. Similarly, renewable energy generation and/or solar power for certain
residential projects should be mandated, not incentivized. The implementation
of these goals should not fall under the Community Design Guidelines as
guidelines can be easily ignored or overlooked.
The City has adopted several development regulations that exceed CALGreen
energy conservation requirements, such as requiring buildings taller than 50
feet in the C-D zone to meet minimum energy conservation requirements.
The City has also established incentives in Development Regulations that
allow higher maximum building heights for projects that exceed Title 24
energy requirements by at least 30 percent.
However, tall buildings are inherently energy inefficient because
proportionately more of their surface area is exposed to the sun and wind. Tall
buildings use almost twice as much energy per square foot as low-rise
structures. Tall buildings require more steel and concrete, therefore contain
more embodied energy and are less sustainable than low rise buildings built
largely of wood. Concrete is 10 times more GHG-intensive than wood. In low-
rise buildings the rooftop supply available for solar energy is inevitably more
in line with the energy demands of the building than it is for mid- or high-rises.
Most buildings that generate their own energy do it with solar photovoltaics
PV). If we assume that a building has only its roof area available for mounting
PV, then a single-story building is much more likely to achieve net-zero than a
high-rise. Getting to net-zero is extremely difficult for buildings of more than
four stories. If the project includes energy-intensive data centers, labs, or other
spaces, the challenge gets tougher.
7. Save Our Downtown Promotes Other, More Effective, Strategies to Increase Affordable
Housing
Save Our Downtown wants to increase the percentages of affordable housing required in return for
setback and/or parking reductions (but not for increased building height)
by increasing 5% very low income to 10%
by increasing 10% low income to 20%
by increasing 15% market rate housing to 30%
Introducing residential rent control modeled after, for example, the Cities of Richmond and
Mountain View.
Rent control has been losing the public perception battle. This circumstance comes as no surprise
given that corporate money and prots align with property owners and real estate investors. San
Diego poverty law attorney Parisa Ijadi-Maghsoodi provides a concise rebuttal to some of the most
common public perceptions about rent control, what she calls the "myths" of rent control:
Myth 1: Rent control is illegal.
Fact: Rent control is legal and an effective tool to address housing affordability.
Myth 2: Rent control decreases the housing stock by dis-incentivizing new housing construction.
Fact: Rent control has no impact on new construction because it does not apply to new
construction.
Myth 3: Rent control causes the rental stock to decrease because rent control units will be
converted to condominiums.
Fact: Ordinances restricting condominium conversions protect the stock of rental units under rent
control.
Myth 4: Rent control hurts tenants.
Fact: Rent control helps tenants. Rent control studies are funded by real estate developments,
investors, and corporate apartment owner associations, and their own data supports the
effectiveness of rent control.
Myth 5: Rent control is not needed, building market rate units will solve the housing crisis.
Fact: Building market rate units without effective tenant protection ordinances exacerbates the
housing crisis.
Myth 6: Rent control incentivizes tenants to remain tenants, rather than become homeowners
invested in their communities.
Fact: Society has traditionally favored homeowners over tenants primarily because homeowners
intend to reside in and better their community, and rent control furthers these goals.
To match these "myths," in her article, Ijadi-Maghsoodi provides seven recommendations for
additional measures to stabilize rental housing and protect families. For Ijadi-Maghsoodi's
reasoning and authority for her conclusions, please read the source article below titled
Demystifying Rent Control”
Demystifying Rent Control
Rent control can help solve California’s housing affordability and homelessness crisis by
decreasing displacement and protecting the rights and dignity of working families, the elderly, and
long-term tenants. To demystify rent control in California, here are seven rent control myths
followed by seven anti-poverty tenant protection ordinances cities can implement. Articles and
studies from newspapers to academic journals warn the public against the havoc and devastation
caused by rent control ordinances. However, it is not tenants and community based organizations
that are funding these articles and studies, it is real estate investors, developers, and corporate
apartment owner associations. For decades, tenants and community based organizations across
California have worked tirelessly to enact rent control ordinances to decrease displacement and
protect the rights and dignity of working families, the elderly, and long-term tenants. Tenant
advocates continue to direct their limited resources to local initiatives and ballot measures, not to
fund studies, articles, and lawsuits.
Myth 1: Rent control is illegal.
Fact: Rent control is legal and an effective tool to address housing affordability.
California state law does not prohibit the enactment of new rent control ordinances. Since 1976,
California courts have upheld rent control ordinances. When a rent control ordinance is challenged,
courts analyze the ordinance to determine if it is “reasonably calculated to eliminate excessive
rents and at the same time provide landlords with a just and reasonable return on their property.”[1]
Since 2016, rent control ordinances have been successfully enacted in Richmond and Mountain
View, and rent control campaigns are underway in Long Beach, Glendale, Santa Cruz, Pasadena,
San Diego, Inglewood, Sacramento, Santa Rosa, and Concord.[2]
Despite the clear legal standard, investors, real estate developers, and corporate apartment owner
associations le lawsuits each year challenging the constitutionality of rent control ordinances. In
2016
and 2017, the California Apartment Association[3] led challenges to new rent control ordinances
in Richmond and Mountain View.[4] In an attempt to avoid a decrease in prots, property owners
sought a restraining order to prevent the new Richmond ordinance from going into effect. The
court denied the restraining order, holding that the harm the corporate apartment owners
associations alleged – possible lost prots – was not sufficient. The California Apartment
Association dismissed its remaining case against Richmond’s rent control ordinance. Both lawsuits
were unsuccessful. Tenants in both cities are beneting from rent control ordinances while
corporate apartment owners and their investors continue to receive a fair return on investment.
Tenants and community based organizations across California are effectively utilizing rent control
against increasing housing instability caused by the lack of affordable housing and the loss of
redevelopment agencies, and to prevent tenant displacement posed by new commercial and
corporate development in cities like Inglewood.[5]
Myth 2: Rent control decreases the housing stock by disincentivizing new housing
construction.
Fact: Rent control has no impact on new construction because it does not apply to new
construction.
State law prohibits rent control ordinances from applying to new housing units and requires rent
control ordinances include vacancy decontrol.[6] Rent control does not disincentivize new housing
construction because new construction is not covered by rent control. Arguments against rent
control on grounds that it disincentivizes building are legally inaccurate, misleading, and meritless.
Nevertheless, real estate investors, developers, and corporate apartment owner associations
continue to propagate this argument. The enactment and enforcement of rent control ordinances
have no impact on development. In fact, the law banning vacancy control and rent control from
applying to new construction, the 1995 Costa Hawkins Rental Housing Act, was a political
compromise reached by the wealthy developers and investors who continue to propagate the
myth that rent control has a chilling effect on new development.
While rent control does not have a chilling effect on new construction, it does have a chilling effect
on the ability of real estate investors, developers, and corporate apartment owner associations to
gouge hard working families, the elderly, and others who rely on the rental market. Rent control
allows corporate apartment owners and their investors to receive a fair return on investment, not a
windfall in prots.
In cities that enacted rent control in the 1970s and 1980s, units constructed over the last thirty to
forty years have been exempt from rent control, and cities with more recently enacted rent control
ordinances exempt units constructed in the last 20 years:
Los Angeles exempted from rent control are structures built after 1978 (L.A.M.C. Section
151.28)
San Francisco exempts structures built after 1979 (S.F. Administrative Code Ch. 37A)
Berkeley exempts units built after 1980 (B.M.C. Section 13.76.050)
Richmond exempts units constructed after 1995 (R.M.C. Section 11.100.070)
Mountain View exempts units constructed after 1995 (C.S.F.R.A. Section 1720)
East Palo Alto exempts units constructed after 1988 (E.P.A. Mun. Code Ch. 14.04)
Oakland exempts units constructed after 1983 (O.M.C. Section 8.22.070)
Myth 3: Rent control causes the rental stock to decrease because rent control units will be
converted to condominiums.
Fact: Ordinances restricting condominium conversions protect the stock of rental units under rent
control. The loss of all rental units through condominium conversions is not the inevitable,
impending consequence of rent control, despite the argument put forth by real estate investors,
developers, and corporate apartment owner associations.
Cities have the power to enact ordinances restricting condominium conversions. Limiting
condominium conversions effectively prevents the removal of rental units under rent control from
the rental market. Cities across the State of California have enacted and enforced condominium
conversion ordinances to maintain a stock of rental units.[7] These ordinances effectively recognize
the need of century-old
apartment complex owners to sell units when the cost of maintaining or upgrading an entire
apartment complex becomes unsustainable, while protecting the rental housing stock.
Note that there is no standard denition of a condominium conversion.[8] Despite the common use
of the phrase, converting a rental unit to a condominium is not a simple, overnight process that
has the power to decimate the rental housing stock the moment a rent control ordinance is
enacted. Instead, to convert a multi-unit rental complex into individually owned condominiums, a
complex legal process must be followed. In addition to abiding by local ordinances, the process
requires, at a minimum, providing tenants with notice of certain protections including the right to
purchase, obtaining state approval to market residential units, a recording of a declaration of
conditions, covenants, and restrictions, a recording of the subdivision or parcel map for purposes
of creating a condominium, a recording of the condominium plan, and the conveyance of the unit.
9]
Myth 4: Rent control hurts tenants.
Fact: Rent control helps tenants. Rent control studies are funded by real estate developments,
investors, and corporate apartment owner associations, and their own data supports the
effectiveness of rent control. A recent rent control study released in October 2017 found that rent
control in San Francisco caused a $2.1 billion net benet to tenants with tenants aged 40-65
benetting most from rent control.[10] The study which is a Working Paper of the NBER Real
Estate Institute, incorporated in 1920 with $116 million in assets and 2017 corporate sponsors
AIG, ExxonMobil, Goldman Sachs, Vanguard, and JP Morgan Chase, concluded that rent control
destroys rental housing stock and causes gentrication.[11] Another study, prepared for the
California Apartment Association, concluded that rent control laws make low-income residents
worse off and argue for a free market approach to addressing the growing housing affordability
crisis.[12]
The NBER study focused on San Francisco’s limited rent control ordinance which is applicable to
apartment units constructed before 1980. In its analysis, the authors found that as of 2017, more
of the half-century old units under rent control had been converted to condominiums than the
newly constructed units not under rent control, resulting in a $5 billion loss to the rental housing
market. However, not only were all of the units under rent control built more than a half-century
ago, each unit was part of an apartment complex, adding to the cost of maintenance and
upgrades, and increasing the likelihood of condominium conversion. If the age of the buildings
under rent control were accounted for in the context of conversions, the tenant gain would be
greater than $7.1 billion, creating a net gain to tenants of more than $2.1 billion.
Building upon this nding, the authors conclude that the characteristic of rent control, rather than
the characteristic of building age or the need for a stronger condominium conversion ordinance,
was the factor that caused the condominium conversions. Since condominium conversions can
lead to displacement and gentrication, the authors took their ndings a step further, and declared
that rent control was the cause of gentrication in San Francisco. However, the lack of affordable
units is the factor at play in displacement, not local rent control ordinances. Without rent control,
low-income, long-term tenants would have been displaced sooner and in greater numbers.[13]
Myth 5: Rent control is not needed, building market rate units will solve the housing crisis.
Fact: Building market rate units without effective tenant protection ordinances exacerbates the
housing crisis.
Underlying anti-rent control sentiments is the premise that the housing crisis will be solved on its
own through the free market system. For example, the NBER study held that any rent set by a rent
control ordinance was “below market rent,” the free market’s reliance on supply and demand
would lead to fair market rents, and rent control “forc[es] landlords to provide insurance against
rent increases,” while the Beacon study held that rent control created “articially low rents.”[14]
Real estate investors, developers, and corporate apartment owner associations argue that if rent
control were removed, the free market
would lead to fair market rents that were both affordable to tenants and allowed for fair market
returns to landlords. However, increasing the supply by infusing the market with market rate rentals
does not lead to affordability. In fact, it worsens the affordability crisis and exacerbates
displacement of low-income, long- term tenants.[15]
In the early 2000s, New York City changed its housing policies changed from a rent-regulated
system to a system intent on letting the free market x its affordable housing and homelessness
problem. Building market rate housing was not only ineffective at solving the housing crisis, it
further exacerbated the crisis. The construction of market rate housing led to an inux of higher-
income renters, and effectively displaced working families and low-income renters.[16] Affordable
housing must not only be part of the solution, it must be the primary focus if cities are truly intent
on solving housing instability, avoid displacement, and reducing homelessness.
Corporate apartment owner associations, investors, and real estate developers prot from
investing in property, allowing the property to gain value, and selling or leasing the property. Those
proting from the housing market, generally individuals who have obtained property through the
generational transfer of wealth, are not receiving a fair return on investment, they are receiving a
windfall in prots. Tenants are always at a disadvantage in the housing market, and rent control
works to protect tenants by ensuring property owners receive a fair return on investment sufficient
to effectively maintain units, instead of a windfall.
Myth 6: Rent control incentivizes tenants to remain tenants, rather than become
homeowners invested in their communities.
Fact: Society has traditionally favored homeowners over tenants primarily because homeowners
intend to reside in and better their community, and rent control furthers these goals.
In the current housing climate, tenants that would have become home owners one or two decades
ago are remaining tenants because they cannot afford to buy. Just as homeowners feel inclined to
improve their communities, long-term tenants participate in their communities, enroll their children
in local schools, and work to improve the health and safety of their neighborhoods. Rent control
stabilizes communities, furthers long-term tenant participation by removing the risk that these
tenants will be priced out of their units. Rent control is an effective tool to achieve the societal goal
of community involvement that has been traditionally attributed only to homeowners.
Myth 7: Rent control causes units to go into disarray.
Fact: Rent control improves the quality of the rental housing stock. Landlords are legally obligated
to maintain rental units, and rent control furthers tenants’ abilities to assert their legal rights.
Rent control furthers tenants’ abilities to assert their existing legal rights. Landlords are legally
responsible for maintaining rental units, repairing conditions in a timely manner, and complying
with state and local building codes.[17] A local rent control ordinance allows tenants to assert their
rights by petitioning for a decrease in rent if a landlord has failed to repair a condition, provide a
legally required service, or correct a housing code violation. This is in addition to the rights and
remedies a tenant has under state law.
In addition to rent control, cities may take steps to enact ordinances to mitigate the risks of
homelessness, stabilize housing, and ensure landlords are receiving a fair return on investment,
not a windfall in prots from unscrupulous, harmful rental practices. The following are versions of
anti-poverty tenant protection ordinances enacted throughout the state.
Enact an ordinance that discourages landlords from failing to perform repairs, under-maintaining
units, and using related tactics to pressure tenants to move out in order to set higher initial rents,
by making the failure to comply with the warranty of a habitability a defense to good cause
eviction.
2 Enact an emergency ordinance applicable to all renters in units constructed before a
statutorily mandated date, reducing rent to the rate in place three years ago for all tenants
living in their units for two or more years, and for renters who moved into their units less
than two years ago, reducing rent to the amount charged when the tenant rst moved into
the unit.
