HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/19/1996, 2 - SAN LUIS OBISPO DOWNTOWN HOUSING STUDY. CTCy Of San WIS OBISPO MEETING
Hiis COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT 111W NUM
FROM: Arnold Jon ommunity Development Director; By: Jeff Ho , Associate Planner
SUBJECT: San Luis Obispo Downtown Housing Study.
CAO RECOMMENDATION: 1) Review the Downtown Housing Study; and 2) By motion, give
direction to staff on follow-up actions, as appropriate.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
Prepared under the direction of the City's Housing Authority and with assistance from City staff,
the recently completed Downtown Housing Study provides useful information for property
owners, builders, and others involved with downtown development. The report analyzes the
study's recommendations and suggests ways to implement them. Overall, staff views this study
as a useful tool to maintain and increase downtown housing.
DISCUSSION
In 1994 Council allocated $50,000 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to the
City's Housing Authority to evaluate downtown housing constraints and opportunities. The study
was to identify the economic factors, zoning, and construction code requirements which affect
downtown housing and to recommend ways to increase downtown housing. The Housing
Authority retained a local consultant team consisting of Bob Vessely, Andrew Merriam, and Tom
Reay; Gerald Taylor assisted the team with market and economic analysis. To provide community
input, the consultants convened several meetings with a downtown focus group and developed a
questionnaire covering a variety of housing issues.
The detailed study is now complete, and the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners has
endorsed the study's findings and recommendations and referred it to Council for review and
possible follow-up action (letter attached). The study is, in essence, three studies in one: 1) a
discussion of downtown housing issues; 2) five case studies or "concepts" illustrating the types of
downtown housing possible (including schematic plans for the Blackstone Hotel Senior Housing
Project); and 3) a "How to" manual to guide landowners, developers, realtors and others through
the often complex development review and permit process.
The study contains 23 recommendations, primarily intended for the City of San Luis Obispo, to
improve opportunities to retain and expand Downtown's residential uses. These recommendations
address a broad range of issues and procedures, including: residential density, design guidelines,
parking, construction codes, staffing, financing, impact fees, redevelopment, and construction
hours and staging. The issues cut across several City Departments' responsibilities, including
those of Community Development, Public Works and Utilities.
Staff views this study as a valuable tool for implementing General Plan policies on downtown
housing, economic vitality, and related issues. For example, the Land Use Element says that
"existing residential uses within and around the commercial core should be protected," and "all
new large commercial projects (Downtown) should include dwellings." The Housing Element
�/
�►�m��i�I� J�i�ll city of san .AIS oBispo
WN COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 2
promotes affordable housing, and it recognizes Downtown as a potential reservoir for affordable
housing close to jobs and services. It includes several policies and programs applicable to
Downtown housing:
• Encourage the rehabilitation of older residential buildings rather than demolition.
• Preserve, rehabilitate and expand residential hotels and other single-occupancy buildings.
• Adopt a "no net housing loss" policy in the C-C zone to preserve existing housing.
• Evaluate and where necessary, revise building, zoning, and fire codes to encourage
housing.
• Encourage mixed-use, residential-commercial projects where compatible.
Many of the study's recommendations are consistent with the above policies and programs, and
also tie in with the City's Downtown Physical Concept Plan. And while the study is not a General.
Plan document or a formal policy statement, it will be useful by:
1) providing land use, demographic, economic and construction information usefiil to businesses,
property owners and developers interested in building or remodeling Downtown;
2) documenting the feasibility of the Blackstone Hotel Senior Housing Project and providing
schematic architectural plans; and
3) recommending specific implementation measures to expand Downtown housing.
Ultimately, the study's usefulness depends largely on City follow-up actions. There is no specific
time frame for Council response, nor is the Council obligated to follow the study's
recommendations. The Council may choose to implement one or more of the study's
recommendations. Implementation could involve changes in several areas: amendments to the
Zoning Regulations; changes to impact fees, development review and permit fees; construction
code amendments; revised staff procedures; or special financial strategies using Community
Development Block Grants or other funding sources. Below is a summary of the study's
recommendations and staffs comment, including suggested follow-up actions, where appropriate.
Ref. No. Study Recommendation (stgfj`'re pone in italics)
1.1(a) Increase the maximum allowed residential density in the C-C zone from 36 density
units to 60 units per net acre.
The Downtown could support higher densities than currently allowed, and 60 DUTA
is still a lower density than already exists in some downtown residential buildings.
Increased residential density Downtownn is consistent withh policies in the Housing
Element and the Downtown. Physical Concept Plan.
Implementation: Refer the recommendation to the Planning Commission for study
MY of San t,.ds OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 3
and possible zoning text amendments.
1.1(b) The Architectural Review Commission should develop design guidelines to ensure
that higher-density residential buildings in the C-C zone preserve the Downtown's
architectural character.
The Downtown Physical Concept Plann already addresses this. The ARC could
expand on the plan guidelines by addressing special concerns of larger residential
buildings in terms of views, scale, massing, setbacks, and architectural character.
Implementation: Refer the recommendation to the Architectural Review
Commission for study during the review and updating of the City's architectural
guidelines, which is now taking place.
1.2 Adopt local building code amendment which allow property line openings on a case
-by-case basis Linder certain conditions.
Downtown housing may be more economically feasible and attractive if the Ciry
were more flexible regarding property line openings. Program 1.22.12 in the
Housing Element says the City will periodically review its building and planning
rules to determine if changes are possible which would help produce affordable
housin,; and PrOgrum 1.22. 14 culls .fitr the City to review its building and
planning codas to reduce cost, ener,y, «.nd Materials consumption in new dwellings
where safety allowv. However, the Culifutnia Building Coda, which applies to all
jurisdiction in the stare, specifically linins construction of new openings based on
proximity to property line (Section 503.2), and existing openings may also be
prohibited when a change of'occupancy classification occurs based on relationship
to property line (Section 3405). Section 18941.5 rf the California Health and
Safety Code allows u local jurisdiction to establish amendments to the Building
Code, but only if they are more restrictive and can be supported by findings due to
topographic, climatic, or geographical conditions. It is not likely that appropriate
findings cann be made that could snake reduction of exterior wall opening provisions
u component of the San. Luis Obispo building code.
Implementation: Some flexibility docs exist to allow continuance of existing
openings inn property line walls throughh provisions in the State Historic Building
Code and the Un.fonrn Coda fist Building Conservation. It is possible that code
provisions allowing such openings have not consistently been made clear to or
understood by developers and design professionals. Council should direct staff to
suggesi solutions to developers during initial project discussion that will allow wall
openings as allowed by code.
1.3(a) Revise Zoning Regulations to require that in the C-C zone, at least one parking
- 3
°1��►�1111B�p�� ►►II MY Of San k..,js OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 4
space actually be provided for each dwelling unit, but retain exemptions for
dwellings for the elderly and disabled.
This recommendation appears to conflict with. Goals S and 6 of the Downtown
Physical Concept Plann which discourage surface parking Downtown and encourage
peripheral Downtown parking within easy walking distunce. On April 2nd Council
will consider a Request For Proposals to prepare a Downtown Alternative Parking
and Transportation study. 777e Study will address the effects of'deleting Downtown
parking.
Currant C-C Zone parking standards require one-half'the parking which would be
required in other zones, unit allows rhe requirement to be mer on.-site, off-site
within 500 yards of'the use, or through payment of in-lieu fires. New Downtown
development rarely provides un-site parking, and in-lieaa fres are probably not
adequate to d(fray actual costs qf'providing, Downtown parking. The Study's
aurhors believe the lack of convenient parking is as deterrent to Downtown housing.
Implementation: Direct stuff to address this issue inn the upcoming Downtown
Alternative Parking and Transportation Study, and return. later with a
recommendation.
1.3(b) Revise City parking lot and structure design policies to allow a limited number of
reserved, secured, lease parking for downtown residents in public parking lots and
structures.
Provision.thr joint use"overnight parking could be explored on a. rrial basis in the
Marsh Street and Palm Street structures now, with new structures planned to
accommodate such arrangements if'this proves fi asible.
Implementation: This proposal has nor beenn reviewed by the BIA or the
Downtown Parking Committee. Staff'recommends that Council refer the suggestion
to the B1A and Parking Committee for comment, and direct Public Works staff to
investigate and report onn the feasibility of joint use" overnight parking to
accommodate Downtown residents, including a specific proposal for a trial
program, if appropriate.
1.3(c) Require that buildings in the C-C zone provide "as much of the required parldng
on-site as possible'; allow for the balance to be provided off-site in secured private
or public parking lots within 500 feet.
Implementation: Same as under 1.3(a).
1.4(a) Extend hours available for construction in the core area, particularly in the
1111ollwiII city of San NS OBISpo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 5
morning.
The Municipal Code already allows construction etween 7 am and 7 pm.
Extending the construction period earlier or later could adversely affect Downtown
residents and make Downtownn less desirable for housing.
Implementation: Not recommended.
1.4 (b) Review and modify the construction barrier guidelines to reduce expense.
Construction barriers as outlined in the evaluation are regulated by Section 3303
of'the California Building Code, which establishes requirements for the protection
of pedestrians during construction or demolition. Construction of temporary
protection is very specific and prescriptive<. Section 18941.5 of the California
Health and Safety Code allows a local jurisdiction to establish amendments to the
Building Code, but only ij'they are more restrictive and can be supported by
findings due to topographic, climatic, or geographical conditions. It is not likely
that appropriate findings can be made that could make reduction (?I'minimum safety
provision fir pedestrians adjacent to a construction site a component of the San
Luis Obispo building code.