3 Enact an ordinance mandating that landlords who evict tenants for the purpose of
allowing the landlord or relatives of the landlord to move into the unit to pay each tenant
20,000.
4 Enact an emergency ordinance banning landlords from evicting tenants for the purpose
of allowing the landlord or relatives of the landlord to move into the unit if the tenant has
lived in the unit for two or more years and is a member of a vulnerable population, including
being elderly, having a disability, or having a child with a disability.
5 Enact an ordinance requiring that landlords who wish to sell their rental unit rst offer
ownership to the tenant at a rate reduced pursuant to a statutorily mandated amount
developed to preserve the stock of rental units and mitigate adverse economic and health
impacts associated with a tenant’s forced relocation.
6 Enact an emergency ordinance preventing landlords who wish to evict tenants with minor
children to delay eviction until the end of the academic year.
7 Enact an ordinances restricting condominium conversions that requires owners pay
tenants’ moving expenses, limits the annual number of conversions based on the vacancy
rate, requires a portion of converted units be sold below market rates, provide existing
tenants with sale price discounts, mandate payment of a fee to an affordable housing trust
fund, and require one for one replacement of converted units.
Landlord and housing providers in violation of these ordinances should be assessed a statutory
penalty for each instance of harassment, and tenants shall be able to seek statutory damages and
attorney’s fees.
About Parisa Ijadi-Maghsoodi
Parisa Ijadi-Maghsoodi had practiced poverty law across the State of California since 2010. She
litigates cases in the public interest, with a focus on civil rights and affordable housing. She
obtained her J.D. from the University of California—Davis School of Law, and her Bachelor of
Science in biology from the University of Michigan.
She currently serves as the Assistant Director of Public Service at University of San Diego School
of Law where she directs the Pro Bono Service Program and helps the next generation of poverty
attorneys launch their social justice careers.
From 2014-2017, she served as San Diego Volunteer Lawyer Program’s Pro Bono Manager and
Supervising Attorney, where she managed pro bono projects, recruited pro bono attorneys to
increase access to justice, oversaw civil legal services for homeless veterans and persons with
HIV/AIDS, and supervised attorneys on cases impacting human rights: public benets, health law,
homelessness, disability discrimination, and affordable housing policy.
From 2012-2014, she served as the Managing Attorney of Legal Services of Northern California’s
LSNC) statewide elder law office overseeing statewide civil legal assistance to 2,000 low-income
seniors each year. Before that, she served as Director for the Western States Pension Assistance
Project representing low-wage workers in federal ERISA cases in California, Arizona, Nevada, and
Hawaii. In 2010, she started her legal career as a Homeless Prevention and Rapid Rehousing
attorney in LSNC’s rural Ukiah office, representing low-income families in eviction cases.
She is currently serving a three-year appointment to the State Bar’s Standing Committee on the
Delivery of Legal Services, is a professional mediator, and is a VA-accredited attorney. She has
served on the
California Elder Justice Coalition where she drafted elder abuse legislation, and was Co-Chair of
Legal Aid Association of California’s Senior Legal Services Section.
To:SLO Planning Commission
Re:April 10, 2018 Council Review Of The Zoning Regulations Update
From:Allan Cooper, Secretary Save Our Downtown
Date:April 11, 2018
Last night, the Council set policy on a number of very important and controversial changes to our
Zoning Regulations. These policy changes include: 1) signicantly increasing the densities in R-2,
3 & -4 residential neighborhoods; 2) quadrupling (at a minimum) the densities of housing in our
downtown core; 3) increasing our densities in R-1 residential neighborhoods through accessory
dwelling units (ADU’s) and tiny homes; 4) reducing, and in some cases eliminating, the opportunity
for public comment on virtually all projects; 5) consolidating decision making powers in the hands
of the Director; and 6) cutting back on automobile parking.
Last night’s staff report contained eight questions and the Council was prompted to answer “yes”
or “no” to each question. Though this protocol was not strictly followed, the Council gave tacit
approval to all eight zoning changes. Additional areas of concerned were added by Council such
as more opportunities for micro-businesses, locating housing in defunct shopping malls and auto
parks and increased exibility in siting schools.
Many of the property owners and landlords who oppose these policy changes were not speaking
from personal nancial interest. In other words, we were not representing the “monied interests”.
Should all eight proposals be implemented, our property values will go up and our rental incomes
will increase. This is because the homes we live in will be valued based on the increase in potential
rental income they will earn (should we decide to vacate these properties and many of us will do
so under these circumstances) and our rental properties will become lucrative mini-dorms.
But instead of focussing on our pocket books, we lled the Council Chamber last night ghting for
the heart and soul of San Luis Obispo. We all believe the SLO Life will be a thing of the past should
the City continue to move this aggressively toward densication - toward stacking and packing
more people into tighter quarters while making across-the-board reductions in parking
requirements. Traffic congestion will become untenable, parking will become unavailable and
neighborhood cohesion - that is what’s left of it - will be long gone. Why? Because personalized
transportation is not going away. Because we will not soon be riding bicycles or riding mass
transit. Many predict that, with the lower fuel costs of solar powered electric vehicles and with the
added convenience of self-driving cars, personalized transportation will increase, not decrease.
This will demand more car parking, not less and more cars, not fewer, will be clogging up our
roads.
Throughout the City, there is a feeling of being in the country while also being in the city. This, too,
will be lost once San Luis Obispo continues to encourage the construction of mid-rise and high-
rise buildings. Doug Davidson last night insisted that building heights were not part of this
discussion. But pressures for taller buildings will increase once R-2, -3 and -4 properties are
literally up-zoned. And pressures for taller buildings will increase once density restrictions
downtown are removed in exchange for smaller units.
We resist the civic homogenization that can turn any town into every other town. This too will be
lost once our former emphasis on public engagement, good planning and contextual t is taken off
the table.
With regards to public engagement: Derek Johnson commented that public feedback will remain
the same. We nd this hard to believe for several reasons. First the ARC’s purview will be scaled
back to conceptual review. This will limit the public’s opportunity to comment on parking layouts,
oor plan layouts and landscaping as these items will be referred to the Director. Second, the Tree
Committee’s purview will be scaled back as they will no longer review street tree removal. Again
this will stie the public’s opportunity to comment. Lastly, both ARC and CHC recommendations
will be simply “advisory” to the the Director. The Director will make all nal decisions without any
public oversight.
With regards to good planning and contextual t: For Tier 1 projects (5 units or smaller and less
than 10,000 sq.ft.), the Planning Commission will automatically be left out of the review process,
no matter how controversial the project may be and so will go “good planning”. When the meeting
dates for the CHC and ARC are scheduled to take place at the same time, there will be little
opportunity for the ARC to be advised of concerns the CHC may have with any given project. And
so will go “contextual t”. Moreover, if the CHC denies the project and the ARC approves the
project, then these disagreements must be sorted out by the Director, again leaving the public
completely out of these deliberations.
We are therefore urging the City to put a stop to this steamroller mentality centered on under-
parked, overly-dense developments and this knee jerk reaction to simplifying (or “dumbing down”)
the development review process. Thank you!
To:SLO Planning Commission
Re: Public Notices and Hearings: Article 6 & 7
From:Allan Cooper, Secretary Save Our Downtown
Date:April 22, 2018
Honorable Chair Stevenson and Commissioners -
Most of the following concerns are pertaining to maintaining the current level of public oversight
through public notices and hearings. We believe that good design and good planning requires the
on-going engagement of neighbors concerned with maintaining the quality of their immediate
surroundings.
Revisions proposed under Article 6 leave out all reference to “Public Notices and Hearings” under
the heading of “Administrative Permits and Actions”. Are we to construe from this that there will no
longer be Administrative Hearings open to the public nor will these meetings be noticed to the
public? It is of concern to us that there will be no public oversight on granting “high occupancy
use permits”, home occupation (or live-work) permits nor revocations of use permits granted to
alcohol outlets, determinations of unique hardship for exceptions to development standards and
zoning variances. These are discretionary, not ministerial, decisions which would benet from
public oversight. Moreover, the Director or his designee can, without public oversight, adjudicate
on all Tier 1 projects that have been reviewed by either the CHC or ARC.
We are also concerned that the quasi-judicial responsibility of the Planning Commission to make
adjustments to the C-D Zone development standards or to the Specic Focus Area zones could
involve increased heights or building setbacks without any input from the Architectural Review
Commission. There is no articulated mechanism proposed where these changes to the building
envelope could be referred back to the ARC.
We believe that since the California Housing Accountability Act requires that “feasibility” be taken
into consideration , the statement under “Burden of Proof and Precedence” should be amended to4
read: “The burden of proof to establish the evidence in support of the required nding(s) for any
permit or approval in compliance with this Division, including proof of infeasibility and/or
hardship, is the responsibility of the applicant.”
We would like to know the rationale behind striking out the following passage: “Made Available for
Public Review: After an application has been accepted as complete, in compliance with the
Freedom of Information Act, the application may be made available for public review as
requested.”
As far as we can tell, you are not scheduled tonight to discuss the following suggestions proposed
by staff and approved in policy by the Council on April 10th - suggestions that would further
streamline and simplify” the development review process. But we would like to address these
suggestions as well.
First the ARC’s purview is proposed to be scaled back to conceptual review. This will limit the
public’s opportunity to comment on parking layouts, oor plan layouts and landscaping as these
items will be referred to the Director. Second, the Tree Committee’s purview will be scaled back as
they will no longer review street tree removal. Again this will stie the public’s opportunity to
comment. Lastly, both ARC and CHC recommendations will be simply “advisory” to the the
Director. The Director will make all nal decisions without any public oversight. For Tier 1 projects
5 units or smaller and less than 10,000 sq.ft.), the Planning Commission will automatically be left
out of the review process, no matter how controversial the project may be and so will go “good
planning”. When the meeting dates for the CHC and ARC are scheduled to take place at the same
time, there will be little opportunity for the ARC to be advised of concerns the CHC may have with
any given project. Moreover, if the CHC denies the project and the ARC approves the project, then
these disagreements must be sorted out by the Director, again leaving the public completely out of
these deliberations. Thank you!
Pursuant to State law, a review authority shall not deny nor render infeasible a multi-family4
housing development…”
4
B. Table 6-1 (Review Authority), identifies the Review Authority responsible for reviewing and making decisions oneachtypeofapplicationrequiredbytheseZoningRegulations.
C. The Architectural Review Committee has the authority to review and make recommendations to either the Director
or the Planning Commission, depending upon the type of project application, regarding compliance with applicable
design guidelines. Section 2.48.050 (Projects Subject to Architectural Review) establishes the types of projects
subject to architectural review
Table 6-1
Review Authority
Type of Action
Applicable
Code
Section
Role of Review Authority (1)
Director Commission Council
Legislative Actions
Development Agreements and
Amendments
Recommend (1) Recommend Decision
General Plan Amendments Recommend (1) Recommend Decision
Specific Plans and Amendments Recommend Recommend Decision
Zoning Map Amendments Recommend Recommend Decision
Zoning Regulations Amendments Recommend (1) Recommend Decision
Planning Permits and Approvals and Administrative Actions
Affordable Housing Incentives Recommend Recommend Decision
Building Setback Lines Recommend Decision Appeal
Conditional Use Permits Recommend Decision Appeal
Development Review – Tier I Decision(2) Appeal --Appeal
Development Review – Tier II Recommend Decision Appeal
Director’s Action Decision(2) Appeal Appeal
Downtown Commercial Zone –
Adjustments to Standards
Recommend Decision Appeal
High Occupancy Residential Authorization Decision(2) Appeal Appeal
Home Occupation Permits Article 4,
Sec.
17.xx.xxx
Decision (2) Appeal Appeal --
Interpretations Decision (2) Appeal Appeal
Minor Use Permits Decision (2) Appeal Appeal
PD Overlay Zone – Major Amendments to
Final Development Plan
Recommend Decision Appeal
PD Overlay Zone – Minor Amendments to
Final Development Plan
Decision(2) Appeal Appeal
Planned Developments Recommend Decision Appeal
Reasonable Accommodations Decision (2) Appeal Appeal
SF Overlay Zone – Review Authority in
Specific Focus Areas.
Recommend Appeal Appeal
Temporary Use Permits Article 4,
Sec.
17.xx.xxx
Decision (2) Appeal --lAppeal
Variances Decision(2) Appeal Appeal
Attachment 4
Packet Page 54
On February 28, 2018 the Planning Commission stated:
Under Article 2 the “Office Zone - Keep limit at 25 feet and establish criteria to exceed limit when
housing or another feature merits going up to 35 feet.
PF Zone - Keep at 35 feet with possibility for 45 feet for a public parking structure.)
To:SLO Planning Commission
Re:Zoning Regulations Update - Specic Items for Consideration are:
a. Article 7 (Administration of Zoning Regulations) b. Article 3 (Regulations and
Standards Applicable to All Zones)
From:Allan Cooper, Secretary Save Our Downtown
Date:May 8, 2018
Honorable Chair Stevenson and Commissioners -
On Wednesday you will be discussing a number of issues that are of great interest to Save Our
Downtown. Although you might be discussing the very important topics of “Open Space
Requirements”, “Hillside Development Standards” and a proposed FAR of 0.5 for R-1 inll, Save
Our Downtown would instead like to focus on “Public Notices & Hearings”, “Mixed Use
Thresholds” and “Edge Conditions”.
With regards to “Public Notices & Hearings”:
1)In light of the possibility that there will be a “loosening up” of ADU requirements and in light of
today’s (May 8, 2018) Tribune front page article describing the potential problems related to
ADU’s, we would encourage you to insure that public notices and hearings be incorporated into
Tier 1 projects particularly if they involve ADU’s.
On June 14, 2018 the PC recommended allowing Dwelling Units of up to 450 sq. ft. to be exempt
from lot coverage requirements.)
2)In light of the fact that our “high occupancy residential use ordinance” may be rescinded, we
urge you to insure that public notices and hearings be incorporated into Tier 1 projects involving
high occupancy use.
3)Should you agree that all CHC & ARC decisions pertaining to Tier 2 projects be routed on a
strictly advisory basis to the Director, then we urge you to require that the Director’s nal
decision be made in the context of a public hearing and that this public hearing be noticed.
However, Save Our Downtown would prefer that the ARC not be, like the CHC, downgraded to
committee” status. What we mean by this is that the ARC should not be disallowed the
opportunity to make “nal” decisions on matters related to architectural design as neither the
Director, Planning Commission or Council are expected to have the expertise to adjudicate on
design issues. What also concerns us is that, under these circumstances, if the ARC should
deny or continue a project, instead of the project returning to the ARC, it could be forwarded to
the Director or PC without alteration.
4)We were informed at the May 3, 2018 Zoning Reg Update Workshop that it’s not likely that the
CHC and ARC would be meeting on the same day and at the same time. If this were to happen,
this would of course prevent the public, interested in both meetings, to attend both meetings.
However, our larger concern is that concurrent scheduling of their meetings will prevent the
ARC from hearing the CHC’s recommendations. Why is it that the PC should benet from
hearing the ARC’s decisions but that it has been determined that the ARC no longer needs to
be informed of the historical or archeological concerns raised by the CHC? This could only
increase the chances that the CHC and the ARC would come up with conicting decisions and
these decisions would have to be resolved by the Director.
With regards to “Mixed Use Thresholds”:
1)Should housing be built in the downtown commercial zone, we insist that the entire street
frontage be retail. Outside of the C-D zone we recommend that the City use the same formula
for retail street frontage that applies to parking garages.
With regards to “Edge Conditions”:
1)Where commercial development anks residential, we support greater setbacks for upper oors
of commercial development using plan line setbacks.
2)We support restricting window orientation, balconies and roof decks on commercial projects
anking residential development. This should be done to prevent overlook and noise intrusion.
On June 14, 2018 the PC recommended the following: “In addition, the Commission also revised
the Edge Conditions standards to eliminate balconies facing the R-1 and R-2 zones.”“Add
provision if you exceed the height you would be subject to Tier II review.”)
3)We support requiring noise buffering walls and car headlight screening for parking garages
anking residential development.
4)We support further limiting hours of operation for roof decks and patio dining in commercial
development anking residential development.
5)We urge the City to eliminate parking reductions as an incentive for providing mixed-use, low-
income housing, especially when it is located adjacent to residential development. This is
because the unmet parking needs of these future developments will adversely impact on-street
parking in the adjoining neighborhoods.
6)We urge the City to eliminate building height increases as an incentive for providing mixed-use,
low-income housing, especially when it is located adjacent to residential development. This is
because these increased building heights will cast shadows and encroach on the privacy of
adjoining residences.
In conclusion, we hope that you will not engage in too much discussion regarding the very
important topics of “Open Space Requirements”, “Hillside Development Standards” and a
proposed FAR of 0.5 for R-1 inll development because your staff report lacks the necessary
background information that concerned citizens will need to adequately prepare for your
Wednesday meeting. Thank you!
To: SLO Planning Commission
Re: Final Reviews of the Proposed Comprehensive Update to the City’s Zoning
Regulations (Title 17) of the Municipal Code From: Allan Cooper, Secretary Save Our
Downtown
Date: June 10, 2018
Honorable Chair Stevenson and Commissioners -
Save Our Downtown has concerns regarding the adequacy of the alcohol outlet regulations, the
proposed efficient development review process, the proposed parking regulations, the proposed
incentives for housing projects, the abandonment of high occupancy administrative use permits
and the proposed changes to accessory dwelling units. We would like to break down our concerns
under each of the above headings. Our comments will be followed by relevant excerpts from your
staff report.
Adequacy of the Alcohol Outlet Regulations
According to LUE 4.32 Use Permit Requirements, the City shall incorporate into its zoning
regulations specic criteria for evaluating use permits for bars/taverns, night clubs and late night
drinking establishments. Staff’s response to this is that the City already has regulations in place
with specic criteria for use permits. These include incorporating the late-night alcohol standard
conditions of approval which were developed during the Alcohol Outlet Amendments process.
These operational standards include noise control, hours of operation, employee training, security,
and compliance with the proper ABC license. Save Our Downtown is convinced that given the high
rate of alcohol-related crime in the Downtown Census District, these regulations are not sufficient.
The only mechanism that can prevent increasing concentration of Type 41 and Type 47 alcohol
licenses is the conditional use permit (CUP). But not San Luis Obispo’s CUP that only regulates
closing times and hours of food service operation. Nor a CUP based on the nding that “the use
will not result in adverse effects to the health, peace, or safety of persons residing or working in the
surrounding area”. Nor a CUP that relies on a Downtown Association’s Safe Night Life
Subcommittee to mitigate increasing alcohol-related crime rates. Nor a CUP that relies on
Performance Standards and Deemed Approved Activities that are never monitored or enforced.
Why do we want to prevent increasing the concentration of alcohol licenses in the Downtown
Core? In a study of various California counties, a 10% increase in the number of liquor licenses
correlated with a 1.67% and 2.06% increase in violence.
Why don’t we look at other best practices? For example the City of Orange Police Department will
recommend denial of the applicant’s request for a Type 47 license if the crime rate within that
census district is increasing. Of course, this question devolves around what types of crimes.
Even though alcohol-related offenses (383) and both aggravated & non-aggravated assaults (62)
have gone down within the Downtown Core (a.k.a., Neighborhood 5) over the past year (June 2016
June 2017 to June 2017 - June 2018), sexual assaults have gone up. And bear in mind that
comparing the alcohol-related offenses (308) and assaults (25) for the twelve months of 2015 to
2016 with the alcohol related offenses (383) and assaults (62) for the twelve months between 2017
to 2018, the crime rate within this census district is on the rise.
According to the National Institute of Health (NIH) on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, estimates of
sexual assault prevalence suggest that 25 percent of American women have experienced sexual
assault, including rape. Approximately one-half of those cases involve alcohol consumption by
the perpetrator, victim, or both. Alcohol contributes to sexual assault through multiple pathways,
often exacerbating existing risk factors. Beliefs about alcohol’s effects on sexual and aggressive
behavior, stereotypes about drinking women, and alcohol’s effects on cognitive and motor skills
contribute to alcohol-involved sexual assault. (see: https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/
arh25-1/43-51.htm)
The City of La Palma also monitors the number of restaurants serving alcohol (Type 41 or 47)
within census tracts to avoid “over-concentration” and/or “high crime” rates. Like San Luis Obispo,
La Palma’s City Code requires a CUP for any restaurant that wants to sell alcoholic beverages (i.e.,
any Type 41 or 47 alcohol outlet) but they use this CUP to exercise local control over where
alcohol outlets may operate.
To more fully implement Policy 4.32, Article 4 in the updated Zoning Regulations includes specic
criteria for use permits by incorporating the late-night alcohol standard conditions of
approval (developed during the Alcohol Outlet Amendments process). These operational
standards include noise control, hours of operation, employee training, security, and compliance
with the proper ABC (Alcoholic Beverage Control) license.C. Required Findings. In order to grant
approval of a Minor Use Permit or Conditional Use Permit, the review authority shall make the
following ndings in addition to ndings contained in Article 6 (Permit Procedures): The (Ord. 1578
3 (part),use shall be consistent with the Zoning Regulations and the 2012)
Alcohol Outlet Regulations to reduce public safety problems associated with alcoholic beverage
sales and provide for properly maintained alcohol outlets so that negative impacts generated by
these activities are not harmful to the surrounding environment.
C. Required Findings. In order to grant approval of a Minor Use Permit or Conditional Use
Permit, the review authority shall make the following ndings in addition to ndings contained in
Article 6 (Permit Procedures):
1. The (Ord. 1578 § 3 (part), use shall be consistent with the Zoning Regulations and the 2012)
Alcohol Outlet Regulations to reduce public safety problems associated with alcoholic beverage
sales and provide for properly maintained alcohol outlets so that negative impacts generated by
these activities are not harmful to the surrounding environment.
2. The use will not result in adverse effects to the health, peace, or safety of persons residing or
working in the surrounding area;
3. The use will not result in jeopardizing or endangering the public health or safety of persons
residing or working in the surrounding area;
4. The use will not result in violations to any applicable provision of any other City, State, or Federal
regulation, ordinance or statute; and
5. The use is compatible with and will not adversely affect the livability or appropriate development
of abutting properties and the surrounding neighborhood.
More Efficient Development Review Processes
Save Our Downtown is concerned that under Tier I no public hearing would be held for new single-
unit residences or additions to existing single-unit residences where the scale and character of the
proposed dwelling “contrasts signicantly with adjacent or neighboring structures”. We are
concerned that all of the Architectural Review Commission’s recommendations will be advisory to
the Director, that the Director shall not be bound by these recommendations in taking his nal
action on the application, that the Director can modify ARC’s recommendations before they are
forwarded to the Planning Commission and that the Director’s nal actions as they pertain to the
ARC (or CHC for that matter) will not involve a public hearing. We are concerned that both the Tree
Committee and CHC recommendations will not always (or ever?) be routed to the ARC as their
meetings could be scheduled subsequent to when the ARC meets. We are however pleased that
all new development (we assume this includes additions and remodels) in the C-D zone will come
under the Tier III heading.
Tier I – Administrative Review: An administrative (staff-level) process that includes a legal ad and
posting of the property, but no public hearing unless the Director determines it is warranted
currently referred to as several different terms (lot line adjustments, discretionary exceptions, minor
or incidental projects).
Development Review Minor
a. Small residential development
b. Minor additions or alterations to existing structures
B. Minor. Minor Development Review is a staff-level review process with public notice provided,
with no public hearing required. The following projects shall be subject to Minor Development
Review, including but not limited to;
1. New single-unit residence and additions to an existing single-unit residence where:
f. The scale and character of the proposed dwelling contrasts signicantly with adjacent or
neighboring structures.
Tier II – Director’s Action: Action at the Director level that includes a public notice and a hearing
conducted by the applicable advisory body or review authority. This would include, for example,
Development Review - Moderate, Minor Use Permits, Variances, and any development standard
exceptions as requiring a Director’s Hearing (parcel map, minor use permit, discretionary
exceptions). Development Review Moderate
a. Residential developments with fewer than 10 units
b. Nonresidential development with less than 10,000 gross square feet of new construction c.
Hillside development
d. Projects involving a property included on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources
A. For each level of Development Review, an advisory body may provide a recommendation to
the review authority as applicable or required. In particular, review of an application subject to the
Architectural Review Commission as set forth in Section 2.48.090 (Architectural Review
Procedures) shall occur:
1. For Moderate Development Review, the Architectural Review Commission shall
conduct a public hearing and forward its recommendations to the Director. The Director shall
consider the recommendations but shall not be bound by them in taking nal action on the
application.
2. For Major Development Review, the Architectural Review Commission shall conduct a
public hearing and forward its recommendations to the Director. The Director shall have the
authority to either:
a. Incorporate the Architectural Review Commission’s recommendation into the staff report
prepared for the public hearing by the Planning Commission; or
b. Modify the Architectural Review Commission’s recommendation and forward that modied
recommendation, together with the original recommendation, in the staff report prepared for the
public hearing by the Planning Commission.
Tier III – Planning : A permit or project review requiring Planning Commission action
involving public notice and a hearing (tract maps, conditional use permits, discretionary
exceptions) Development Review Major
a. Residential developments with 10 units or more
b. Nonresidential development with 10,000 gross square feet or more of new construction
c. All new development in the C-D zone
d. All projects requiring an EIR
Parking Regulations
Save Our Downtown is urging you to exempt the C-D Zone from these proposed parking
reductions. It is unlikely that 50% of the tourists and commuters arriving daily in the Downtown
Core will not be using some form of personalized transportation. Imposing this “one size ts all”
parking standard onto the C-D Zone will result in discouraging tourism and will force commuters to
park in adjoining office or residential zones. We do, however, support project-specic parking
studies as a requisite part of proposed parking reductions. Outside the Downtown Core, we
maintain that the proposed city-wide parking reductions combined with staff’s proposal to up-zone
our R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods will adversely impact our quality of life.
Thus, efforts for this update have focused on the parking regulations and crafting standards that:
1) generally reduce the amount of parking required for new uses and development, 2) encourage
shared parking arrangements, 3) require and promote increased parking for bicycles, and require
facilities for electric vehicle parking/recharging.
Rely on a project-specic parking study for a parking reduction. Downtown Density
Save Our Downtown applauds staff’s decision to undertake a more in-depth policy and CEQA
investigation before moving forward with this approach to Downtown residential densities.
However, staff should amend the following statement in their preamble as it no longer applies to
this downtown density proposal: “Based on the analysis provided within the Initial Study/Negative
Declaration, the City has concluded that adoption of the Draft Zoning Regulations Update would
not result in new signicant impacts on the environment that have not been previously examined or
adequately addressed in the LUCE EIR.”
During the process of preparing the comprehensive update, staff investigated the option for
implementing LUCE policy 4.28, which calls for allowing variable residential densities in Downtown
as one means of encouraging housing production. Staff proposed an approach that would
eliminate any density standards for units 600 square feet and smaller. The City Council expressed
support of this approach for consideration during the public hearing process. However, because
the General Plan EIR did not address the potential impacts associated with the possible level of
housing production associated with this policy change, staff has determined that more in-depth
policy and CEQA investigation are required before moving forward with this approach to
Downtown residential densities.
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15145 (Speculation) states that “If after thorough investigation, a
Lead Agency nds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should
note its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact”. Based on the analysis provided within
the Initial Study/Negative Declaration, the City has concluded that adoption of the Draft Zoning
Regulations Update would not result in new signicant impacts on the environment that have
not been previously examined or adequately addressed in the LUCE EIR. No new mitigation
measures would be required, and mitigation measures that were adopted for the LUCE EIR
continue to remain applicable, as such measures were incorporated into the General Plan following
City Council’s adoption of the LUCE.
Incentives for Housing Projects
Save Our Downtown is concerned that the Council’s responsibility to approve or deny density
bonuses, concessions and incentives has been transferred from the City Council to the Director.
See 17.140.040 below:
17.140.040 – Standard Incentives for Housing Projects
This Section shall apply only to housing projects consisting of ve or more dwelling units. Per
State law, projects that provide affordable housing are allowed up to a 35 percent density bonus
based on the tables outlined below for the respective affordability levels. In addition, the Director
may approve a density bonus in excess of 35 percent at the request of the developer, as well as
other concessions and incentives outlined in Section 17.140.070.
This means that these very important decisions will no longer involve a public hearing nor will
these decisions reect the sentiments of our duly elected representatives. We are also concerned
that staff’s proposed phraseology when granting an incentive to the developer involves the word
shall” in spite of the fact that the State Density Bonus law (Gov. Code section 65915) requires a
public agency to relax its development standards to allow for the physical construction of the
additional “density units” only if the relaxation of such standards will not result in specic
adverse impacts. Moreover, placing all of these critical decisions under the purview of the
Director is in violation of the following statement found under Chapter 17.90 in San Luis Obispo’s
Municipal Code (Affordable Housing Incentives): “Nothing in this section shall be construed to
require the council to approve any alternative incentive or concession. The council shall
approve the requisite number of incentives or concessions afforded by this section. However, the
details surrounding the incentives or concessions shall be at the discretion of the council.” We are
also puzzled why the following passage under Alternative Incentive Proposals has been deleted:
alternative incentive proposals shall include an estimate of the incentive’s nancial value in
comparison with the nancial value of the density bonus allowed in Section 17.90.040, as well as
the basis for the comparison estimate”. We believe that since the California Housing Accountability
Act requires that “feasibility” be taken into consideration, the statement under “Burden of Proof
and Precedence” should be amended to read: “The burden of proof to establish the evidence in
support of the required nding(s) for any permit or approval in compliance with this Division,
including proof of infeasibility and/or hardship, is the responsibility of the applicant.”