Implementation: Not recommended.
1.4(c) Temporarily restripe streets to ease traffic movement and loading during
construction.
Accordin„ to Engineering staff; this is alr•ead done on a case-by-case basis, as
needed.
Implementation: Continue current practice of'restriping as needed on. a case-by-
case basis.
1.4(d) Make unmetered parking available for construction projects in the C-C zone to
accommodate workers and deliveries.
This suggestion has not beenn reviewed by the B1A or the Downtown Parking
Committee, and may have implications for the Parking Fund. Staff suggests that
it be referred to the BIA and Parking Committee, and that Council direct Public
Works staff to include this issue in. the Alternative Parking and Transportation study
and return with a recommendation.
1.5 Designate one staff member as a housing specialist to facilitate housing projects,
particularly in the C-C zone.
d11%Jf0$JJJ city of San L"IS OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 6
This would implement Program 1.22.13 calling for the City to adopt procedures
to expedite processing of affordable housing projects, and would reflect existing
departmental responsibilities and organization.
Implementation: Authorize CAO, in coordination with the departments involved
in development review, to designate one or more staff'responsible for expediting
affordable housing projects and to develop internal procedures to achieve this
objective.
1.6 Reduce development review and impact fees for market rate housing Downtown
by 70%.
This could significantly impact the City's ability to meet infrastructure needs
Downtown. Previous studies have documented the City's actual costs of providing
services for new development, and a 70% reduction would be inconsistent with
previous council direction regarding cost recovery for city services. Some
reductionof development review and impact fees may be warranted if,for example,
downtown housing can be shown to reduce costs t f providing services. Council has
traditionally supported fee reducrions fir below market rate housing, but has
consistently declined to provide similar reductions fi)r market rate housing,
regardless of location.
Implementation: Not recommended.
1.7 Allocate CDBG funds to help offset the cost of developing Downtown housing
compared with developing housing outside of Downtown.
Implementation: The City already dues this. For example, in rhe FY 1995 CDBG
Progrum the City earmarked $200,000 fir the Blackstone Hotel Rehabilitation, a
Downtown Housing prujeci. DOVVnrOW17 housing proposals should continue to be
considered fin-grant firndin,, on a corse-by-ease basis. No additional measures are
recommended.
1.8(a) Concentrate CDBG and HOME funds in the Downtown.
Implementation: The City already does this, to some degree, and should continue
to allocate a portion of CDBGfunds to Downtown housing, infrastructure or other
activities which promote housing. No additional measures are recommended.
1.8(b) Use Section 108 Guaranteed Loans to expand Downtown housing.
Implementation:The Section 108 Guaranteed Loann program is one funding source
to consider for Downtown housing. The FY 1996 CDBG program, tentatively
���� mlllll���► ��U1 city of San tis OBISpo
A COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 7
scheduled for Council's April 2 meeting, includes a proposal to use $1 million in
Section 108 Loan funds for affordable housing. One of the projects for which the
Housing Authority requested these funds is the Blackstone Hotel Rehabilitation.
This Downtownn project would provide affordable housing for seniors and disabled
persons, and Council may direct that the Section. 108 be used for this purpose. No
additional measures care recommended.
1.8(c) Make greater use of tax-credit Financing for Downtown housing.
Implementation: Recent State actions have limited the availability of this financing
tool, but it could be considered if available. Housing Element policy already
recontmends the City use this financing tool. No additional measures are
rec017717nended.
1.8(d) Encourage local lenders to lend at below-market rates for qualifying housing
projects in the Downtown.
Implementation: The Community Reinvestment Act already does this. The City
probably does not have an P&ctive rola in this area, except as it relates to the use
of grant funding to help 'buy down."construction or mortgage interest rates.
1.8(e) Seek to combine different funding sources to help close the "funding gap" for
Downtown housing.
Implementation: Prograa77 1.22.11 in the adopted Housing Element calls for the
City to establish a 7/ousing Trust Fund"to be used to develop affordable housing
units and acquire land fur this purpose. Housing in-lieu fees would be placed in
this fund. The fund could be Used in combinution with CDBG, HOME and other
grunt .fundis„ can he used to help n7ake private, affbrdable housing projects
Downtownn economically feasible.
1.8(f) Use Section 108 Guaranteed Loans to "buy down" mortgage interest rates for
Downtown housing.
!f Section 108 Loanfinds are used for housing, staff anticipates they will be used
for '77ard costs"to acquire real property orfund rehabilitation. The Countywide
First Time Homebuyers Program, to be offered by the Housing Authority using
HOMEfimds, may help promote downtownn housing by helping first time buyers pay
closing costs of new condor inh n7s.
Implementation: Not recommended.
2(a) Use CDBG funds to ensure that the former Blackstone Hotel is redeveloped
appropriately for housing and ground floor commercial.
��� IIIpII��ij � city of San Gs OBISp0
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 8
This is a key location in. the Downtown, across from the historic Mission and
Plaza, that can exert a positive effect on the economic vitality of Downtown. The
City has already earmarked $200,000for the purchase of the Blackstone Hotel
property. A general commitment of an additional $1 million for housing costs is
included in the proposed 1996 CDBG program, using Section 108 Guaranteed
Loan funds. A portion of this money could be used by the Housing Authority to
acquire and develop the Blackstone Hotel property with approximately 15 units of
affordable housing fur seniors and disabled parsons.
Implementation: Sae under 1.8(b).
2(b) Include housing as a major component of future development of the City-owned
lot between Monterey, Palm, Chorro and Morro Streets.
This approach is already included in the General Plan. Policy 1.26.3 and
Pngrum 1.26.9 of'rlte Housing Element cull fur new, lai qe Downtown projects to
include housing, and say thut parkin; regulations 177uy be modified, if'necessary,
to make this feasible. "
Implementation: Direct staff to consider housing in. any fiuure development plans
onn this public property; or to require cis part of private development if'the property
were sold.
3 The City should consider the formation of a Downtown redevelopment district.
The formation of a Downtown redevelopment district was economically desirable
and feasible during the 1980.x. However new redevelopment rules and increased
County and special district scrutiny make this financing tool infeasible today.
Implementation: Not recommended.
4 Encourage housing in the Downtown periphery.
Implementation: The City already does this. Most gf'the areas surrounding
Downtown allow and already include dwellings. The Housing Element includes
several programs intended to conserve and expand the housing supply in residential
and commercial areas which border Downtown.
�� I1�II�Ili��1� city of san L.--is OBISpo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 9
ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue the item for further information or discussion;
2. Take no action at this time.
Attachment: Letter from the Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo
Sent Separately: Downtown Housing Study (a copy is also in the Council Office).
:.:�:::::.:.::::::}:}::::....::n.:::.:....:....:,�::.,�:::,n. :.:J�urtio ..,..N:�::::,.:..>..:;..,:....::.:..,::.:..:..:�:n:.::�;;;:...,:::;::.�,:.:iscJi:.,:::::,:::.:::.:.:...:.;.�:':;.;':•.
*;;i;;:::::::.,v..:....:...::.:.........:..:...... ,......::::a:::.:::::.::.:):)ii:;.iiiY;i:.ii:.Ji$;•>::::<:>::::�:::...:::..f i:.i:.i;,:>';;;;:
::. 4.::f.s;$:�;•i s::....}Ysi:Y:.}.,;..:.iY:t3>)i):.Y'.}::•:};YY:4:.:.......................... ..............
,.:.:..:..... :..........:....:::::...:.........:::n.::n.::::J:::::.:;.J}i:3Y;.i::::«::a�::f3;Ji'c:3J:3:o-;::.:�nn;:f;•:::�
....... ........................n.........,. .........................,.. .....n ..,..n.. ............::vy::.. a............. ...4}'.:::::::::.::':4:'Y'J:n}iiYf.ii:U.:JYYY::}i��:v:�f:i�:
.. :.;..v::.n.:.:.................t..........h ..........................n.:::::}.:»:..,,...... .........n..:.4YYi},}J S'f!:;i.i:i:.:, ........ ...v.i..
.:...........n:::..:.....................v .n..n..v n.... .................n. ..S..ii i':iv:v'::::'.:::i:.. � .::::...
::.::n...v.::::.:::::::..::::n;:^.;:n:4:nv:RCt. • �..... v........ i:::::...... 3''>$:i:i,:
.....:�.'..::`::::}�:.Y... .....::"`3}ii'Fi:^J}i::f,i'.::iJ:3Ji:.. .::})`J>:Si i}ii:�4J:•.:':n.:;:n;,
ex:<;.i.:is.r.�:w:..:::.\.... :.:.:::::n,«.;;ki:!n,>::f..:^i+:�': ...... ...v::.v.x........�n.::.......:..:.........................:. .....:..�.::^::
..,::::.v::..}vn:..::.:v.i:.}:.s'.:,v::.:.:::::.Y:;4:.>' ;}::`.:,..;.J.•.;..,i'.yi;p;:i;>}>. ....<;.i" .:: .. n a.....�..:..:.i:Csi:.,.::.i.sw.:::�::: .. :.v:.:.:,..:...�:.:..:4..... .,..amu. .,
,n
.. Y
iia ■
pvK.v:JJv:::v:vn vnv:y:}'�i::::::::n. w....::... :/• .. ttrr
p}
is
ni
.................... v...n...,....:.....,... ....v..nn...v n.......... v...........Yn... ... ......n............. ..........::n.,v, ., '4 :i:ii`'
......n.....,.,.::n.....:..:..:4::.::M..'�..` .. ,C. ...............\n,.`G±t)x}::......n....... 4'/.},..v............ .. .. :::. ,4/.;.j..i:.y::.i:
...............v n..............h. ., \ nx«.:::::::f. .nvn....... .... ... ..n..........}.w)..C..}}}f..{4::f.:x::n.:.n::.r:. 'YY.i' .....