17.102.040 – Burden of Proof and Precedence
Burden of Proof. The burden of proof to establish the evidence in support of the required nding(s)
for any permit or approval in compliance with these Zoning Regulations is the responsibility of the
applicant.”
17.140.040 – Standard Incentives for Housing Projects
17.90.040 Standard incentives for housing projects.
A. This sectionSection shall apply only to housing projects consisting of ve or more dwelling
units. Per stateState law, projects that provide affordable housing are allowed up to a thirty-ve35
percent density bonus based on the tables outlined below for the respective affordability levels. In
addition, the city councilDirector may approve a density bonus in excess of thirty-ve35
percent at the request of the developer, as well as other concessions and incentives outlined in
Section 17.90.060xxx.xx .
B. Alternative incentive proposals shall include information set forth in Section 17.90.030(B)xxx.xx ,
as well as a description of the requested incentive, an estimate of the incentive’s nancial value
in comparison with the nancial value of the density bonus allowed in Section 17.90.040, as
well as the basis for the comparison estimate.. Alternative incentive proposals shall be
considered by the councilPlanning Commission and may include but are not limited to one or
more of the following:
D. Ten Percent Low Income Dedication. When a developer agrees to construct tenat least 10
percent of the total units of a housing development for persons or families of lower income, the
directorDirector shall grant the developer, upon the developer’s request, a density bonus; the
density bonus shall be calculated as follows:
3.4 Housing Accountability Act
The Housing Accountability Act applies to “housing development projects” which includes mixed-
use developments consisting of residential and non-residential uses in which nonresidential uses
are limited to neighborhood commercial uses and to the rst oor of the building. The project is a
housing development project under the Act and as such, a local agency shall not disapprove a
housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income household or condition
approval in a manner that renders the project infeasible for development for the use of very low,
low-, or moderate- income household including through the use of design review standards unless
ndings are made that the project will have a specic, adverse impact upon public health or
safety (Section 65589.5(d)(2)).
On June 14, 2018 the Planning Commission stated the following: Page 255 - F2 - “Make sure there
is adequate measure to address noise in mixed use zones.” However, this was not incorporated
into the MU Development and Design Standards.
17.58.030 – Development and Design Standards
Property development standards shall be those of the underlying zone, except that the application
of the MU overlay zone to a property may include establishing a higher height limit than the
underlying zone to more effectively accommodate the residential component of a mixed-use
project. Any such request for a higher height limit shall be set forth in the subject application and
shall be reviewed by the applicable review authority as part of the overall application. Proposed
development and new land uses shall also comply with all applicable provisions of Section
17.70.130 (Mixed- Use Development).
17.58.040 – Additional Regulations
A. Ordinance Contents. An ordinance adopting a MU overlay zone shall specify the following items
and may include any other standard that would further the purpose and intent of this Chapter:
The types of uses which are required or allowed to be combined;
Any standards for the uses locations or their relationships to each other; and/or
Any issues specic to the site or the intended combination of uses which must be resolved
by the design of the project.
High Occupancy Use Permits
Save Our Downtown is concerned that the City has abandoned, without signicant public input,
the High Occupancy Administrative Use Permit. This opens the door to occupancies in R-1
neighborhoods to far exceed 6 unrelated adults without any oversight or periodic review.
17.148.030 – Performance standards.Standards
A. Upon approval of an administrative use permit, as dened by Chapter 17.58, a
A. A high-occupancy residential use may be established with occupancy of six or more adults. The
purpose of the use permit is to ensure shall operate in compliance with the following performance
standards described in this section, and to ensure the compatibility of the use at particular
locations.
The dwelling must contain a minimum three hundred square feet of gross oor area, less garage
area, per adult. 17.93.050 Administration.
A. Permit Requirement. For high-occupancy residential uses with six or more adult occupants, the
applicant shall apply for and obtain an administrative use permit as dened by zoning regulations.
The applicant shall submit and certify the following information as part of the application for an
administrative use permit:
A. A.
1. Address of dwelling;
2. A site plan which shows:
The entire boundary of the site as well as adjacent structures within twenty feet;
b. The number and location of off-street parking spaces;
c. The gross oor area of the dwelling in square feet;
d. The oor plan for the dwelling with the rooms clearly labeled;
3. The number of proposed adult occupants;
4. Owner’s signature;
5. Any other information deemed necessary by the community development director. (Ord. 1154 §
1 (part), 1990) 17.93.060
Periodic review, violations and enforcement.
A. Period Review. High-occupancy residential uses shall be reviewed annually to ensure
compliance with the provisions of this chapter. The use permit shall be reviewed annually for
compliance with this chapter. It shall be the responsibility of the property owner to initiate the
review and pay applicable fees.
B. Violations. Violation of any of the provisions of this chapter shall be the basis for enforcement
action by the city which may include revocation of a previously approved use permit. (Ord. 1154 §
1 (part), 1990)
Accessory Dwelling Units
Save Our Downtown is pleased that staff has recommended that “the owner of the property shall
occupy either the primary residence or the accessory dwelling unit”. However we are concerned
that the Director may waive this requirement in one-year increments, not to exceed a total of ve
consecutive years, based on a showing of a hardship. Inheritance of property was cited as one
example of a valid “hardship”, but this term is ambiguous to say the least and could be exploited
unnecessarily.
1.a. Design Standards. Accessory dwelling unitsDwelling Units shall conform to all applicable
development standards included in the underlying zone such as, including but not limited to
height, 4-2 yards set back area, parking, and building coverage, etc. An Accessory Dwelling Unit
that conforms to this chapterChapter shall not be considered to exceed the allowable density a
dwelling unit for the lot upon which it is located, and shall be deemed to be a residential use
that is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designations for the lot.
F. 5. Owner-Occupancy. The owner of the property shall occupy either the primary residence or
the accessory dwelling unit. Accessory Dwelling Unit. The Director may waive this requirement in
one-year increments, not to exceed a total of ve consecutive years, based on a showing of a
hardship. A hardship shall include, but not be limited to, inheritance of property with an Accessory
Dwelling Unit.
Miscellaneous Concerns
It is still concerning that there will be no public oversight on granting home occupation (or live-
work) permits, nor revocations of use permits granted to alcohol outlets, determinations of unique
hardship for exceptions to development standards and zoning variances. These are discretionary,
not ministerial, decisions which would benet from public oversight.
We are also concerned that the quasi-judicial responsibility of the Planning Commission or Director
to make adjustments to the C-D Zone development standards or to the Specic Focus Area zones
could involve increased heights or building setbacks without any additional input from the
Architectural Review Commission. There is no mechanism proposed where these changes to the
building envelope could be referred back to the ARC. Thank you!
To:SLO Planning Commission
Re: Zoning Regulations Update Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration
From:Allan Cooper, Secretary Save Our Downtown
Date:June 24, 2018
Honorable Chair Fowler and Commissioners -
We commend staff for deferring to a subsequent amendment (and after an appropriate CEQA
review has been completed) any alternative FAR’s for Downtown developments with units smaller
than 600 square feet. We also commend staff for considering new regulations, for Low-Density and
Medium-Density Residential areas requiring special review for (1) incompatibly large houses, (2)
replacement or inll homes in existing neighborhoods, and (3) accessory buildings with plumbing
facilities allowing easy conversion to illegal second dwellings.
However, this 125 page Draft Initial Study has a number of signicant aws.
First, under the category of 1. “Aesthetics” the Initial Study states:
The LUCE EIR concluded that “development under the LUCE Update would introduce new
development along viewing corridors and scenic roadways, including state scenic highways, in the
San Luis Obispo area. This could have a substantial adverse effect on scenic resources or an
identied visual resource or scenic vista from a public viewing area. With the incorporation of the
proposed LUCE Update policies and existing City policies, potential impacts to such views are
considered Class III, less than signicant” (LUCE EIR Section 4.1 Aesthetics, Impact AES-1).”
How is it that this paragraph could entertain two conicting points of view? First it states that all of
the proposed increases in heights and densities incorporated into this Update could have “a
substantial adverse effect on scenic resources or an identied visual resource or scenic vista
from a public viewing area” yet it also states that the “potential impacts to such views are
considered Class III, less than signicant”?
Second, under the category of 5. Cultural Resources the Initial Study states:
The LUCE EIR concludes that ‘development allowed by the LUCE update could cause a
substantial adverse change in the signicance of a historical resource which is either listed or
eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic
Resources, or a local register of historic resources. This impact is considered to be Class II,
signicant but mitigable’ (LUCE EIR Section 4.5, Cultural Resources Impact CR 1).” The Initial
Study further states that “Development facilitated under the Zoning Regulations Update will have
the potential to result in impacts to historical resources.”
The mitigation measures cited for these signicant impacts include undergoing “…separate
environmental review, which may result in specic impacts that require project specic mitigation
consistent with these policies…and review by the Cultural Heritage Committee (which) will govern
development and redevelopment that may occur during the lifetime of the LUCE and Zoning
Regulations Update.” This is, at best, disingenuous. First, initial studies are not a mandated
requirement for the demolition of an historical resource (it is the Director’s discretionary decision).
Second, the Cultural Heritage Committee’s oversight is simply advisory and their
recommendations will no longer be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission as both
CHC and ARC reviews will be scheduled to take place concurrently and this further diminishes the
CHC’s role.
Third, under the category of 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions the Initial Study states:
It should be noted that the City is already forward thinking in its climate adaption strategies and
has adopted measures to reduce the City’s carbon footprint, such as requiring extensive tree
canopy in parking lots (which reduces heat island effects and improves carbon sequestration),
requiring wiring for electric vehicle charging in garages in new subdivisions, and requiring LEED
Silver or equivalent development as an incentive in the C-D zone. Also, the State is moving
forward with climate change initiatives, such as requiring solar installations on new development
beginning in 2020, which will be applied to new developments. New strategies in the updated
Zoning Regulations include:
1) As an incentive for increased height in the C-D zone and a community benet for a PD
overlay, having a developer provide net-zero energy construction features
2) Reducing the allowable pervious surface coverage in front yards of R-1 zones from 50
percent to 40 percent
3) As an incentive for increased height in the C-D zone and a community benet for a PD
overlay, requiring a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program that achieves
measurable 20 percent mode shift and that is covenanted for long-term implementation
5) Allowing shared car services (e.g., ZipCar) spaces to be located in developments without
increased parking requirements
6) Parking requirements for alternative clean fuel vehicles
7) Requirements for showers, lockers and changing rooms for large developments
8) Reducing car parking requirements and increasing bike parking”
Assuming that increased building height is a sustainable solution, the City is only relying on
incentives” to achieve the goals of requiring LEED Silver or equivalent development, net-zero
energy construction features and a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program. Why
aren’t these requirements?
However, as stated previously, increasing building heights is a simplistic and counterproductive
means toward addressing climate change.
Tall buildings use almost twice as much energy per square foot as low-rise structures.
Tall buildings, if under-parked in anticipation of the construction of a proposed public
parking structure, deplete available off-site parking, thereby forcing CO2 producing cars
to drive further to nd a parking space.
Tall buildings rob the sidewalks and adjoining buildings of sunlight. Tall buildings
create microclimates which include heat sinks, wind tunnels and down drafts.
Tall buildings result in the wholesale removal of mature, carbon-sequestering
street trees.
Tall buildings are inherently inefficient because proportionately more of their surface
area is exposed to the sun and wind.
Tall buildings require more steel and concrete, therefore contain more embodied energy
and are less sustainable than low rise buildings built largely of wood. Concrete is 10 times
more GHG-intensive than wood.
In low-rise buildings the rooftop supply available for solar energy is inevitably more in line
with the energy demands of the building than it is for mid- or high-rises. Most buildings that
generate their own energy do it with solar photovoltaics (PV).
If we assume that a building has only its roof area available for mounting PV, then a single-
story building is much more likely to achieve net-zero than a high-rise. Getting to net-
zero is extremely difficult for buildings of more than four stories. If the project includes
energy-intensive data centers, labs, or other spaces, the challenge gets tougher.
Finally, reducing car parking requirements and increasing bike parking at such a draconian rate is
not a sustainable solution. Staff states: “A minimum level of climate change is expected to occur
despite local, statewide, or other global efforts to mitigate GHG emissions.” Contrary to the writer’s
opinion, climate change is occurring, even with the few incentives being proposed, not at a
minimum level” but at an exponentially rapid rate demanding that we not contrive time-
consuming “social experiments” (i.e., the draconian reduction of car parking) that will force current
residents, commuting workers, tourists and students (all of whom currently own personalized
transportation that depends on carbon-based fuels) to increase the vehicle miles they travel
hunting for non-existent parking spaces.
On May 9, 2018, the Planning Commission stated the following:
Factor in the fact that SLO is a regional shopping center and tourist location, daytime population
increases more demand for parking spaces than just our resident population community
represents, that has to be factored in. Since this is creating tension in the community, assumptions
need to be evaluated based on daytime population; ITE could demand data that can help with this
issue. We don’t have good data on our city and parking, we need to know better what our crisis
points are. Suggest looking into technology that gives us a read on how our parking is being used.
Parking requirements should match the parking demand. Automatic parking reduction and shared
parking reduction should be based on a realistic parking demand. If hours of operation for two
uses that operate at night, then parking reduction may not be warranted due to increased demand
at key times of the day. Set a minimum of parking reduction by percentage or number that triggers
a parking study. Consideration of how trip reduction plan will receive a reduction of vehicles, as
individuals using bikes may still own cars.”)
On June 14, 2018 the Planning Commission stated the following:
Page 296 - 4. “Add: Director may require the implementation of a vehicle trip reduction plan”)
However under Parking Demand Management – “Trip Reduction Programs. A veriable parking
demand management program and a trip reduction program to reduce resident/employee
dependence on single-occupant vehicle trips, subject to the approval of the Public Works
Director.”
To:SLO Planning Commission
Re:Zoning Regulations Update
From:Allan Cooper, San Luis Obispo
Date:July 7, 2018
Honorable Chair Fowler and Commissioners -
The LUCE recommends an area plan for "Upper Monterey Street" extending to the Highway 101
on-ramp. However the LUCE does not recommend an interim extension of downtown standards
to the smaller area bounded by the railroad which you have recently reviewed and approved.
Please rescind your approval and deny staff’s proposal to allow buildings as tall as 75 feet in this
area before the City conducts an Upper Monterey Area Plan. This plan could take several years to
complete and should involve community feedback.Staff’s recommendation to increase building
heights is premature and will inuence, if not predetermine, the outcome of the Area Plan.At the
very least, direct staff to prepare a visualization model of the current building heights comparing it
to the proposed building heights. This would be consistent with Chapter 4 of the Land Use
Element which calls for a visual resource study to be done for all tall buildings.
As for tall buildings in general, permit me to share my thoughts on this very important topic. First,
the predominant height of buildings downtown is still (but possibly not for long) under 45 feet (see
my list below).
Second, the May 4, 1993 “Conceptual Physical Plan For The City’s Center” called for preserving “
the existing building height patterns of two and three stories”.
But after a SLO Chamber subcommittee consisting of architects, designers, engineers and
planners provided input to the Council urging for a moderate height limit increase to 60 feet, the
Council on a narrow 3-2 vote (nays: Settle & Mulholland) approved a maximum building height
increase from 50 feet to 75 feet in the SLO Downtown Commercial Core. The rationale behind this
vote has proven to be specious. They argued that this height increase would increase affordable
and workplace housing yet we have seen that the vast majority of these units will neither be
affordable nor suitable (especially the efficiency units) for families working downtown. They argued
that this would result in increasing pedestrian amenities and increasing view access when in fact
tall buildings shade sidewalks and block views to all but the few residents occupying the upper
oors. They argued that this would result in historic preservation when one- and two-story historic
buildings are already being overwhelmed by their tall neighbors.
Vice Mayor Christine Mulholland’s extremely prescient dissenting opinion was as follows:
Mulholland “reviewed a number of sections of the proposed amendments with which she had
concerns or questions. In addition, she said she was concerned with the lack of public
participation in the process, applying blanket policies to all downtown properties, the complexity
of the ordinance, loss of views at the sidewalk level, inadequate protection for historic structures,
and an inadequate transportation plan to address increased traffic in the downtown.”
Third, when the Chamber, in a November 2, 2015 Newsletter complained that “since adoption, no
projects in the downtown have gone to the higher limits and both Garden Street Terraces and the
Chinatown project…were scaled back…”, the City decided to explore other ways to increase
building heights.
They put together a LUCE Citizen’s Task Force that recommended modifying zoning regulations to
allow efficiency units and variable density in the Downtown Core.
And they hired a consultant (Michael Baker International) to assist a Creative Vision Team (CVT) to
update the “Conceptual Physical Plan For The City’s Center” (now called the “Downtown Concept
Plan”). This resulted in recommending “three- to four-story mixed-use commercial (and public)
buildings” in Block #15 (a.k.a. “signature buildings”), Block # 16, Block # 17, Block #23 (a.k.a.
landmark buildings”), Block #24, Block #25, Block #28, Block #29 and Block #18. It is telling that
the professional consultant to this Creative Vision Team was architect Tom Duffy with Ten Over
Studio who is now proposing a 75-foot-tall building at the corner of Chorro and Marsh Streets!
Lately, you have received an MIG Consultant Team “White Paper” advocating doubling downtown
densities, promoting density transfers and increasing the maximum height of buildings.
Fourth, all of this ran counter to overwhelming public opposition to tall buildings downtown (or
elsewhere for that matter). The public opinion results from a broad-based, City-organized
engagement in 2016-2017 were as follows. A so-called “Stakeholder Focus Group” comprised of
48 participants placed 5 dots on increasing building heights while another 5 dots were in support
of keeping existing building heights - hardly a mandate for increasing building heights. The rst
Public Workshop comprised of 75 participants expressed its greatest displeasure with the 60 foot
tall County Government Building located at 1055 Monterey Street. The second Public Workshop
comprised of 110 participants overwhelmingly agreed that “heights should stay as they are”. The
top reply in an Online Survey comprised of 393 responders stated that what they most liked about
Downtown SLO was its “look and feel”. Finally, a Neighborhood Meeting comprised of 35
downtown residents broadly supported limitations on new building heights.
Re: Jamie Lopes’ Summary of June 27, 2018 Planning Commission Review of Zoning
Regulations Update
Date: July 9, 2018
I think we scored 4. 5 out of 9 items at the Planning Commission.I've added text after the items
below, in bold, to state what the Planning Commission did last night in response to at least my
letter of June 24.I'm interested in who else wrote letters/emails in our favor; some grumbling
occurred about the large amount of mail.Anyone want to take this on?Now the next challenge is
to protect our successes and drive for more at the City Council.Their rst hearing remains at July
27, I think.
The only additional change was to expand the allowed sales in neighborhood markets, to at least
include produce and meats; suggested by Commissioner Mike Wulkan.
Staff has added another PC hearing on July 11 (I'll be gone).The Anholm district issue with the
Bressi property and creek protection; the San Luis Drive issue with "edge conditions"Ordinance
1130 - are both continued to then.Also, R-1 lot coverage standard and other revisions from last
night's hearing, to be voted on then.Eric Meyer had concerns that the Zoning standards could
require more stringent measures for natural gas and electric systems, to advance 'Net Zero'
development.These may come back.
Lesson:In a long application process, meet with the staff as early and as often as possible to
learn of their positions and willingness to agree with ideas.
To:SLO Planning Commission City of San Luis Obispo
Re:Item 1 - Proposed Zoning Regulations Update
From:Jamie Lopes
Dear Chairperson Fowler and Commissioners:
This summary of my letter of June 24, 2018 is meant to remind you of the main points within the
discussion:
1.Public Input:Please revise the "story poles" proposal to be required at the time of application,
so that they will be up during the Conditional Use Permit process.Requiring them as a
Condition of Approval makes no sense
On June 14, 2018 the Planning Commission stated:
Require story poles prior to public hearings for taller buildings that could impact their
surroundings.”)
Doug Davidson admitted that he made an error, and the story poles would not be required as
a condition of approval, but as an item in the application checklist.The Commission agreed
with the staff on this, but the Council of course, can take them out.They stole Menzie's
thunder!
This was a real win and thanks to Russ Brown for suggesting them at the previous June 13
hearing.
2. R-1 Development Standards:Have staff propose to add design standards that scale back
residential structures from smaller ones on adjoining properties.
The Commission agreed with my suggestions and with a detailed presentation by Vice-Chair
Chuck Stevenson, to add upper story setback standards, and to limit the Floor Area Ratio to
0.40 for houses including the area of garages larger than 500 square feet.Applications for
greater than 0.40 FAR would be a Conditional Use Permit at the Planning Commission.
On June 27, 2018 the Planning Commission stated: Revise 5 under 17.110.070 - Required
Findings A. In order to grant a Minor Use Permit or Conditional Use Permit, the Director or
Planning Commission, or on appeal, the Council, shall be required to make the following ndings:
Replace “5. The type, density, and intensity of use being proposed will not endanger, jeopardize,
or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general
welfare, or be materially detrimental or injurious to the improvements, persons, property, or uses
the vicinity and zone in which the property is located.”
With “a. The establishment and subsequent operation or conduct of the use will not, because of
the circumstances and conditions applied in the particular case, be detrimental to the health,
safety and welfare of the general public or persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the
use, or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the use: and b.
That the proposed project or use will not be inconsistent with the character of the immediate or
contrary to its orderly development; and c. That the proposed use of project will not generate a
volume of traffic beyond the safe capacity of all roads providing access to the project either
existing or to be improved with the project.”)
On June 27, 2018 the Planning Commission stated:
Revise under 17.16 Low Density Residential (R-1) Zone Development Standards 17.16.030
Additional Regulations by amending the following:
A.Requirements and Findings for FAR Increase in R-1 Zone. These regulations are established to
encourage development and additions that are compatible with neighborhood character in the
R-1 zone. The maximum FAR may be increased from 0.4 to 0.5 if the building design
incorporates one of the following:
1. Single-Story. Buildings limited to one story with a maximum height of 14 feet to top of a at roof
and 20 feet to the ridge or peak of a sloped roof (with otherwise permitted exceptions allowed).
The allowed single story shall not include mezzanines or lots.
2. Greater Setbacks. A second-story step back of at least ve feet along the front facade facing
and provide second-story side setbacks that are at least three feet greater than the minimum
required setback.
3. Garage Location. Provide a detached garage located behind the main dwelling.
Add the following:
4. Flexibility for Lots 5,000 sq. ft. or less
5. Excluding the garage from FAR up to 500 square feet.
6. Thirty percent of the upper story side wall may align with the lower oor wall provided it is within
the rear half of the structure and staff shall provide a graphic.)
3. Upper Monterey Overlay Zone:Deny this staff proposal to allow buildings as tall as 75 feet,
while the City conducts an Upper Monterey Area Plan, which could take several years and involve
the community.It is premature and will inuence if not predetermine the outcome of the Area Plan
if the Downtown height limits of 50 ,to 60 and 75 feet with bonuses, are adopted now.Direct staff
to prepare a visualization model of the current building heights compared to the proposal, if you
wish to go forward.
Doug, Michael Codron and the CEQA staff person, Shawna Scott, gave a detailed list of
reasons why they should go ahead.Listed were the LUCE program to extend downtown into
the area, the new requirements for a Conditional Use Permit from the Planning Commission,
and several view shed protection policies in the LUE and the Conservation and Open Space
Element. The Planning Commission readily went for it.I'll ask for a written version of their
list.
On June 27, 2018 the Planning Commission made the following resolution:
A resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo, Califorvnia,
recommending that the City Council approve an amendment to the City’s zoning map to designate
an approximately 15.8 acre portion of the C-R zone in the Downtown Core, the 1100 block of
Higuera Street and the 1100 through 1300 block of Monterey, as C-R-D, retail commercial with a
downtown overlay zone to allow for Downtown Commercial development standards (height, oor
area ratio, and parking requirements) with Planning Commission Approval”)
4. Discretionary Actions and Permits.Do not allow the Director (staff) to make more exceptions,
especially with a ministerial (no notice or hearing) use permit. Direct staff to comb the ordinance
and propose that all exceptions be brought under the Variance section.
They ignored this one.
5. Recommendations from Advisory Bodies:Deny the staff proposal to allow the Director (staff)
to ignore, revise or replace recommendations by the Architectural Review Commission.Instead,
keep the current practice of optional staff recommendations within a staff report.
They approved this allowance to recommend other then the ARC, based on a detailed
explanation done previously by Michael Codron. They wanted to treat the ARC as explicitly
an advisory body, like the CHC or Tree Committee.Of course, a bad ARC decision might be
improved by staff, just to be hopeful.
6. C-D Zone Residential Parking:Please direct staff to prepare criteria for approval of reduced
parking within a downtown project.
They ignored this one also.
7. Application Filing, Processing and Review:Revise the proposal to allow a decision to set
Conditions of Approval with a ministerial use permit.Instead, require that an application can only
be approved if it meets all general plan, zoning ordinance requirements and ndings.
They ignored this one.
8.Director's Hearing:This is the same process as the Minor Use permit.Revise it to combine it
with the Minor Use Permit section, and replace this title with Minor Use Permit in Table 6-1.
They ignored this too.
9. Required Findings. The proposed ndings are too narrow than the public's interest.Replace
the proposed ones with the three in my letter, which are from the County of San Luis Obispo and
perfectly legal.
They were interested, and staff had no problems, so they approved the text I recommended
in my June 24 letter, which is used by the County.
10. Initial Study/Negative Declaration:Have staff prepare a visual analysis of the Upper
Monterey Area to compare the current buildings with the current 45-foot height limit and with the
proposed 50, 60 and 75-foot height limits.The proposal to retain these taller limits within the
Downtown HIstoric District should be analyzed for their effects on the public, the historic
structures and the view sheds.Remove the "green" proposals from the bonuses for higher
buildings, and make them requirements for all buildings.
On June 27, 2018 the Planning Commission stated:
Include language requiring a visual study for proposed projects within proximity of designated
public gathering places for structures greater than 30 feet in height and focus on the distant visual
views from gathering places.”)
Doug Davidson explained that the staff doesn't have the money or the scheduled time to
create and use a model to show the difference in height limits.Kyle pointed to application
objectives, general plan policies and the LUCE EIR that speak to visual impacts.Shawna
spoke to the basis of the IS/ND - the LUCE EIR.
The LUCE EIR identied potentially signicant visual impacts to public gathering places
from tall development in Downtown.The Land Use Element in Chapter 4 calls for a visual
resource study to be done, which0 hasn't, according to Michael Codron.Commissioner
John McKenzie called for a use permit requirement for a visual impact study for a project
that is taller than 30 feet (his estimate of most buildings in Downtown).The study would be
directed at public gathering places that may be impacted by obscured views from a project.
Staff said that the GIS mapping system does now identify views, and it has a "SketchUp"
type of software that models the buildings Downtown. So resources exist to determine if a
project might violate the policies they listed. I will ask Shawna for a copy of the list of
policies.This idea was approved for the application checklist, for Downtown and the
Downtown Overlay Zone to be applied to 'Upper Monterey.'
No changes to the Initial Study/Negative Declaration.
To:SLO City Council
Re:Jobs/Housing Balance, Water Availability & Over-Taxing Our Infrastructure
From:Allan Cooper, San Luis Obispo
Date:August 14, 2018
Mayor Harmon and Council Members -
Our City staff tells us that San Luis Obispo has a growth cap of 1% per year in population growth
limited by the number of new housing units built. But this falls far short of describing the whole
picture.
Over the past 4 years Cal Poly enrollments have increased by 1,970 students (2.5% per year
growth rate: Fall 2014: 20,186 to Fall 2018: 22,156), the population has increased by 1,143 (0.82%
per year growth rate: 2014: 46,573 to Fall 2018: 47,716) and the workforce population has
increased by 2,870 (3.24% per year growth rate: Fall 2014: 21,238 to Fall 2018: 24,108). This
results in an additional 5,983 people crowding into our City and congesting our roads and parking
lots over a mere 4 year period. This is not to mention the 2,700 overnight visitors in motels and
hotels plus 100’s more visitors in Airbnb’s. Then add to this an unknown number of day visitors.
So our current population of 47,600 plus, which appears to be growing at less than one percent
per year, must also include the 24,300 out-of-town workforce commuters, plus the 2,700 overnight
visitors, plus an unknown number of daytime shoppers when calculating our daytime population
which may hover around 75,700+). Unlike the current cap on housing production, the growth in
our daytime population, due to the aggressive promotion of tourism, new hotel/motel construction
and growth in jobs, must be stemmed if we want to move anywhere near a balance in jobs and
housing (which would also help to bring down the cost of housing) and to live within our means. As
for the latter point, Carrie Mattingly, the City’s Utilities Director, said that despite fears the City will
run out of water, especially in continued drought conditions, its water portfolio is solid and
capable of supplying the City through its General Plan build-out”. Ms. Mattingly is talking about
the projected 57,000 people residing in this city but not the current pipeline projection of 84,350
total daytime population. After all, daytime users and overnight visitors use water as well.
Not only this, but the City’s projected 2035 General Plan build out population of 57,000 will have
nearly been reached once all projects currently in the pipeline are built (see below). This will leave
only 1,456 more units (or approximately 97 units per year) to be built between now and 2035. But
what is worse is that the rapid pace of commercial and industrial growth (involving an additional
8,651 workers) compared to residential growth (resulting in an increase of 6,614 residents) in the
current pipeline will only exacerbate our jobs/housing imbalance leading to an increase in the cost
of housing.