.......................... ...v....:n.. ,:. .......:............ 43.....x: :::.v:::::::.v:.w:.v..:::vi.:n..:...........:...n....... ....,.......:,:.... ..n}'.'::..Y......S.v.nvv.;:,n..Y}`:^:).:f:i: :Y:::::':i:
:.a..» � ..... }Yn,.:::n.:.:v.:,:.nf.,,4:,}.:....:............n..:.:.....}.v:::n..........:...v...::.
,.}.:.:::..:,::,::.ss:;ii;4):,:..:::::::.,..}:n.:.. ..:.:....:....:.,,;::::::,}f. �.. :: .,:.}Yn...f...,�;...,....:.,a,.:,v.,...::,a.;:::::.Ya..nw.;..�,:.a':.k:ER'^:::i:'ia'.`:;:"•;.f:::`;:;;:i:k$E:::."$:YS::::��:�:
•..v..Ycci.: w':4:}�,.k::k: ^tea ♦StY:YY:~:::.;..Y:.r:4:<;.
:4:4•.::f.:.:.Sy'�iiii::�.i.;.i:;.:�i:f*�::;4.n;.:.:.i�`+i..•.. :..Y.
i.:4:.i Y:.:4•.:'.:...... ......................... .:s.. ,.....Y.i$i:.i::y.;:. ....4.:...a.:.:::..
r.
Iii ...
v....:..::xn4:n:.::..a.:...:.x::.: .......::».Y.:::.. }.n:._ '•n :.. ,:.:q.
4
L .....�:.. .n•:::Y}Yi Y.„.::�i i;:nw..»ii}YJ:..;::'.:$Y':::::::::t>::'$$$kf;;
..............n.n. ..:::..,..:.,.:.n n.......::.,. .:...............n....:::::........}:'.... nh..A::v:::.v.:
....... ..................... ...n............. .�... ........ .. .n.......nuv..,........v.....4....,... .i...........1.. n.............n n...,.......n,.}.::::.r.:::::4Y})i:;..Y:'::::3):n: 'i�;
a.n.v...vv...n... .............a..a:.... .......:.....hv.... v....... ....n........n ... .. ................n....n..... ..n.v....n.n.............:..... .................... ::X.<..4n'}:i4,}':.'
.....:....... ....:.;..... .:. n.n.v...... ....n... :n....,.: ....Y..... ....n, ., ................ :.�.......... .......5..........n... ...n. ngit::`nk:$j$:':�''<i:i(j:^�
......... :.n... ....::::x:y.:.:..::......:...«.... ,..::........,:. :..:......:»...
.n.......».v :...u.,...;.......n.w..:::xn,,....:.v....n.. ...,.'3....::.......nnn:.
,.. .).....a ..n.:.................. .....,.......
,. :n.....:Y.,.}:n .. :... ...a...,n n...n. .A. ..A....:v...a ......»n.n..:.^:::.x)...«...................:.:..: n.::::.::.::::.4.:....i.i:.S.v.v..n.... ........:.:y:T:.;•:.:!):3>iY:'ii�
..v.......a x,... .::. .............v.. .. ..::,3.k... .:..... .: ,x$. .............n n:..::.:Y..:..... ..... .v......{....,.,. ik$'$i. ..IX4Y::::'[iii}`;.)ii:$
one: 05: ,, :: ,.:.,.:::••;:.i:;,.
.vnw...xn:4n x...rnx, , v : v;�- ..a5t_.:�8..•Ov�.,�.54$-.!€99'2..:
Executive Director-Secretary
George J.Moylan February 7, 1996
_ RECEIVED
Honorable Mayor Allen R. Settle FEB 7 1946
and Members of the City Council
City of San Luis Obispo CfiyOFSOW UI1SOBISPO
990 Palm Street CM")NITYDEVELOPAENT
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Mayor Settle and City Council Members:
Please be advised that at their meeting of January 18, 1996 the Board of
Commissioners of the Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo voted
unanimously to accept the Downtown Housing Study as presented by Robert S.
Vessely, RCE, Thomas G. Reay, Architect and Andrew G. Merriam, AIA and AICP.
In a separate action the Board asked me to thank you for supporting the study'
with Community Development Block Grant funds.
The Commissioners also referred the document to the City Council as a guide in
developing assisted and unassisted housing in the downtown and peripheral areas.
While approving all of the recommendations in the consultant's report beginning
on Page 6-6 the Commission was particularly concerned about the issues discussed
in Sections 1 .1 . , 1 .2, 1 .6., 1 .7 and 1 .8. Increasing densities, working with
codes and ordinances, dealing with development impact fees, the use of
appropriate City funds and developing successful financial strategies, will be
the keys to the- future of our downtown.
Moreover, a re—occurring theme in the report is that while downtown housing is
attractive from many community viewpoints, it is also difficult and expensive to
develop. We have explored this issue with you previously, particularly with
reference to the Blackstone. Hotel, and are now looking for specific direction as
to that property and others discussed in three of our recent Community
Development Block Grant applications made to the City.
In a letter to the City Administrative Officer accompanying our CDBG
applications I spoke of the necessity for a "New Era” in the relationship
between the City and the Housing Authority. We are interested in discussing the
outlines of that New Era, many of which are embodied in the Downtown Housing
Study, as soon as possible.
Upon receipt of your direction the Housing Authority stands ready to bring the
full extent of our resources to the implementation of your decision.
Sincerely,
George J. Moylan [auuxoua■�.
.ovranTuam
Downtown Housing Study Affordable Housing 203-06
r-_� Developments
`
'wmm
�
Community Development
�
'-t-
Wr7
SAN LUIS OBISPO
DOWNTOWN
HOUSING STUDY
prepared for the
Housing Authority of the
City of San Luis Obispo
December 1995
prepared by
Robert S. Vessely, RCE
Thomas G. Reay, Architect
Andrew G. Merriam, AIA, AICP
4-66
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...............................................
Chapter 1: Introduction.
Purposeof the study............................................................................. 1-1
Overviewof contents.......................................................................... 1-2
Study process and preparation............................................................ 1-2
Consultantteam.................................................................................. 1
Chapter 2: Why Downtown Housing?
History of housing in the San Luis Obispo core area .......................... 2-1
Benefits of providing housing in core areas ........................................ 2-1
Goals for housing - Focus group discussions ......... :...........
................. 2-1
Market demand for downtown housing .............................................. 2-6
City Housing Element goals......................................................... ....... 2-8
Goals for housing in downtown San Luis Obispo ............................... 2-9
Chapter 3: Where Can We Put Housing?
How housing fits in the downtown...................................................... 3-1
Site inventory survey and survey criteria ............................................ 3-2
Summary of survey results.................................................................. 3-4
Chapter 4: How Can It Be Financed?
Theplayers.......................................................................................... 4-1
Financing strategies............................................................................. 4-1
Fundingresources................................................................................ 4-2
Conclusions..................................................................... ........ 4-5
Chapter 5: Case Studies.
Introduction.........................................................................................
5-1
Case 1: The Blackstone Hotel............................................................
5-2
Case 2: The Granada Hotel .............................................
................... . 5-12
Case 3: 900 block of Monterey .............. .......:...............
5-18
Case 4: 779 Higuera Street
..... ................
.................................................................
Case5: Various sites
5-23
..........................................................................
5-28
Chapter 6: Conclusions and Recommendations..
Introduction.........................................................................................
6-1
The cost differential: What are the problems? ....................................
6-2
Recommendations...............................................................................
6-6
11
Chapter 7: "How To" Manual.
Intent.................................................................................................... 7-1
Zoning, density and parking................................................................ 7-1
Government agency costs and fees ...................................................... 7 3
Building codes and City ordinances.................................................... 7-4
Structuralissues.................................................................................. 7-6
Servicesand utilities........................................................................... 7-6
The process as applied to the Blackstone Hotel .................................. 7-8
Summary............................................................................................. 7-11
Attachments: Code search, processing outline and cost estimate....... 7-12
Graphics
• Figure 3.1: Study area with survey results ........................................... 3-5
• Case 1: The Blackstone Hotel
1995 photograph........................................................................... 5-2
1904 photograph........................................................................... 5-3
Proposed exterior.......................................................................... 5-5
Proposed floor plans..................................................................... 5-8
• Case 2: The Granada Hotel
1995 photograph........................................................................... 5-12
Proposed exterior.......................................................................... 5-13
Proposed floor plans..................................................................... 5-16
• Case 3: 900 block of Monterey
1995 photograph ................... ................ 5-18
........................................
Proposed exterior.......................................................................... 5-19
• Case 4: 779 Higuera Street
1995 photograph ................................................... ....... 5-23
.................
Proposed sectional drawing.......................................................... 5-26
Appendices
A. 1990 Census data.
B. Focus group members.
C. Focus group questionnaire.
D. Economic and market conditions in the San Luis Obispo core area.
E. Building survey form.
F. Buildings in study area by survey categories.
G. Survey results, Category I buildings.
H. Development fee comparison for communities in the San Luis Obispo area.
I. Bibliography.
J. Consultant team.
Executive Summary
Before the second world war, a significant proportion of the urban population of this
country lived above downtown stores and shops. San Luis Obispo was no different.