Thank you for listening!
7, 8, 13, 16, 17, 23, 24, 30, 35, 38, 41, 49, 58, 63, 64,
Pipeline Projects Residential Commercial/Office Hotel Elder Care
Italics = Downtown District & Upper Monterey)
San Luis Ranch 500 units 350,000 sq.ft.200 rooms
Avila Ranch 720 units 20,000 sq.ft.
Froom Ranch 130 units 30,000 sq.ft.120 rooms 398 units
Victoria/Caudill 8 units
950 Orcutt 75 units 6,800 sq.ft.
Tribune Work/Live 43 units
Vesper Hotel 6,698 sq.ft.47 rooms
Palm/Nipomo Garage 5,000 sq.ft.
Taylor Ranch 53 units
790 Foothill 78 units 6,805 sq.ft.
Rockview Moderns 8 units
Pratt Ranch 34 units 1,500 sq.ft.
Los Padres Inn 36 rooms
Fernwood Apts. 5 units
207 Higuera 6 units 1,097 sq.ft.
Monterey Place 29 units 12,255 sq.ft.3 rooms
San Luis Square 63 units 19,792 sq.ft.36 rooms
Broad St. Collection 32 units 6 rooms
Twin Creeks 94 units 3,488 sq.ft.
Broad St. Workforce 40 units 1,288 sq.ft.
Marsh & Carmel 8 units 1,100 sq.ft.
1101 Monterey 27,079 sq.ft.
Bridge St. Project 21,000 sq.ft. (industrial)
West Creek 172 units
Serra Meadow 31 units
Imel Ranch 18 units
Olive Mixed-Use 3,500 sq.ft.17 rooms
1185 Monterey 13 units 2,464 sq.ft.
Righetti Ranch 304 units
Digital West 77,500 sq.ft.
Towne Place Suites 114 rooms
Motel Inn 55 rooms (+23 RV +spaces)
The Junction 69 units 3,000 sq.ft.
Jones Subdivision 65 units 15,000 sq.ft.
Granada Expansion 22 rooms
Ellsworth Tract 35 commercial lots
Aerovista Place 37,000 sq.ft.
South Town 18 18 units 70 sq.ft.
McCarthy Steel 9,840 sq.ft. (industrial)
Victoria Crossing 36 units 5,500 sq.ft.
Perry Ford & VW 7,895 sq.ft.
Laurel Lane 18 units 2,500 sq.ft.
Tank Farm 29,000 sq.ft.
Broad Mixed-Use 11 units 3,000 sq.ft.
The Courtyard 36 units
Shell Station 10,000 sq.ft.
The Yard 43 units
Long Bonetti 47,000 sq.ft.
Bishop Street 34 units
Ferrini Apartments 5 units
Poly Performance 30,000 sq.ft. (industirial)
22 North Chorro 27 units 2,000 sq.ft.
Higuera Brew 15,500 sq.ft.
Iron Works 46 units 4,400 sq.ft.
Monterey Hotel 102 rooms
Homeless Service 20,000 sq.ft.
Toscano Moresco 161 units
BMW Dealership 23,945 sq.ft.
625 Toro 14 units
Hotel Serra 8 units 25,000 sq.ft.64 rooms
Chinatown Hotel 25,000 sq.ft.78 rooms
Airport Business 75,000 sq.ft.
Fixlini Tract 13 units
Bridge (Terraza)26 units
71 Palomar 33 units
Downtown/Upper 121 units 134,426 sq.ft. 466 rooms
Monterey (4.6%) (14.3%) (50%)
Grand Total 2,627 units 937,016 sq.ft.923 rooms 398 units
excluding industrial)
Population/
Workforce
Conversion 6,614 res.7,496 workers 577 workers 358 workers
French Hospital 88 workers
Homeless Center 10 workers
Industrial (60,840 sq.ft.)122 workers
Total New Workers 8,651 new workers
Total New Residents 6,614 new residents
46,716 population + new 53,330 resident population
@ 2.52 per household
To:SLO City Council, Michael Codron and Doug Davidson
Re:August 21, 2018 Review of the Update to the Zoning Regulations
From:Allan Cooper, Secretary Save Our Downtown
Date:August 15, 2018
Mayor Harmon and Council Members -
We urge you to reconsider giving a blanket approval to City-wide upzoning and a city-wide
reduction in parking requirements.
Upzoning/Increasing Density
We should learn from the mistakes other cities have made. For example, back in 2006 Seattle’s
city fathers decided that what was really needed to get things moving was a double shot of
growth. It’s skyline could soon soar as the city decided to raise building heights across downtown
heights that had been restricted since the 1980s. It was a growth policy on steroids complained
neighborhood activist John Fox as he dubbed the upzoning a “blueprint for Seattle’s
gentrication.” For that John Fox got called a NIMBY. But he was also right. Regarding
gentrication”, in spite of a rental housing increase of over 13.6% (accommodating 100,000 new
renters) over this 12 year period, the average monthly rent for a 900 sq.ft. furnished apartment
increased from $1,366 to $2,164. With an increase in homeownership of 54,000 units over the
same period, the median cost of a home increased from $501,000 to $730,000.
The purpose of the upzonings was to lure in developers to tear down old squat buildings and build
residential towers. John Fox’s point at the time wasn’t that new density is bad, only that it can’t
be the only good. Other qualities matter, like the scale of buildings, and the matching of
infrastructure and services to the pace of growth. With the upzoning, developers were required
to pay into an affordable-housing fund, so that’s a positive. But cultural and historical values were
for the most part set aside in the growth rush. Unfortunately, growth boosters are going to
continue dominating Seattle politics; the city is planning more rounds of upzonings as you read
this.
You have received an MIG Consultant Team “White Paper” advocating doubling downtown
densities, promoting density transfers and increasing the maximum height of buildings.The
residents do not want increased building heights to be introduced into the Downtown Core. And
we disagree with the policy that the transfer of density credits not be applied to non-contiguous
downtown properties. If density transfers are implemented (and we would prefer not), properties
within the Downtown Core should only be able to transfer their credits to properties outside the
Downtown Core thereby maintaining the overall height of downtown buildings at 2 to 3 stories.
Moreover, a height minimum precluding one-story structures downtown should not apply when the
lot is contiguous to a one-story historic property.
Save Our Downtown applauds staff’s decision to undertake a more in-depth policy and CEQA
investigation before moving forward with the concept of “exible” (meaning “increased”) residential
densities downtown. However, increasing city-wide building densities is not a sustainable solution.
The argument is that doing so will prevent urban sprawl but sprawl is currently happening here in
San Luis Obispo. Note that in our current pipeline only 4.6% of new residential and only 14.3% of
new commercial development is located either in the Downtown District or along Upper Monterey
Street. The rest is occurring in our suburbs. Increasing both downtown density and sprawl will
overtax our infrastructure and our biome carrying capacity.
As for our biome carrying capacity, California’s ecological footprint is already 6 times its carrying
capacity. In 2008, California’s biocapacity was only able to support 17 percent of the population’s
ecological footprint. The remaining 83 percent was made up by importing biocapacity from
elsewhere and releasing carbon dioxide emissions into the global atmosphere . We can only5
assume that the same stresses placed on California’s carrying capacity apply to San Luis Obispo
as well. What can help mitigate this problem? Aggressive promotion of tourism and commercial
growth must be stemmed.
Save Our Downtown is concerned with procedural changes that are being recommended related
to the approval of density bonuses. In this update to the Zoning Regulations, the Council’s
responsibility to approve or deny density bonuses, concessions and incentives has been
transferred to the Director . This means that these very important decisions will no longer involve a6
public hearing nor will these decisions reect the sentiments of our duly elected representatives.
We are also puzzled why the following passage under Alternative Incentive Proposals has been7
deleted: “…alternative incentive proposals shall include an estimate of the incentive’s nancial
value in comparison with the nancial value of the density bonus allowed in Section 17.90.040, as
well as the basis for the comparison estimate”. We believe that since the California Housing
Accountability Act requires that “feasibility” be taken into consideration, the statement under
Burden of Proof and Precedence” should be amended to read: “The burden of proof to establish
See: https://www.footprintnetwork.org/content/images/article_uploads/5
EcologicalFootprintBiocapacityOfCalifornia_2013.pdf
See: 17.140.040 – Standard Incentives for Housing Projects6
This Section shall apply only to housing projects consisting of ve or more dwelling units. Per
State law, projects that provide affordable housing are allowed up to a 35 percent density bonus
based on the tables outlined below for the respective affordability levels. In addition, the Director
may approve a density bonus in excess of 35 percent at the request of the developer, as well as
other concessions and incentives outlined in Section 17.140.070.
17.102.040 – Burden of Proof and Precedence7
Burden of Proof. The burden of proof to establish the evidence in support of the required nding(s)
for any permit or approval in compliance with these Zoning Regulations is the responsibility of the
applicant.”
the evidence in support of the required nding(s) for any permit or approval in compliance with this
Division, including proof of infeasibility and/or hardship, is the responsibility of the applicant.”
Parking/Personalized Transportation
The argument for increasing building densities is predicated on reducing CO2 emissions attributed
to transportation. However, nearly half of all CO2 emissions come from the building sector
compared to less than one third being attributed to transportation . Instead of emphasizing a8
stronger commitment to inter-urban mass transit, this update to our Zoning Regulations focusses
on ways to wean residents, commuters and tourists from using private automobiles. How? By
eliminating parking spaces. However, a rapidly increasing demand for car parking along with urban
sprawl will be exacerbated - not mitigated - by the arrival of the autonomous vehicle and the
electric car because both will make long commutes, as well as vacation and shopping trips safer,
more enjoyable and more affordable.
Predicating future car parking supply (see Table 1 “Zoning Regulation Parking Options/
Exceptions”) on the targeted mode split of 50% auto trip usage, 20% bicycle trip usage, 18%
walking (or motorcycle, golf cart, Segway, scooter or skateboard usage) and 12% transit usage
assumes that nearly:
all 6,700 residents holding jobs in San Luis Obispo,
all 14,300 Cal Poly and Cuesta College students living off campus and in
San Luis Obispo and
all of the remaining 19,300 residents who are neither students nor those who work in San
Luis Obispo (but may be working in outlying communities)
will be relying on bicycles, walking or public transit to get around. The sum total for this group is
40,300.
Relying on automobile usage will be
the 24,300 workers (source: SLOCOG) commuting daily into San Luis Obispo from outlying
communities,
the 2,700 transient occupants who will be spending a night or two in a motel or hotel in San
Luis Obispo (which will increase to 3,623 overnight visitors once the 14 hotels in our
pipeline are completed)
the hundreds more staying in Airbnb’s,
the approximately 1,100 out-of-town shoppers and day visitors,
the 5,700 residents 65 years of age or older who may have mobility issues
due to age or inrmity,
the 1,570 pre-school children,
an unknown number of residents who are employed in outlying
communities and
the 3,950 Cal Poly and Cuesta College students living in outlying
communities (source: Cal Poly Masterplan DEIR).
The sum total for this group is 39,320. So roughly follows the 50-50 split.
See: http://architecture2030.org/buildings_problem_why/8
What is not taken into account here is San Luis Obispo’s aggressive promotion of tourism, new
hotel/motel construction and the growth in hospitality-related, low-paying jobs. Unlike the current
cap on housing production, our daytime population is growing far in excess of 1% per year and
this will only increase our reliance on the use of the automobile and on the declining availability of
parking spaces.
What is not taken into account is the projected increase in service vehicle/truck traffic and parking
demands associated with the increasing use of Amazon, hospitality, special event, restaurant, bar-
related and personal service deliveries.
What is not taken into account are the current statistics that would indicate that San Luis Obispo
residents may not be so easily weaned of the convenience of personalized transportation and its
associated parking requirements particularly as electric powered cars become more affordable.
Ninety percent of all households (17,157) in San Luis Obispo presently own 2 cars or more (7.8%
own 5 or more cars!). In 2015, 67% of commuters drove alone, 7.8% carpooled, 7.5% walked, 3%
used public transit and 9% bicycled to work1.
Even if the total number of vehicle trips decline over time, personalized transportation is essential
for family-related grocery shopping, shopping for home improvements, medical emergencies and
weekend excursions.
The Zoning Regulation Parking Options/Exceptions found in Table 1 should not apply to all new
development. It is our belief that for the reasons stated above, all hospitality and commercial
development as well as multi-generational housing should be exempted from these parking
provisions. Save Our Downtown is also urging you to exempt the C-D Zone from these proposed
parking reductions. It is unlikely that 50% of the tourists and commuters arriving daily in the
Downtown Core will not be using some form of personalized transportation. Imposing this “one
size ts all” parking standard onto the C-D Zone will result in discouraging tourism, hurt our local
economy and will force commuters to park in adjoining office or residential zones. We do, however,
support project-specic parking studies as a requisite part of proposed parking reductions
whenever they are deemed appropriate.
We are opposed to eliminating parking spaces to make way for ADU’s and we oppose increasing
ADU-related density if it is not accompanied with increasing the parking requirements . We are9
encouraging the City to maintain the same incentives as are available to conforming lots for
accessory dwelling units on non-conforming lots, particularly if they are located downtown,
because this will increase density incrementally without increasing building heights. Finally we
support ADU’s only if they are located on owner-occupied lots.
In conclusion, we maintain that the proposed city-wide parking reductions combined with staff’s
proposal to upzone upper Monterey Street and upzone our R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4 neighborhoods
will adversely impact our economy and further degrade our quality of life. Thank you!
To:SLO City Council
Re:Public Hearing Item #17
From:Allan Cooper, Secretary Save Our Downtown
1.a. Design Standards. Accessory Dwelling Units shall conform to all applicable9
development standards included in the underlying zone such as, including but not limited to height, yard
setback area, parking, and building coverage, etc. An Accessory Dwelling Unit that conforms to this Chapter
shall not be considered to exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which it is located, and shall be
deemed to be a residential use that is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning
designations for the lot.
Date:August 16, 2018
Mayor Harmon and Council Members -
In two specic cases, neither the Planning Commission nor City staff have addressed the true
intent behind LUE Policy Number 3.13 “Zoning Update for Visitor Services Uses” and LUE Policy
Number 4.32 “Use Permit Requirements”.
1) LUE Policy Number 3.13 “Zoning Update for Visitor Services Uses” states that “the City shall
review zoning regulations to consider allowing visitor-service uses in office zones adjacent to
community commercial zones in the Downtown and adjacent to Monterey Street between Johnson
and Santa Rosa.”
This Policy would suggest that the Office (O) Zones anking upper Higuera Street should be
rezoned to allow C-T or C-R zoned uses. We question the advisability of doing this before
an Area Plan for Upper Monterey is fully developed. However, staff has indicated in a table
on packet page 527 that the justication for rezoning the C-R zones anking Monterey
Street to C-D is based on Policy Number 3.13. To our way of thinking, there is no
correlation! And even though this idea did not come from the LUE, we would again
question the advisability of doing this before an Area Plan for Upper Monterey is fully
developed.