However, changes in lifestyle, particularly greater use of the automobile gave rise to
homes and shopping in suburban areas. San Luis Obispo's downtown remains vital but
conditions could be enhanced by developing housing for more than the few residents who
now live there. To evaluate the opportunities and obstacles to developing housing in the
downtown core area, this study was commissioned by the Housing Authority of the City
of San Luis.Obispo.
The consultant team convened a focus group of citizens representing property owners,
tenants, developers and government agencies to provide direction regarding the issues
affecting downtown housing and to review the concepts and recommendations that the
team developed.
The consultant team evaluated the properties in the core area and candidate sites were
identified. From these, a series of case studies were developed covering a range of site
configurations and building situations ranging from development on vacant land,
assembly of several small parcels into a more efficient size, addition of stories to existing
one-story buildings and the conversion of existing space to housing.
The consultant team identified a demand for housing in the downtown core that is
generated primarily by young, middle-income individuals and couples. There is also a
sizable demand from senior citizens, disadvantaged individuals and students..
Unfortunately, few of the people in these groups are willing or able to pay the rents
required to support new housing. The result is a significant gap between the cost of
producing housing and the potential return..
Some of the reasons for this gap are that land costs are higher in the core area and the
conversion of an existing building is often inefficient given the configuration of the
property and building. Also, under current economic conditions, office space is more
profitable on the upper floors of downtown buildings because of its higher return and
lower maintenance costs.
Overcoming this situation will require either substantial change in the local economic
conditions or a greater level of support from the City. The consultant team believes that
the following actions will help take advantage of the opportunities that exist and
facilitate the production of new housing:
1. The City'should modify the appropriate policies and ordinances to allow the density
in the downtown core area to be increased (up to the historic levels of the 1940s) and
to be more flexible with the remodeling of existing buildings with openings in
property line walls. The City should designate one of the planning staff as a housing
specialist; modify the parking policies to better reflect the needs of downtown
residents,, reduce the development impact fees for downtown housing projects, and
dedicate Community Development Block Grant, Home Program .and Section 108
funds to the support of downtown housing.
2. Portions of the block between Monterey, Palm, Chorro and Morro streets represent
unique opportunities critical to the character of the downtown. The former
Blackstone Hotel at the comer of Monterey and Chorro and the City -owned parking
lot portions of the block should be developed under special guidance by the City with
housing above commercial spaces.
3. The City should take a serious look at the formation of a redevelopment district as a
means of facilitating core -area housing. The cities of Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz and
iv
Monterey have all used this process to their benefit. Such a district could have the
added benefit of providing financing for the seismic retrofit of unreinforced masonry
buildings.
4. Considering that many of the benefits of housing downtown can be realized through
housing just outside the downtown, the City should reinforce it efforts to encourage
existing housing to remain and new housing to be built in the areas within walking
distance of the downtown core.
The consultant team believes that unless a major change occurs in the local economic
conditions, it is only with strong support from the City that any significant amount of
housing will be developed in the downtown core area. Such support would be consistent
with the community's vision of itself and would be a sound economic investment in the
community.
v
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 1: Introduction
San Luis Obispo has a long history of providing housing in its downtown area The City
has not been immune, however, from changes in lifestyle that have affected the country
in general. A greater access to the automobile has facilitated the growth of housing in
suburban and rural areas surrounding cities. Significant shopping now occurs in areas
other than central business districts. The San Luis Obispo core area fortunately remains
economically vital, but the City feels the situation would be further enhanced if there
were more housing units downtown. The vitality and security of the downtown area
would be improved. According to the 1990 census, (see Appendix A) there are now
approximately 190 residents occupying 164 dwelling units in the area that this study
encompasses (1.16 persons per unit). There are significant buildings in the core area that
have historically served as housing but are now vacant or are being used for offices,
including the former Blackstone Hotel at the intersection of Monterey and Chorro streets.
In order to capitalize on these opportunities and increase the number of units downtown,
the Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo commissioned this study.
Purpose of Study
The intent of the Downtown Housing Study is to identify specific opportunities and
obstacles to developing housing in the heart of downtown San Luis Obispo. The study
can be used by the Housing Authority, govensment agencies, property owners, and others
interested in expanding housing opportunities or encouraging private investment in the
downtown area It is also intended to give downtown property owners a clear picture of
what canbe accomplished with their buildings. It will also identify where there are
pitfalls and what financial programs are available to assist them in closing the gap
between the cost of constructing a project and the potential return.
Both the City and the Housing Authority have an on going interest in developing
residential units in and adjacent to the City's downtown core. The Anderson and San
Luis hotels are examples of this community's involvement in promoting downtown
housing. Many of the older, sometimes historical buildings offer opportunities for
housing through the rehabilitation process; however, they also pose many structural and
economic challenges to those interested in "recycling" this urban resource. In order to
better define issues that affect the development of housing in the core area, the consultant
team prepared five case studies that look at development options and identify the
problems and economics involved
Page 1-1
Overview of Contents
This report is organized to provide relevant background information on housing in
downtown San Luis Obispo (Chapter 2); identify the physical and location issues within
the City's core area (Chapter 3); review the development and financing process (Chapter
4); provide case studies using real buildings or sites downtown (Chapter 5); and offer a
series of recommendations to the City and others on possible ways of encouraging the
process or of providing incentives to facilitate the development of housing (Chapter 6).
The study concludes with a "How To Manual" (Chapter 7), which walks a property
owner or developer through the development process. I
For those who wish to deal with the development process, a review of Chapters 5 and 7
should be helpful. Chapters 1 through 4 develop the planning and market information
that provides the context for the case studies in Chapter 5 and the recommendations in
Chapter 6.
The study is supported by a series of appendices, which contain the questionnaire given
to the focus group and the building evaluation survey criteria. The results of the building
surveys and the development fee comparison are provided as well.
Study Process and Preparation
The study is composed of five areas of effort. The first effort' was to study the demand for
housing in the core area. The consultant team looked into the number of units that the
market might bear and studied which population groups would best benefit from living in
the core area as well as which would provide benefit to the community by living
downtown. To test the consultants' analysis and to provide a "reality check", a focus
group, drawn from the community, was convened.
The second' work effort dealt with gathering information about the economics of
construction in the downtown and the potential return on investment to landowners and
developers.
The third segment of work consisted of evaluating all of the properties and buildings in
the designated study area. The consultant team surveyed each property to determine the
potential for adding housing to the existing buildings or site. A list of criteria was
developed regarding the physical and economic attributes of each property, with an eye
toward adding housing. From that survey, a list of candidate buildings, potentially
appropriate for the addition of housing, was generated.
Drawing on the survey, the fourth area involved generating a series of case studies. The
five case studies were developed in order to evaluate an individual property's potential
for housing !development. Each study involved the design, structural evaluation and
economic analysis of the subject property. The results were used to determine
Page 1-2
opportunities, constraints and issues related to building more housing into the core area
and to help prepare a "How To" manual.
The fifth and final effort was to provide analyses and recommendations that would
facilitate the delivery of housing to the downtown.
Consultant Team
The primary investigators on the consultant team include Robert Vessely, project
manager and a civil engineer with nearly 20 years of experience in San Luis Obispo. One
of his specialties is the structural evaluation and seismic retrofit design of existing
structures including unreinforced masonry buildings (URMs).
Tom Reay provided the architectural design component of the case studies and evaluated
the costs involved with construction in the core area. Mr. Reay is a licensed architect
who has practiced in San Luis Obispo for more than 16 years. His most recent work was
the redevelopment of the San Luis Hotel.
Andrew Merriam is an architect and certified planner with 25 years of experience in San
Luis Obispo. He has served on the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission, the Cultural
Heritage Committee and the design team that prepared the "Physical Concept Plan for
Downtown San Luis Obispo". Mr. Merriam assisted in the evaluation of planning issues
and acted as the moderator with the focus group.
Assisting the consultant team with the market and economic analysis was the real estate
appraisal fine of Schenberger, Taylor, McCormick and Jecker.
This study has been prepared using Community Development Block Grant funds
allocated by the City of San Luis Obispo. It was administered by the Housing Authority
of the City of San Luis Obispo.
Page 1-3
Chapter 2: Why Downtown Housing?
Chapter 2: Why Downtown Housing?
History of Housing in the San Luis Obispo Core Area
Housing in downtown areas is an old concept. Since the earliest colonial days, people
lived above their shops and places of work. This proved to be a major benefit because
the ownership of the building could remain with the family, security was provided by the
owner and the trip to work was short. Towns tended to be dense and compact because
walking was a major component of the community transportation system. This downtown
character, of stores below with offices and residential units on upper floors, gave the
typical American city its physical form and still today provides the visual image of "main
street."
With the advent of public transportation systems such as trolleys, trains, and eventually
the automobile, the importance of living above one's work place, or at least being within
walking distance, diminished. Moving to the suburbs became possible and was
enthusiastically accepted by most as the ideal living condition. The desirability of living
in the core areas lost both necessity and appeal — especially as shopping and work
patterns also became more dispersed. Activities such as shopping, banking and many
social events also followed the population into the suburbs.