Please rescind your approval and deny staff’s proposal to allow buildings as tall as 75 feet
in this area before the City conducts an Upper Monterey Area Plan.
2) LUE Policy Number 4.32 “Use Permit Requirements” states that “the City shall incorporate into
its zoning regulations specic criteria for evaluating use permits for bars/taverns, night clubs
and late night drinking establishments.”
You recently indicated that the current regulations adequately address alcohol outlets. Staff
further stated that “standard condition and ndings have been included for such uses (in
Article 4).” But Article 4 under 17.11.040 “Deemed Approved Status Procedure” does not
address “specic criteria for evaluating a use permit”. Instead, this article includes the
late-night alcohol standard conditions of approval developed during the Alcohol Outlet
Amendments process. These operational standards include noise control, hours of
operation, employee training, security, and compliance with the proper ABC license. But
nothing has been done to address “specic criteria for evaluating use permits”.
Save Our Downtown is convinced that given the high rate of alcohol-related crime in the
Downtown Census District, these regulations are not sufficient.
LUE Policy No. 3.13 “Zoning Update for Visitor Services Uses” - Upper Monterey Rezoned to
C-D
This policy states that “the City shall review zoning regulations to consider allowing visitor-service
uses in office zones adjacent to community commercial zones in the Downtown and adjacent to
Monterey Street between Johnson and Santa Rosa.” Staff’s response to this is to propose that
Upper Monterey be rezoned C-D. Staff bolsters its argument by saying that the height impacts
on the surrounding neighborhoods (upper Palm and Higuera Streets) will be mitigated through new
requirements for Conditional Use Permits from the Planning Commission and through several view
shed protection policies in the LUE and the Conservation and Open Space Element.
Aside from the fact that rezoning this portion of Upper Monterey from C-S to C-D has nothing to
do with this LUE Policy, the “Upper Monterey Specic and Area Plan” calls for a “blend of
residential, office and commercial uses” that will take advantage of alternative modes
transportation such as walking, biking and transit.” There is no mention in this Area Plan of
incorporating buildings taller than 45 feet. This Area Plan could take several years to complete and
should involve community feedback.Staff’s recommendation to increase building heights is
premature and will inuence, if not predetermine, the outcome of the Area Plan.At the very least,
direct staff to prepare a visual analysis of the Upper Monterey Area to compare the current
buildings with the current 45-foot height limit with the proposed 50, 60 and 75-foot height
limits.This would be consistent with Chapter 4 of the Land Use Element which calls for a visual
resource study to be done for all tall buildings. Should this expanded C-D zone move ahead it
should be overlaid with a Special Consideration (S) Zone to address potential conicts with
adjoining residential neighborhoods.
Moreover, the recently adopted “SLO Downtown Concept Plan” does not recommend buildings
in excess of 4 stories for blocks 15, 23, 35, 16, 24, 17 or 25 (see below), all of which fall within
this proposed zone change.
We would like to remind you that there is overwhelming public opposition to tall buildings (i.e., in
excess of 3 stories) downtown or elsewhere for that matter. The public opinion results from a
broad-based, City-organized engagement in 2016-2017 were as follows. A so-called “Stakeholder
Focus Group” comprised of 48 participants placed 5 dots on increasing building heights while
another 5 dots were in support of keeping existing building heights - hardly a mandate for
increasing building heights. The rst Public Workshop comprised of 75 participants expressed its
greatest displeasure with the 60 foot tall County Government Building located at 1055 Monterey
Street. The second Public Workshop comprised of 110 participants overwhelmingly agreed that
heights should stay as they are”. The top reply in an Online Survey comprised of 393 responders
stated that what they most liked about Downtown SLO was its “look and feel”. Finally, a
Neighborhood Meeting comprised of 35 downtown residents broadly supported limitations on new
building heights.
LUE Policy Number 4.32 “Use Permit Requirements” - Alcohol Outlets
Save Our Downtown asks you to consider that the current alcohol outlet practices and the City’s
conditions of approval as standards are not adequate to address safety concerns downtown. We
see that the City is revisiting “tattoo parlors” and setting limits on the possible location of stores
selling cannabis, yet there is no mention of the much greater negative impacts on public health
and safety associated with the proliferation of alcohol outlets downtown.
Why do we want to prevent increasing the concentration of alcohol licenses in the Downtown
Core? In a study of various California counties, a 10% increase in the number of liquor licenses
correlated with a 1.67% and 2.06% increase in violence. According to the National Institute of
Health (NIH) on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, estimates of sexual assault prevalence suggest
that 25 percent of American women have experienced sexual assault, including rape.
Approximately one-half of those cases involve alcohol consumption by the perpetrator, victim,
or both. Alcohol contributes to sexual assault through multiple pathways, often exacerbating
existing risk factors. Beliefs about alcohol’s effects on sexual and aggressive behavior, stereotypes
about drinking women, and alcohol’s effects on cognitive and motor skills contribute to alcohol-
involved sexual assault . 10
The Land Use & Circulation Element Citizen’s Task Force developed the following programs and
policies (the bold type is mine):
See: https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh25-1/43-51.htm10
1.New Program: The City shall incorporate into its zoning regulations specic criteria for
evaluating use permits for bars/taverns, night clubs and late night drinking establishments.
2.New Policy: City shall promote a healthy mix of downtown street-level businesses that
emphasizes retail stores, specialty shops and food service rather than bars or taverns.
3.New Program: The City shall prepare an inventory of uses in the Downtown Core. Particular
attention shall be given to identifying uses at the street level as these uses directly impact the
pedestrian experience and vibrancy of the Downtown. This information shall be used to target
business support and attraction to achieve a desirable mix of uses in the Downtown.
The City promised that staff and Council would look into implementing an over-concentration law
pertaining to Type 41 and Type 47 alcohol outlets. Under "assessing and renewing Downtown”,
staff included in its action plan the following: "Alcohol Concentration Evaluation and Adoption of
Code Amendments." The completion time for this was November of 2014.
The only mechanism that can prevent increasing concentration of Type 41 and Type 47 alcohol
licenses is the conditional use permit (CUP). But not San Luis Obispo’s CUP that only regulates
closing times and hours of food service operation. Nor a CUP based on the nding that “the use
will not result in adverse effects to the health, peace, or safety of persons residing or working in the
surrounding area”. Nor a CUP that relies on a Downtown Association’s Safe Night Life
Subcommittee to mitigate increasing alcohol-related crime rates. Nor a CUP that relies on
Performance Standards and Deemed Approved Activities that are never monitored or enforced.
We urge the City to expand the scope of LUE Implementation Subtask 4.32 “Alcohol Use Permits”
to include a work program implementing an alcohol outlet "Public Convenience and
Necessity" (PCN) policy for Type 41 and Type 47 alcohol outlets as well as a reexamination of
Ordinance No. 1578. Additionally, we are urging you to revisit Ordinance No. 17.11.040: “alcohol
outlet public safety strategies and deemed approved alcoholic beverage sale regulations”.
Currently, the City does not require the applicant to ll out a “Submittal Checklist”. Without the
latter requirement, all decisions approving or denying outlets for both on-site and off-site alcohol
sales are purely discretionary and sometimes inconsistent or arbitrary.
The City should grant Type 41 and 47 licenses through the conditional use process (CUP) process
only if it is proven that doing so would not “cause deterioration of bordering land uses or create
special problems for the area in which it is located.” Moreover, the Police Department should
recommend denial of an applicant’s request for a Type 41 or Type 47 license if the crime rate within
the downtown census district is increasing.
We urge you to follow the best practices of three other California cities. For example, grant a Type
41 or Type 47 license through the CUP process if it is proven that doing so would not “cause
deterioration of bordering land uses or create special problems for the area in which it is
located” (see City of Orange). The Police Department should recommend denial of an applicant’s
request for a Type 41 or Type 47 license if the crime rate within that census district is increasing11
see City of La Palma). And nally, grant a CUP for any restaurant that wants to sell alcoholic
beverages (i.e., any Type 41 or 47 alcohol outlet) on the condition that the City can exercise local
control over where alcohol outlets may operate (see City of Vallejo).
Finally, we would like to address the issue of enforcement. Students coming back home from the
bars continue to create problems for residents living in outlying neighborhoods. Alcohol outlets can
be cited and even have their licenses revoked if it can be proven that they had over-served alcohol
to any of these 'bad actors'. However, the police never ask the inebriated student committing
these misdemeanors or felonies where they were last being served alcohol. This explains why no
alcohol outlet over the past 6 years has faced any disciplinary action, far less, had their license
revoked. We also learned that the complaint process, if it's pertaining to any one alcohol outlet,
must rst be directed to the Downtown Association (DA) before it is routed to the City. This
protocol has not been made public and should be. Of course our preference is that all citizen or
police department complaints should go directly to Doug Davidson, the Administrative Hearing
Officer.
Thank you for listening!
Source: “San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan”
Block 15: The surface parking lots on this block are envisioned to be redeveloped into a 3–4-story
County office building with parking. Commercial or public uses along Monterey Street will help
activate the street. Residenti al and office mixed use will con tinue to occupy the block along Palm
Street.
Block 16: The corner of Monterey and Johnson Streets will redevelop into 3–4-story commercial
mixed use (ground oor commercial and residen tial above), similar to The Mix across the street.
The exist ing off-street parking will be converted to plaza space. The exis ting development patt ern
will mostly remain along Palm Street, with some new office mixed use and residenti al
opportuntii es.
Block 17: This block con tinues to redevelop, with the surface parking lot on the corner of
Monterey and Pepper Streets converti ng to commercial mixed use, envisioned as ground oor
commercial with residenti al or residenti al and office above. This gateway locati on is an opportunity
for a signature building.
Block 23: New landmark buildings are envisioned along Santa Rosa Street, opening onto corner
plazas
with public art and a mid-block paseo. Commercial mixed-use buildings along Monterey Street will
include housing on upper levels. A parking structure and transit center are envisioned along
Higuera Street, with community serving and commercial mixed use along most of the street front.
Public open space is envisioned on the parking structure roo ftop or adjacent private development,
where people can enjoy views of the surrounding hills.
Block 24: This block is envisioned to include 2–4-story commercial mixed-use development along
Monterey Street with upper-level residenti al. Buildings will be sited along the street front with upper
stories that may be stepped back for scale and increased outdoor space. A small plaza area on
Monterey Street will connect to a pocket park on Higuera Street, for neighborhood green space
and small- scale play opportuni ties. Office use on Higuera Street is envisioned with upper-story
residenti al.
Block 25: This block will conti nue the redevelopment patt ern along Monterey Street with 2–4-
story commercial mixed use. Upper stories may be stepped back for scale, with opportuniti es for
increased outdoor space and residenti al uses. Residenti al uses will conti nue along Higuera Street.
Block 35: This block along Santa Rosa and Higuera Streets is envisioned to redevelop with 3–4-
story commercial mixed-use projects. This site is an ideal location for upper-story residenti al and
office opportuniti es. A paseo is shown connecti ng pedestrians to the parking structure and transit
center on Block 23. Eight 3-story townhomes are located next to the historic hospital property on
Marsh Street.
Source: “Dashboard” (see http://comstat.slocity.org/dashboard/Incidents/
Note that, according to “Dashboard”, the crime rate in Downtown has tabled off over the past year
with the exception of noise complaints - but is still signicantly higher than over the period of
April 2015 - April 2016. Our understanding is that staff is showing a declining crime rate because
they are conning their hours to 10:00 P.M. to 2:00 A.M. and they are focussing their data on a
smaller area of downtown. However, alcohol-related offenses are committed at all hours of the day
and bar activity bleeds out over a much larger area - to include all of Neighborhood 5.
Downtown April 14, 2015 to April 13, 2016 to Jan. 23, 2017
Neighborhood 5)April 12, 2016 April 17, 2017 Jan. 22, 2018
Non-Aggravated
Assault 15 60 46
Alcohol Offenses 308 554 502
Sexual Assault 7 16 12
Party Noise 21 31 39
Aggravated 10 22 17
Assault
Property Theft 91 197 185
To:SLO City Council
Re: August 21, 2018 Review of the Update to the Zoning Regulations
From:Allan Cooper, Secretary Save Our Downtown
Date:August 17, 2018
Mayor Harmon and Council Members -
Save Our Downtown has grave concerns with the staff proposed “more efficient development
review processes” (see below). Our civic sense of pride and identity will be lost once SLO’s former
emphasis on public engagement, good planning and contextual t is taken off the table. This will
result in a sort of civic homogenization that will turn our town into every other town.
Staff has stated that a “recurrent theme heard during the stakeholder interviews was that the City’s
permitting and appeal regulations can be confusing and repetitive.” We would like to advise you
that these so-called “stakeholders” most probably represented the development community, not
the residents. It would never be in the public’s best interests to fast track, streamline or simplify the
development review process when doing so would clearly reduce opportunities for public input.
Public Engagement
With regards to public engagement, City Manager Derek Johnson commented at your April 10th
meeting that public feedback will remain the same. We nd this hard to believe for several reasons.
The ARC’s purview will be scaled back to conceptual review. This will limit the public’s opportunity
to comment on parking layouts, oor plan layouts and landscaping as these items will be referred
to the Director. Save Our Downtown would prefer that the ARC not be, like the CHC and Tree
Committee, downgraded to “committee” status. What we mean by this is that the ARC should not
be disallowed the opportunity to make “nal” decisions on matters related to architectural design
as neither the Director, Planning Commission or Council are expected to have the expertise to
adjudicate on design issues. What also concerns us is that, under these circumstances, if the ARC
should deny or continue a project, instead of the project returning to the ARC, it could be
forwarded to the Director or PC without alteration.
We are concerned that all of the Cultural Heritage Committee’s and Architectural Review
Commission’s recommendations will be simply “advisory” to the Director, that the Director shall not
be bound by these recommendations in taking his nal action on the application, that the Director
can modify the CHC’s and ARC’s recommendations before they are forwarded to the Planning
Commission and that the Director’s nal actions, as they pertain to the CHC and ARC, will not
involve a public hearing. Should you agree that all CHC & ARC decisions pertaining to Tier II
projects be routed on a strictly advisory basis to the Director, then we urge you to require that the
Director’s nal decision be made in the context of a public hearing and that this public hearing be
noticed.
It concerns us that the following passage, under “Made Available for Public Review”, has been
struck from the Zoning Regulations: “After an application has been accepted as complete, in
compliance with the Freedom of Information Act, the application may be made available for public
review as requested.” Wouldn’t it be in the public’s best interest to have access to the application
as soon as it is completed? With regards to “Public Notices & Hearings”, we would encourage you
to insure that public notices and hearings be incorporated into Tier I projects involving all ADU’s. In
light of the fact that our “high occupancy residential use ordinance” may be rescinded, we urge
you to insure that public notices and hearings be incorporated into Tier I projects involving all high
occupancy uses. Save Our Downtown is concerned that under Tier I no public hearing would be
held for new single-unit residences or additions to existing single-unit residences where the scale
and character of the proposed dwelling “contrasts signicantly with adjacent or neighboring
structures”. Save Our Downtown is concerned that the Council’s responsibility to approve or deny
density bonuses, concessions and incentives has been transferred from the City Council to the
Director. This means that these very important decisions will no longer involve a public hearing nor
will these decisions reect the sentiments of our duly elected representatives. Finally, it is
concerning that there will be no public oversight on granting home occupation (or live-work)
permits, nor revocations of use permits granted to alcohol outlets, determinations of unique
hardship for exceptions to development standards and zoning variances. These are discretionary,
not ministerial, decisions which would benet from public oversight.
Good Planning and Contextual Fit
With regards to good planning and contextual t: For Tier I projects (5 units or smaller and less
than 10,000 sq.ft.), the Planning Commission will automatically be left out of the review process,
no matter how controversial the (albeit small) project may be. When the meeting dates for the CHC
and ARC are scheduled to take place near the same time, there will be little opportunity for the
ARC to be advised of concerns the CHC may have with any given project. Why is it that the PC
should benet from hearing the ARC’s decisions but that it has been determined that the ARC no
longer needs to be informed of the historical or archeological concerns raised by the CHC? This
could only increase the chances that the CHC and the ARC would come up with conicting
decisions and these decisions would have to be resolved by the Director, again leaving the public
completely out of these deliberations. We are also concerned that the quasi-judicial responsibility
of the Planning Commission or Director to make adjustments to the C-D Zone development
standards or to the Specic Focus Area zones could involve increased heights or building
setbacks without any additional input from the Architectural Review Commission. There is no
mechanism proposed where these changes to the building envelope could be referred back to the
ARC. The City’s much-touted Climate Action Plan promotes parking lot tree canopies and
mandatory tree planting for new developments, but this is undermined by the fact that the Tree
Committee currently has no authority over tree removals in new developments. These changes to
the development review process will result in each advisory body becoming a “silo”. And so will go
good planning and contextual t.
We are therefore urging you to put a stop to this steamroller mentality centered on fast tracking,
streamlining and simplifying the development review process. Again, thank you for listening!
More Efficient Development Review Processes
As reviewed by the Council at the study session, staff proposes to consolidate the multitude of
current review processes into three processes for project review
Tier I – Director’s Action: An administrative (staff-level) process that includes a legal ad and
posting of the property, but no public hearing unless the Director determines it is warranted
currently referred to as several different terms).
Tier II – Director’s Hearing: Action at the Director level that includes a public notice and a hearing
conducted by the applicable advisory body or review authority. This would include, for example,
Development Review - Moderate, Minor Use Permits, Variances, and any development standard
exceptions as requiring a Director’s Hearing.
Tier III – Planning Commission Permits and Actions: A permit or project review requiring Planning
Commission action involving public notice and a hearing.
New application types have been introduced as Development Review (Minor, Moderate, or Major)
for projects that require architectural review:
Tier I – Development Review Minor
a. Small residential development projects
b. Minor additions or alterations to existing structures
Tier II – Development Review Moderate
a. Residential developments with up to 10 units
b. Nonresidential development of up to 10,000 gross square feet of new construction
c. Hillside development
Tier III – Development Review Major
a. Residential developments with more than 10 units
b. Nonresidential development of more than 10,000 gross square feet of new
construction
c. All new development and signicant additions in the C-D zone
d. All projects requiring an EIR
The revised process allows the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) to focus on architecture
and design as covered in the Community Design Guidelines. The current policy framework
sometimes requires the ARC to make environmental CEQA determinations which are by best
practice more appropriate for the Planning Commission. The ARC (and Cultural Heritage
Committee) will continue to conduct public hearings and these hearings will be held after the
project is deemed complete. The decisions of the ARC will be forwarded in the form of a
recommendation to the Planning Commission or Community Development Director, depending
upon the project tier. These process changes are anticipated to increase review efficiency by
reducing the number of multiple discretionary decisions and appeals for a single project. Also, this
revised process will be less confusing to the public and applicant since all components of the
project’s entitlement will be consolidated into one linear process, as opposed to bifurcated
hearings and decisions with separate advisory bodies.
Lessons Learned From The Past - Save Our Downtown’s Suggested “Onions and Orchids”
for 2016
South Town 18 - Onion
What could have helped this project? Neighborhood Wellness Action Plan that would help devise
strategies to maintain neighborhood stability such as overlaying “S” zones onto C-T or C-D zones
abutting residential neighborhoods. “Extend pedestrian access along SLO Creek with minimal
interference to riparian habitats.”
Olive Mixed Use - Onion
What could have helped this project? Consider how the project can be designed to t in with the
best examples of architecture in the vicinity of the site. For stricter enforcement of these principles,
incorporate the Community Design Guidelines into the Zoning Regulations as design standards.
Lofts @ Nipomo - Onion
What could have helped this project? “Multi-story buildings should be set back above the second
or third level to maintain a street facade that is consistent with the historic pattern of
development.” For stricter enforcement, place an “S” overlay onto the C-T or C-D zones abutting
residential neighborhoods.
Discovery SLO - Onion
What could have helped this project? Limit the number of alcohol outlets per each block face.
Develop an alcohol outlet “Public Convenience and Necessity” policy. Stricter adherence to the
Sign Regulations: “C-D Zone: maximum 4 signs/tenant space”.
Libertine Market Place - Onion
What could have helped this project? Limit the number of alcohol outlets per each block face.
Develop an alcohol outlet “Public Convenience and Necessity” policy.
1135 Santa Rosa Mixed-Use - Onion
What could have helped this project? Preserve the historic avor of the community. Avoid “boxy”
structures with large at wall planes. For stricter enforcement of these principles, incorporate the
Community Design Guidelines into the Zoning Regulations as design standards.
Monterey Place - Onion
What could have helped this project? Adhere to the “Conceptual Physical Plan For The City’s
Center”: “Open up the creeks more to visual and physical access.” New multi-family open-space
and storage standards would address the needs of workforce housing as opposed to becoming de
facto student housing.
22 North Chorro - Onion
What could have helped this project?
If exceptions to development standards or easing of parking standards and building setbacks
result in traffic congestion using objective and quantiable criteria then the project should be
modied or denied.
71 Palomar Avenue - Onion
What could have helped this project? Reexamination of Ordinance 1544 with regards to the role of
the Tree Committee. Incorporate sustainability standards particularly as they would apply to
preservation of existing trees and optimal solar orientation. Stricter adherence to the City’s Historic
Guidelines.
San Luis Square - Onion
What could have helped this project? Reduction in overall height and the installation of a
temporary story pole as part of the application requirements for buildings exceeding 40 feet in
height.
Pacic Courtyards - Orchid
What did this project do right?
Provided a harmonious transition between the core area functions and neighbors on the edges (in
this case, the Old Town Neighborhood).”
Granada Hotel Expansion - Orchid
What did this project do right?
Adhered to the Design Guidelines: “Multi- story buildings should be set back above the second or
third level to maintain a street facade that is consistent with the historic pattern of development,
maintaining the general similarity of building heights at the sidewalk edge.”
Shell Station Development - Orchid
What did this project do right?
Accented the entries and gateways to the downtown.” “Preserved in general the existing building
height patterns of two and three stories”
Hotel Serra - Orchid
What did this project do right?
Preserved in general the existing building height patterns of two and three stories” Considered the
architectural style, shape and massing of neighboring structures.
Chinatown - Orchid
What did this project do right?
Preserved in general the existing building height patterns of two and three stories.” Considered
the architectural style, shape and massing of neighboring structures.
Save Our Downtown Candidates for 2017 Oranges & Lemons:
Oranges
We thank Matt Quaglino for agreeing to remove the “gull wing” roof and for adding more detail to
the west elevation of this project located at 1185 Monterey Street.
Though it has been much improved over time , we thank the CHC and ARC for denying and
continuing this mixed-use project, proposed for 1027 Nipomo Street, as this four-story building
remains historically incompatible with the one-story Creamery located immediately next door and
the two-story Soda Works located a short distance down the street.
ARCH-4000-2016 (1185 Monterey)
Page 3
Figure 1. Perspective view of project from Monterey/Toro Streets
2.3 Project Statistics
Notes:
1. Applicant’s project plans dated February 8, 2017
2. Zoning Regulations dated March 2015
3. Includes proposed 30% shared/mixed use parking reduction
3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
The project consists of a mixed-use project that includes both commercial space and residential units
within the Retail Commercial (C-R) zone in the Downtown Area (outside of the Downtown Core).
Based on the location of the project, Staff reviewed the project using Community Design Guidelines
CDG) for commercial, multi-family residential, and downtown projects.
3.1 Overall Design: The proposed project meets overall design objectives for downtown,
commercial, and multi-family residential projects by providing upper-story residential units
accessed via an internal stairway and elevator, providing articulation in the building form with
three “pop-outs” along the Monterey Street frontage, showing horizontal and vertical articulation
between the third and fourth floors, and creating space between the commercial entries and in
the building corner near the intersection of Monterey Street and Toro Street.1 The structure
1 CDG Chapter 4: 4.2A and B. Street Orientation, Height, scale.
Item Proposed 1 Standard 2
Setback
Front Yard 0 feet 0 feet
Other Yard 0 feet 0 feet
Max. Height 45 feet; mechanical screening,
47 feet; elevator tower, 54 feet
45 feet; elevator tower/mechanical
screening may not exceed 55 feet
Max. Building Coverage 80 percent 100 percent
Density Units (DU) 10.1 10.1
Parking Spaces
Vehicle 233 33
Bicycle (long-term) 2 2
Bicycle (short-term) 3 3
ARC2-3
VIEW AT NIPOMO STREET AND PASEO
SAND CAST THIN BRICK
CEMENT PLASTER
DECORATIVE CORNICE
CAST CULTURED STONE OR GFRC
EXPOSED RAFTER TAILS
CEMENT PLASTER
METALWORK BALCONY RAILING
CONCRETEBARREL TILE ROOF
SLIDINGPATIODOORSATSHALLOW PROJECTING
BALCONIESWITHMETALWORK RAILING
FABRICAWNINGSWITHMETAL SUPPORT
PEDESTRIAN PASEO
CEMENT PLASTER
DECORATIVE TILE OR PRECAST CONCRETE
BULKHEAD AT RETAIL STOREFRONT BAYS
NIPOMO STREET FRONTAGE
GLASS TRANSOMS
8TheVesperHotelattheCreamery
1027NipomoStreet, SanLuisObispo CA
17.1031
Architectural Review RevisionsbracketP1 -
We applaud the architect’s ability to make this tall building, located at 435 Marsh Street, look less
massive by dividing it into 3 oors and by signicantly setting back the fourth oor from the street.
We applaud the Tree Committee’s denial of the removal of a mature Ficus tree on Marsh Street,
though this decision was reversed by Council when it was appealed by the applicant.
We appreciate the Council’s decision to allow public comments for items not on the agenda to
remain at 3 minutes.
We also applaud Mario Fonda-Bernardi and Phil Brock, representing Santa Monica Architects for a
Responsible Tomorrow (SM.a.r.t.), for their untiring efforts to keep the City of Santa Monica
responsible”.
Lemons
This project, located at 460 Marsh Street, is not compatible with, nor does it "t" into, an area
clearly dened by excellent examples of Craftsman bungalows, i.e., Gennaro’s Grill & Garden at
450 Marsh Street and the office building at 412 Marsh Street currently the Law Offices of Belsher,
Becker & Roberts.
805.541.1010539MarshStreetSanLuisObispo, CAinfo@tenoverstudio.comtenoverstudio.com
SET NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTIONAlldimensions to
be verified on site
MARSH &
CARMEL MIXED-USE435 MARSH STREET, SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CADATE: 08/
16/2017CLIENT RENTON PARTNERS, LLC
C/O
JIM
RENDLER 1636 GARDEN
ST SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 rendlerjim@gmail.com
ARCHITECT TEN OVER
STUDIO 539 MARSH
ST., SAN
LUIS OBISPO,
CA 93401
805.541.1010 CONTACT: JOEL SNYDER joels@tenoverstudio.com CIVIL ENGINEER
WALSH ENGINEERING 979 OSOS STREET,
SUITE 14 SAN
LUIS OBISPO,
CA 93401 805.319.
4948 X 101
CONTACT: MATT WALSH matt@walshengineering.net MARSH & CARMEL MIXED-
USE TEN OVER
STUDIO 539 MARSH
ST., SAN
LUIS OBISPO,
CA 93401
805.541.1010 CONTACT: JOEL SNYDER joels@tenoverstudio.com CIVIL ENGINEER
WALSH ENGINEERING 979 OSOS STREET,
SUITE 14 SAN
LUISOBISPO,
CA 93401
805.319.
Though this project, located at 560 Higuera, was much improved from a contextual point of view,
the project still posed problems for the Dana Street residents: car headlights and car noise not
adequately shielded or buffered from the Dana Street homes, long winter solstice shadows
encroaching into neighborhood gardens as a result of the building’s four-story height and noise
emanating from the north-facing balconies.
The Stalwork representative Ben Kulick described the charcoal grey for this building, located at
1135 Santa Rosa Street, as accurately reecting colors of neighboring properties. This is clearly
not the case. The applicant then proceeded to defy the ARC’s July 7, 2015 directive to select
muted tans, brown and wood-tone colors.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Dark gray building is OK — in part, SLO City
Councilwoman says
OCTOBER 09, 2017 03:35 PM
There were two parallel conversations taking place as the City Council considered 1135
Santa Rosa (“SLO building looks like a ‘giant rock’ ” Tribune, Oct. 4). One was timing —
the applicant changed the color scheme from the approved plans, then requested approval
after completion. Timing was not a consideration of council; although there were some
glitches in communication that warrant in-house review, there is a process of notication
and compliance that is generally working.
The relevant conversation for council that evening was, does the design as currently
proposed meet our design guidelines? ARC believed it does not, thus the appeal by the
Mr. Kulick. There was no assertion, however, by ARC or Council that it would necessarily
have to go back to the original design. On Tuesday, council determined the project in its
With the exception of few minor changes this project, located at 570, 578 & 590 Marsh and 581
Higuera has remained virtually the same since it was rst submitted over three years ago. In spite
of staff’s recommendation to remove the fourth oor back on December 1, 2014, the fourth oor
remains. Because of the height of this building the paseos and the small plaza at the intersection
of these paseos will seldom, if ever, receive any direct sunlight. Most importantly, these buildings
will tower over both the historic Creamery and the Jack House gardens.
We were disappointed to see the Tree Committee unnecessarily remove nearly all of the street
trees lining Garden Street.