San Luis Obispo was not exempt from these forces. The City developed as a compact
community, with housing on the upper floors, during the latter portion of the 19th and
early part of the 20th century. Since growth did not really affect the community until
after World War II, much of the original character and many of the buildings remained.
Until the end of the War, the core area provided a significant component of the
community's housing.
After World War II, the number of automobiles increased. This led to the extension of
the road system and the construction of U.S. 101 in 1956. As a result, living patterns
began to change dramatically here as well as elsewhere in California. According to the.
U.S. Census, the City grew from 14,500 in 1950 to 42,000 by 1990. Currently the
population is just under 43,000. Conversely, the amount of housing in the core area
dropped from an estimated 800 people, or 5.5% of the total, in 1950, to the current count
of 190, or 0.4% of the total. According to information provided by the California
Department of Finance, almost 80% of the people currently living downtown live alone
Benefits of Providing Housing in Core Areas
It is unlikely that our population will ever return to the lifestyle that generated housing in
the downtown core of our cities at the turn of the century. It is important to note,
however, that there are advantages to increasing housing in the core, both to individuals
who will live there and to the community as a whole.
Page 2-1
In her book The Death and Life of Great American Cities (1961), Jane Jacobs examined
this subject. She stated that residences in and around the city's commercial area create a
certain vitality and provide safety because of the additional "eyes on the street." This is
true especially in cities where the downtown would otherwise be empty in the evenings
and on weekends.
It is this vitality that the City of San Luis Obispo is seeking to enhance in its downtown
area. The activity of the downtown population makes the area feel safer. The residents
also stimulate shops to stay open longer and thereby encourage non -core -area residents to
come downtown. The direct benefit to the community as a whole is one of a vital
downtown that is a place to visit and shop at times other than standard business hours.
This vitality, coupled with the natural benefits of the creek and the Mission, also
generates more tourist visits, which in turn benefit the economy.
One of the conclusions of the recent publication Beyond Sprawl, prepared by the Bank of
America and others, emphasizes that compact development in the central portions of
cities makes economic sense. It saves on municipal costs because the utility and
transportation systems are already in place and paid for. Even more efficiency is found
when considering that those same utility and transportation systems will be used by the
downtown residents during the evenings and weekends when the business community
uses them least.
To the extent that housing in the core area reduces pressures on the undeveloped
perimeter of the city, there will be an increased savings of the environmental and
agricultural resources of the surrounding. area. There will be less air pollution because
fewer people will need to commute to the downtown and every dwelling not built on the
perimeter of the city potentially saves 1/10th of an acre or more of agricultural land.
Goals for Housing — Focus Group Discussions
To better define the advantages and the types of housing appropriate to San Luis
Obispo's downtown, the consultant team assembled a .focus group of 12 people. The
members included City staff, representatives of the City Architectural Review
Commission and Cultural Heritage Committee, downtown landowners and tenants,
representatives of the Business Improvement Association and the Chamber of
Commerce, members of the staff and board of the Housing Authority, and representatives
from the real estate industry. The list was developed by City and Housing Authority staff
members as well as the consultant team in order to gain a balanced range of information
and insight. The intent of meetings with the focus group was to identify issues affecting
downtown housing and to see how those issues might be perceived by members of the
community at large. A list of the focus group members is shown in Appendix B.
Page 2-2
A questionnaire was developed for the first focus group meeting (see Appendix C). The
questions were designed to bring out the expectations and concerns of the group with
regard to the development of housing. While a general consensus emerged about the
goals for the core area, there were several individual opinions that gave insight into the
complexities of the housing issue. The issue of what could actually be accomplished,
either by the private or public sector was discussed extensively.
There was general consensus within the group that housing in the downtown core adds to
the social and economic vitality of the area. This vitality affects not only those who live
and work there, but the larger perception that the community has of itself - the feeling of
general attractiveness, mixed social demographics, and architectural character, all of
which recall positive images of mid-sized towns of the past.
The focus group first examined who could benefit by the provision of housing in the
downtown area. As is discussed above, there are at least two potential beneficiaries: the
residents themselves and the community as a whole. However, when the situation was
examined in more detail, it became clear that some of those who would be best served by
living in the core area might not be those who would best serve broader economic
interests of the community.
A case in point is the activities of the homeless population, an issue both current and
controversial. The business community as well as City officials have received complaints
about activities of the homeless. Some people feel that the presence of the homeless
conflicts with theoal of bringing shoppers g gmg and tourists to the downtown. Yet the
services provided to the poor and the homeless are traditionally concentrated more in the
downtown area than elsewhere.
In addition, families with children seemed to be more appropriately housed out of the
downtown where yards and schools are available. The focus group also discussed, at
length, the idea that public housing might be more economically provided where land
costs were less than downtown.
After much discussion the consensus of the focus group was that those who would most
benefit from living downtown and who, in tum, would most benefit the community were:
working single persons, working couples (with no children), and college students. In
addition, the group felt that a mixture of residents should be encouraged. Simply from
the viewpoint of benefit to the residents and the community, i.e. not considering financial
issues, the focus group felt that the following percentages of the population groups were
a reasonable target
Page 2-3
Target Housing Mia
(Determined by the Focus Group)
Population Group
Percentage
working single adults
25-30%
working couples
15-25%
college students
10-20%
seniors and disabled
20-30%
disadvantaged
10%
The consultant team has no hard figures about the population groups who now live
downtown, but, based on what information is available, the mix proposed by the focus
group appears to reflect a change from the current situation. The perception of the team
and the focus group is that most of the residents downtown now are either single adults,
handicapped or seniors, with very few couples or college students.
The focus group also discussed a series of questions on how housing should fit into the
core area. They reviewed housing compatibility with other downtown uses, the priority
that the City should give housing over other uses, the types of incentives required to build
housing, and the permit process. The group focused on pragmatic solutions to these
issues. The following describes their consensus on the questions:
The consultant team asked about the idea of mixed-use buildings versus "apartment
blocks" or other buildings used only for housing. The focus group clearly preferred to
supply housing downtown through mixed-use buildings with commercial or retail
functions on the ground floor. The concept of single -use buildings did not fit the
image of San Luis Obispo, i.e. apartment and condos should not be stand-alone
structures but rather integrated with the commercial character of our shopping streets.
2. There was discussion about the degree to which the Housing Authority should pursue
housing projects downtown over other opportunities outside the downtown area.
Higher land costs in the downtown area could result in fewer units being built than in
a project outside of the core, considering the limited budget of the Housing Authority.
While the focus group feedback was mixed, there was consensus that housing in the
core area, deserved some extra support but no more than an additional cost per unit of
10 to 20%. They felt that additional costs in excess of that percentage, when
compared with a project outside the core area; would need special justification,
because it would result in fewer total housing units being provided. It was recognized
that the Housing Authority's primary goal is to provide housing for the whole
community and that the amount of housing should not be significantly reduced to
support housing downtown. On the other hand, as was pointed out during the
discussion; if the community really wants a project downtown, and particularly if that
desire comes with financial support, the project should be pursued.
Page 2-4
3. Discussions also dealt with the concept of economic support by the City for bringing
housing downtown. The focus group recognized that under current economic
conditions, new housing was not likely to be developed in the core area, as evidenced
by the fact that very few units have been added in recent years. They felt that the
City's emphasis should be on reducing fees and streamlining the review process
rather than direct cash subsidies. Several property owners on the focus group felt that
the City's current fee schedule was an economic disincentive to new housing in the
whole community, not just the downtown. Some expressed a concern about how the
City could resolve the apparent conflict between the stated policy of encouraging the
development of housing and making it more expensive via the current fee structure
that seeks to make new development "pay its own way." It was felt that the
development fees create, at their current levels, a status quo condition in the
downtown, where the only building activity likely to occur in the private sector is
minor upgrading of existing structures. It is the team's observation that, if housing is
to occur in the core area, the City will have to take steps to offset those fees, one way
or another.
4. The idea of a redevelopment agency was discussed, but the group felt that it would
not be politically palatable (even though, as was pointed out, such a district could
help finance the seismic strengthening of the unreinforced masonry buildings
downtown).
5. The focus group expressed the feeling that a major problem for developing new
housing in the core area was lack of convenient and safe parking for the residents. It
was felt the City needed to develop a parking program better tailored to residential
requirements.
6. The concept of housing density was discussed, and the focus group felt that the
density in the area of the Anderson Hotel, for example, was not detrimental to the
community. They felt that an increase in the allowable density to that level could help
to offset the cost of land in a downtown project.
7. The City has adopted a policy that requires that new housing be provided as a
condition of constructing a new commercial project, although this policy has not yet
been implemented as an ordinance. The mandatory nature of this requirement was
rejected by focus group members, both by those who were generally against more
regulation and also by those who felt that the economy is not strong enough to
support this kind of requirement. They felt that such a mandate would only ensure
that little or no new development would occur in the downtown area.
8. Another question discussed by.the focus group was the combination of adjacent small
parcels either through incentives or condemnation by the City. As was confirmed by
the building survey, the downtown has many parcels that are too small to be
efficiently redeveloped with housing. Only if those lots could be combined with
adjacent parcels would they be useful for provision of housing. The consensus of the
Paoe 2-5
focus group was that no mandatory combining regulations or condemnation
proceedings should be considered Most focus group members felt San Luis Obispo
does not have sufficiently strong market conditions to support redevelopment, which
is the usual basis for condemnation in situations such as this.
9. Another question was the priority of housing compared to other uses on the upper
floors of commercial structures. The group was nearly unanimous: housing should
not replace existing offices. This conclusion was based on the higher economic return
to the owner and the efficiency of compact commercial core, where it's possible to
walk between offices, restaurants and the government center. Additionally; the group
felt that it was important to control the spread of office uses both into adjacent
neighborhoods, thereby reducing the housing stock near the core area, and into
nearby communities and suburban areas. These considerations are currently
embodied in City General Plan policies, and the group felt they were more positive
than the mandatory housing requirements.
Market Demand for Downtown Housing
There is a limited amount of information available regarding housing trends or demand
in the downtown area. The 1990 U.S. census provides some basic statistics about the
population of San Luis Obispo's downtown (see page 1-1), but unfortunately the earlier
census reports offered no comparable data. The census blocks were configured
differently and were not defined in sufficient detail to be helpful. The consultant team
was unable to locate any market studies for housing demand in the downtown area of
cities comparable to San Luis Obispo. This section is, then, derived from general interest
expressed to the Housing Authority by potential tenants, from anecdotal information
provided by the realtors in the focus group, and by the real estate appraisal firm of
Schenberger, Taylor, McCormick and Jecker. The consultant team has also relied on
incidental information from City and County sources in the form of building permit
statistics and general economic data.
Several of the real estate people in the focus group offered their personal observations
about the market demand for housing in the core area. While there have been no recent
studies or statistical evaluations on the subject, client interest and low vacancy rates in
the core area seem to indicate a general, albeit limited demand for housing in the
downtown area. There also seems to be a limited but well-defined market for uppgr-end
or luxury apartments near the core area This was supported by the number of phone
requests to realtors for this type of unit and the relative popularity of existing well-
designed units in the area immediately adjacent to the downtown.
Market Characteristics. Prior to analyzing the market demand, it is important to again
note that the number of people living in the Central Business District in 1990 was
approximately 190. The greatest concentration is at the Anderson Hotel, which houses 65
people, or 34% of the total downtown population. In relation to the city's total
Page 2-6
Population, the 190 people represent only about 0.4%. Thus, we are dealing with a very
small fraction of the city's total population.
The consultant team identified five issues affecting housing demand in downtown San
Luis Obispo:
The overall market for housing has been generally dropping since about 1990, and
real estate prices have dropped accordingly. According to the Santa Barbara and San
Luis Obispo Economic Forecast (Dr. Mark Schniepp, April 1995), prices have
dropped 24% in the San Luis Obispo area While this may not be seen as positive by
builders, it does mean that housing has become more affordable for the general
population. Again, according to Dr. Schniepp, interest rates are currently stabilizing
and may even be dropping
2. Even with this softening demand, there is still a backlog of people who would like to
live in the City of San Luis Obispo, according to the City's Community Development
Department and feedback from the realtors in the focus group. It is apparent that at
least some of those people want to live in the downtown area.
3. It's likely that within any substantial population group there are some individuals
who are willing to embrace a lifestyle that includes Iiving in a downtown
environment as opposed to a suburban or rural setting. In the case of San Luis
Obispo, this is confirmed by the low vacancy rates and high demand for apartments in
the downtown area. This is particularly true for 300- to 500 -square -foot apartments
that rent for between $400 and $650 per month. This information was developed by
Mr. Jerry Taylor of Schenberger, Taylor, McCormick and Jecker and is documented
in more detail in Appendix D.
4. Another element that significantly affects the rental market in San Luis Obispo,
including the price of units, is the demand created by Cal Poly and Cuesta College.
The rental market is very much dependent on the size of the enrollment at those two
institutions. According to Jerry Taylor, for the past several years the rental market has
been "soft", but with an increase in enrollment this year, the demand for rentals has
gone up sharply. Several clients of Mr. Taylor report having "no problem" in getting
substantial increases in rents, even in areas relatively remote from Cal Poly.
According to Cal Poly press releases, enrollment is planned to continue to increase
over the next few years.
5. Finally, the downtown core appears to be populated predominantly by single adults
living in studio and single -bedroom units, and the market appears to be mostly singles
wanting more of the same. Jerry Taylor's analysis found little or no demand for three-
bedroom units.
Page 2-7
Market Projection for the Downtown Core. It is the consultant team's conclusion that
there is an additional market, albeit small, for people who would forego the traditional
single-family suburban or rural housing type in favor of living in the downtown. It's
unlikely that this market will be any more than about 1% of the community's total
population, but even that represents more than a two -fold increase in the number of
downtown residents.
If the 1% level were met, it would mean that the total population in the core area would
be about 430 residents for a net gain of 240. If, as was suggested by the focus group,
working and retired couples were encouraged to live downtown to the extent that they
make up about 30% of the downtown core population, the occupancy rate would increase
from the current 1.16 to between 1.3 and 1.4 persons per unit. As a result, the number of
new units required would, be about 180.
City Housing Element Goals
Before identifying specific goals for the downtown core area, it is important to review the
existing goals adopted by the City related to housing in general. The Housing Element of
the City's General Plan, adopted in September of 1994, focuses on the issues of
providing housing for the community as a whole. Several of the major policy items relate
to the downtown. These are as follows:
• Housing Conservation: Conserve existing housing and cause the least possible
displacement of current occupants.
• Mixed -Income Housing: Encourage the development of mixed -income
neighborhoods and housing rather than.housing that.is segregated by economic status.
• Mixed -Housing Variety and Tenure: Provide variety in the location, type, size,
tenure, cost, style and age of dwellings to. accommodate the wide range of households
desiring to live within the city.
• Special Housing Needs: Encourage the creation and maintenance of housing for
those with special housing needs.
The specific Programs and Policies stated in the Housing Element for the downtown
include:
• The City shall discourage the conversion or elimination of existing housing in office,
commercial and industrial areas. (Goal 1.23.2)
• The City shall encourage the preservation, rehabilitation and expansion of residential
hotels and other types of single -room -occupancy dwellings. (Goal 1.23.5)
Page 2-8
• The City shall preserve landmark and historic residential buildings. (Goal 1.23.6)
• To maintain housing in residential/office portions of downtown, the City will
consider adopting a policy of "no net housing loss", that housing units either be
maintained or, in the case of the conversion of existing housing to offices, replaced
on site or nearby. (Goal 1.23.8)
• Identify Office (0) zoned areas around the downtown core (as described in the Land
Use Element) that are predominantly residential and re -designate. them for residential
use. The City should designate the areas that are completely or almost completely
developed with offices for office use. For the areas that are a mix of residential and
office uses, the City will apply a "Residential/Office" mixed-use designation, which
would allow existing offices to be maintained and replaced but require replacement
of dwellings as a condition of office expansion. (Goal 1.23.9)
Goals for Housing in San Luis Obispo's Downtown Core.
The team recognized that the large inventory of existing buildings, the relatively low
intensity of development in the core area, and the character and charm of the downtown
area represent assets to the community. Conversely, the lack of convenient and secure
parking, the limited sources of groceries, the ambient noise of the busy streets, and the
difficulty of providing handicapped access to many of the buildings constrain the
production of new housing downtown. Based on these factors, as well as on discussions
with the focus group and a review of the market characteristics, the consultant team has
developed a series of goals that will help define the type and character of new housing to
be built in the core area.
1. People best served.
The consultant team concurred with the findings of the focus group as to the best
mix of people to be living in the core area. The following percentages are
recommended as a working goal:
Population Groups
Percentape
working single adults
30%
working couples
25%
college students
15%
seniors and disabled
20%
disadvantaged
10%
Page 2-9
2. Quantity of units provided.
The team felt, based on market indications and the physical capability of the core
area, that an increase of units to supply 1% of the population would be reasonable.
This converts to an addition of about 180 units serving an additional 240 people.
3. Types of units.
Most projects would be well served by a mix of studio, one- and two-bedroom units.
The emphasis should be on users who are less reliant on the automobile (e.g., not
families) and on unit types that are best suited to upper floors of commercial
structures. For the greatest benefit to the community, the consultant team suggests
that a majority of the new units be market rate but, the team and the focus group feel
that the community has a responsibility to provide housing for our disadvantaged
citizens even though that process might be at odds with the goals of business
community.
4. Impacts on the downtown physical form.
New development should maintain the City's compact character as well as respect
historical structures and maintain a continuity with the City's past. Any new
structures should encourage views to and from the street and not present a blank
facade.
Page 2-10
Chapter 3: Where can we put housing?
Chapter 3: Where Can We Put Housing?
Unlike areas outside the downtown core, where new development typically occurs on
vacant land, few downtown parcels are currently vacant and available for new housing
construction. Therefore, in order to generate new housing, policies will have to be
tailored to existing conditions that include working with existing structures, land
ownership, and market situations.
How Housing Fits in the Downtown
The consultant team conducted a physical survey of the downtown area. It identified
buildings and properties that might be suitable for the development of housing and the
conditions that would affect production of that housing.
Conceptually, there are four ways that housing can be developed in the core area: 1) new
construction on vacant parcels, 2) removal of an existing building and replacement with a
new structure, 3) conversion of an existing building to housing uses, or 4) construction of
additional stories above an existing building. Each of these approaches has its advantages
and disadvantages, which are identified in more detail below. It is likely that an effective
program in San Luis Obispo will require a combination of some or all of these
approaches.
1. New Construction on Vacant Parcels
This category may be the simplest to develop because no existing structure must be
demolished or remodeled. Typically the site can be prepared for development with
only normal expenses and no loss of business to the owner. In San Luis Obispo there
are relatively few vacant parcels useable for new housing in the downtown core.
Further, some of the existing vacant parcels are at critical locations designated for
expansion of the County Government Center or expansion of the City's parking
structure program. While the parcels may indeed be vacant, the consultant team does
not expect the City and County to modify plans that serve other high priority goals.
2. Removal and Replacement of Existing Structures.
While any building may be removed and replaced with housing, it's likely that this
approach would be used only with structures that are not performing well
economically. This condition occurs for several reasons: Possibly the existing
structure does not fulfill the potential of the site, or it might have an obsolete or
cumbersome layout. It might have structural defects such as unreinforced masonry
walls, or it might have outdated mechanical or electrical systems. It might not
generate sufficient income to cover the improvements required to correct the
deficiencies. If there is sufficient market demand, a developer might feel justified in
purchasing and clearing the site and constructing new buildings. A notable example
Page 3-1
of this process is the Downtown Center between Marsh and Higuera streets. While
not widespread, several opportunities for such replacement do exist in the San Luis
Obispo core, one of which is studied in Chapter 5.
3. Conversion of Existing Buildings to Housing.
While some buildings provide options for housing on the upper floors, there is a
potential conflict with office demand. There now appears to be a greater market
demand for offices than for housing. This translates into a higher economic return for
office space than for housing. Office space is also slightly easier than residential uses
to accommodate in an older structure in terms of exit requirements and Fire Codes.
The result is that, while there may be an opportunity for conversion from offices to
housing, conditions do not favor it unless there are additional incentives. Even if
there is unused space on the upper floors of a building, under current economic
conditions it would have the potential for a greater return as office space than as
housing. (Refer to the financial analysis in Case Study#3 )
4. Construction of Additional Stories for Housing Above Existing Commercial Uses.
Many of the structures in the core area are -single -story buildings. Because the zoning
code allows buildings up to 50 feet high, there is the potential to retain the ground
uses (typically retail) and add floors of housing. Additions of this type might require.
removal of the existing roof structure and would require the addition of elevators and
stairs. This process would be disruptive to the commercial use and could reduce the
commercial floor area
Site Inventory and Survey Criteria
Criteria used ;in this survey were developed as a two -phased. process. The Phase I factors
were those that the team referred to as "fatal flaws", i.e., characteristics that would make
the building impossible or impractical to use for housing. For example, if the building is
under government ownership, — the Courthouse, for example — or if the building has a
well-established office use on the upper floors and a change of use would clearly involve
a loss of revenue, it was determined to have a "fatal flaw" and not be available for
housing.
The Phase I criteria include:
1. Economic Factors. A loss of revenue would result from conversion to housing.
2. Building Condition. The building is in such condition that demolition is likely.
3. Conversion Costs. Conversion costs are likely to be excessive because of the
configuration of the building or the site. -
4. Ownership Factors. The building is under ownership or use that would preclude its
conversion to housing, e.g., government or church.
Page 3-2
5. Site Constraints. Access for construction or fidure tenants would be difficult.
6. Environmental Constraints. The site has severe noise, air quality or other
environmental problems.
7. Historical Factors. A conversion to housing would significantly alter the historical
character of the building.
If a structure passed the Phase I criteria with no "fatal flaws", then the Phase II portion of
the survey was completed. Phase II included factors that would determine the difficulty
of a conversion or addition rather than factors that would preclude it as in Phase I. Some
of these criteria are similar to those in Phase I, but here they were evaluated on the basis
of the practicality of overcoming them. For instance, if the building's structural condition
made demolition likely, it was a Phase I matter. On the other hand, if the structural
system appeared to be poor but repairable, it was a Phase II item. A copy of the form is
included in Appendix E.
The Phase II criteria included:
Planning Issues
1. Adequacy of parking
2. Location desirability
3. Environmental concerns:
a) Noise
b) Views
c) Personal safety
d) Adjacent uses
Building Issues
1. Structural adequacy
2. Hazardous building materials
3. Ease of conversion for accessibility and exiting
4. Code issues:
a) Light, windows
b) Ventilation
c) Sanitation
d) Fire safety
e) Sound insulation
Property List
The City provided a list that included all the properties within the study area and all of
the addresses in the area, including apartment and suite numbers. The list included such
information as zoning, current occupant, floor area of the building, assessor's parcel
C number, Standard Industrial Classification code and description, legal owner, and
historical designation, if any.
Page 3-3
The Survey Process
The survey was conducted on foot by all three members of the consultant team over a
two-day period. The team went into buildings where appropriate. Buildings and sites
were sorted into seven categories designating their characteristics. The categories used
are as follows:
Category 1. The building has potential for conversion to housing.
Category 2. The building has potential for housing but has economic problems.
Category 3. The site is vacant
Category 4. The building has potential for housing if additional floors were added
Category 5. The building condition is such that demolition might be considered to
make way for new housing and/or commercial space.
Category 6. There is no obvious potential in the building for housing.
Category 7. The building now contains housing.
Summary of Survey Results
The results of the survey were assembled in three ways. First, a list was prepared
showing the properties by category. This list is included as Appendix F. Second, a map
was prepared showing the status of each parcel. The map shows that the Category 1
buildings are concentrated toward the center of the study area, with the exception of one
site in the 1200 block of Monterey Street This map is shown in Figure 3.1. Third, a
matrix was assembled. for the Category 1 buildings showing the breakdown of their
scores from the survey forms. The matrix of the Category 1 buildings shows numerical
scores for each building, but they should not be construed as rankings nor as
recommendations. They were intended only to identify the constraints and opportunities
inherent in each building. The matrix is shown in Appendix G.
There are many other sites in the study area that could be appropriate for housing. In
addition, with a change in the condition of a building or in the market, the balance could
be tipped toward housing. For instance, if a building were damaged or for some reason
the rents available for housing exceeded those for offices, a building might be more
attractive as a housing site. There are also a number of parcels under government
ownership such as the City's property between Monterey, Palm, Chorro and Morro
streets that could be developed to include housing. Similarly, there are a number of
properties in the study area owned by churches, and there is some tradition of churches
providing housing, particularly for the low-income population. It is conceivable that one
or more of these properties could be developed or remodeled to include housing, but
because the possibilities are so varied, the consultant team focused on properties with a
clear potential based on the survey criteria.
Page 3-4
Figure 3.1- Survey Results
i
Category One Fotemial for housiag
M Caregmy Two Housing polemist, but with es>mm= problems
Category Than Vaeam site
U
C � v
Page 3-5
Category Four Housmg potmWW with additional Homs
Cmegmy Five Housing pmemial with new emutrumion ort olemed aim
ED Category Seven Etustmg Housing
Chapter 4: How can it be financed?
Chapter 4: How Can It Be Financed?
The Players
In addition to market demand and suitable building locations, the development of
housing requires people who feel confident that they would receive a reasonable return
and are willing to invest. Landowners, financiers and developers must feel that a project
is worth the investment both in terms of money and time, when compared to other
projects that they might consider. The City can ease these concerns by keeping the
development review time to a minimum and by being involved in the financing aspects.
Possibilities include administering federal funds, offering financing guarantees, or
providing low-interest loans.
In some cases, governmental agencies, such as the Housing Authority, play the role of
developer. Even in these cases, the demand remains for appropriate levels of time and
money invested and a reasonable return.
There are several major financing strategies, available but because these programs are
constantly changing, financing issues should be explored with the various agencies or
institutions early in the process of developing any project.
Financing Strategies
It is clear that the traditional development community is not supplying new housing in
the core area to any great degree. In fact, U.S. Census information indicates that the
current economic system is actually reducing the supply of housing downtown. Since
there is not enough market demand for housing in the core area from people who are
willing and able to pay the rates necessary to provide a reasonable return, alternate
financing strategies might be required to close the gap. This situation is not unique to
San Luis Obispo. Many programs have been developed to assist communities in these
circumstances.
It is important, however, to understand the factors that affect the applicability of the
various programs and the way they are designed to serve specific project types. Some of
the constraints are matters of qualification for federal and state programs. Others are
derived from community attitudes such as community priorities. These constraints can
reduce the applicability of various programs and funds.
Page 4-1
Funding Resources
1. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program.
In 1974, the Nixon administration and Congress enacted the Community
Development Block Grant program. It replaced the old urban renewal program,
which had been the major funding source for urban redevelopment since the 1950s.
Community Development Block Grants come in two dosages: a small cities program
administered by the State for communities that were not "entitled" to an annual
federal grant, and "entitlement" funds for larger communities. Entitlement cities
were basically those that had used the urban renewal program and those cities that
qualified by virtue of their size. In recent years San Luis Obispo has been an
entitlement city with an annual allocation of approximately $900,000. The City
finance department expects this allocation to continue for the next several years..
Block grant funds can be used for a variety of purposes, including housing, public
improvements and economic development. The grants are targeted so that 60% of the
money must be of benefit to low- and moderate -income persons. With some
restraints, the process of distributing the money is controlled by the City of San Luis
Obispo.
If a project will involve preserving, rehabilitating or restoring an historical building, it
might qualify for Community Development Block Grant money through the "linking"
of this activity to other qualified Community Development Block Grant programs
such as housing. Thus the rehabilitation of an historical building for housing rates
higher in terms of eligibility than either the housing or preservation project would if
proposed independently.
2. Section 108 Guaranteed Loans
Section 108 of the National Housing Act enables communities to leverage their
Community Development Block Grant funds into a larger and more productive
resource than would be possible from the grants alone. In this program, the
Community Development Block Grant allocation serves as security for borrowing by
the local government. Entitlement communities may borrow up to five times their
most recent annual Community Development Block Grant allocation. Loans
supported by the Section 108 program are particularly valuable because they permit
other Community Development Block Grant activities to be funded by grants.
Eligible activities include acquisition of real property, rehabilitation of publicly
owned real property, and housing development.
Page 4-2
3. Home Program Funds.
U
This is a relatively new federal program. It is similar to Community Development
Block Grants in that it is an entitlement program. The County has received and
should continue to receive approximately $900,000 a year for distribution to housing
efforts throughout the County, including the City of San Luis Obispo. The chief
difference between these funds and Community Development Block Grants is that
Home Program funds must be spent on housing. They require matching funds for
most applications and loans are preferred by the federal administrators as opposed to
grants so that a revolving fund is established.
4. Tax Credits.
Part of the Interial Revenue Service Act of 1986 provided for tax credits to those
who invested in the construction or substantial rehabilitation of certain housing. The
housing must be reserved for occupancy by persons whose income does not exceed
60% of the County's median income. This program is somewhat bureaucratic and
the process is competitive. Thus, it can be expensive in terms of initial "up front"
administrative costs. Once approved, however, a potential developer may sell enough
of the tax credits to cover approximately one-half of the total development costs. On
the down side, the program might not be well suited to mixed-use projects or those
/ J involving just a few units, and it has been significantly curtailed in recent years. The
program is administered by the State of California Tax Credit Allocation Committee.
The local Non-profit Housing Corporation, an affiliate of the City Housing Authority,
has developed three projects of 20 units or more through this program. They might be
a good source of information about the process.
5. Section 8 of the National Housing Act of 1974.
This is a federally funded housing assistance program that was started in 1974. One
advantage is that the program is locally administered by the City Housing Authority.
It is very flexible and appears to be getting more so. Rental payments, except for the
tenant's share, which is set at 30% of income, are paid directly by the Housing
Authority to the project owner. There is protection for vacancy losses and tenant
damage. The program is limited to serving tenants whose income is at or below 50%
of the County median income. Today's program, unlike some of the earlier types,
limits rent to a published, fair -market rate, and the assistance goes with the tenant,
not the unit. If an eligible tenant leaves the City or County, so does assistance.
6. Community Reinvestment Act.
The original Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), passed by Congress in 1977,
required that lending institutions "... serve the convenience and needs of the
Page 4-3
communities in which they are chartered to do business." As a result, most banks and
other lending institutions set aside money to be made available for projects that serve
the needs of the community. Even thought, this money is available, there is nothing
in the Community Reinvestment Act that requires the banks to make loans with
interest rates or terms other than those normal for the community. Local banks are the
best source of information about these loans.
7. Federal Home Loan Bank
The Federal Home Loan Bank has a program referred to as the Affordable Housing
Program. This program is available to subsidize the interest rate on loans and to
provide direct subsidies to banks that are members of the Federal Home Loan Bank
System. These members must be engaged in lending for long-term, low- and
moderate -income, owner -occupied and affordable rental housing. The overall goal is
to increase the supply of affordable housing in each of the system's districts. Loans
made under this program must be used: 1) to finance the purchase, construction,
and/or rehabilitation of owner -occupied housing for low- and moderate -income
households, or 2) to finance the purchase, construction, and/or rehabilitation of rental
housing in which at least 20% of the units will be occupied by very -low-income
households for the remaining useful life of such -housing or the term of the mortgage.
The program is administered by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, and even
though most local banks do not belong to this board, they might be able to refer an
applicant to other sources of information about the program.
8. City Incentive Program
The City of San Luis Obispo seeks to promote affordable housing and offers a variety
of incentives. As described in Municipal Code Section 17.90.050, projects consisting
of five or more dwelling units that include units affordable to low- and moderate -
income households and qualifying seniors, and which conform to City development
policies and standards, might qualify for a density bonus or other incentives. The
density bonus is discussed in Chapters 6 and 7. The development incentives can
include waiver of application and processing fees, waiver of utility connection fees,
waiver of park land dedication requirements, city funding of off-site improvements,
write-down of land costs, approval of exceptions to subdivision or zoning standards,
and possible direct subsidy of construction costs or construction financing costs.
The application of this program is complex and based on sliding formulas depending
on project size, the percentage of qualifying housing provided, and the particular
conditions of the project under consideration. In all cases, however; qualifying
projects are required to be processed as rapidly as allowed by law. The City
Community Development Department staff should be consulted for information
about this program.
Page 44
Conclusions
Most of the financing strategies reviewed above are aimed at providing housing for low -
and moderate -income people. While they will serve developers aiming at this market
and, of course, the Housing Authority, they do not serve all the groups identified in the
goals section of this report, i.e., those willing and able to pay market rates. Given the
high profile of downtown investment and perhaps with some guarantee by the City, local
banks could possibly be counted on to provide development capital for a variety of
projects downtown under the Community Reinvestment Act. This might only mean that
money is available, not that there will be any breaks in interest rates or other terms. It is
clear that any successful downtown housing program will have to be creative in its
financing, perhaps using several financing sources.
In conclusion, the consultant team does not foresee that the existing financing programs
will facilitate housing in the core area without a significant City commitment. The team
proposes that the City take a lead role with regard to the financial issues by defining
housing in the core area as a priority. That would assure the private landowner, potential
developer and financing institutions that there is support for proposed projects. The City
should also commit to the priority allocation of Community Development Block Grant
funds for housing projects and should consider support in the form of grants, low-interest
loans and loan guarantees and by taking an active role in assuring access to state and
federal funding programs.
Page 4-5
Chapter 5: Case Studies
Chapter 5: Case Studies
Introduction
By using specific sites it is possible to illustrate the types of building conversions,
additions and remodeling that can make housing possible in the downtown study area. The
following case studies have been selected to demonstrate different types of housing in
different building configurations. Please refer to Chapter 7 for an analysis of codes, zoning
and other related issues and Chapter 3 for the definition of the building categories. A
financial evaluation has been included at the end of each Case Study.
Case Study #1
This case study evaluates publicly assisted elderly and handicapped housing in a
rehabilitated historical structure. The budding has been classified as "Category 1", that is,
it has the potential for housing.
Case Study #2
This case study analyzes affordable, single -room -occupancy housing, either publicly
assisted or private, in a remodeled, existing, mixed-use structure. The building has been
classified as "Category 7", that is, it contains housing presently.
-� Case Study #3 ,
This case study looks at combining two properties in the downtown area, demolishing the
existing buildings and building a new, mixed-use structure that would include commercial
uses and market -rate residences for middle-income users. The sites have been classified as
"Category 5", that is, they would need to be cleared in order to be available for new
housing. The financial evaluation also looks at office uses on the upper floors for
comparison purposes.
Case Study #4
This case study investigates the possibility of constructing additional stories over an
existing building to provide market -rate apartments for working singles, couples and
students. The building has been classified as "Category 4", that is, it has potential for
additional floors.
Case Study #5
This case study discusses a number of sites that were identified as "Category 3" or "5" of
the downtown survey; that is, sites with existing underutilized buildings or vacant land.
Although the case studies present only one type of development for each of the sites, there
are obviously other development alternatives. For example, Case Study #1 could be
developed as a single -room -occupancy hotel or as upper-income market -rate housing. It is
also apparent that the type of housing presented in Case.Study #2, single -room -occupancy
i housing, might meet resistance from the community in the downtown core. This case
study could be scaled back, or re -addressed as a different type of housing altogether. .
Page 5-1
Case Study #1 `Blackstone Hotel' 840 Monterey Street.
Photograph of the building in 1995
Existing Building Description
Location
The Blackstone Hotel is located at the northern corner of Monterey and Chorro Streets
across from the Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa. The principal ground floor addresses
for the building are 840, 844, and 846 Monterey Street, and 984 and 986 Chorro Street.
History
The building actually consists of three structures that have been integrated over the years.
The structure at the comer of Monterey and Chorro streets was originally constructed in
1876 over the site of an adobe house. The adjacent structures are of about the same age.
In 1916, the city widened Monterey Street. As a result, the facade as represented in the
1904 photo (refer to page 5-3) was completely removed. At the same time, a third story
was added to the building. This was accomplished by lowering the ceiling level within the
second story, adding a new floor, extending the parapet up around the building and
providing a new roof structure. The adjacent structures were incorporated at this time and
treated similarly.
Page 5-2
G Z-
r-
��- *T �..
Photograph of the Building taken in 1904
With the addition of the third floor and the remodel of the exterior, the uses within the
building also changed. What had been offices and housing at the second and third floor,
became transient hotel lodging. Originally known as the "Annex Hotel European"
according to archival photographs, the name was changed to the "Blackstone HoteL"
Around the time of World War H the character of the hotel business began to change from
transient lodging to rooming house or long-term rental housing. From this period, the
housing facilities continued to decline until they where vacated sometime in the late 1950s.
In June of 1962 the City fire marshal and the City building official inspected the premises
and effectively condemned the second and third floors for residential uses because of
numerous exiting and Fire Code problems . The ground floor of the building has been
occupied with commercial and retail uses throughout its entire history and is still in
operation today.
Page 5-3
Current Uses
The ground floor is occupied by a real estate office and four separate retail businesses.
The second and third floors are completely vacant with the exception. of some light
storage. The building is privately owned.
Existing Size
The ground floor of the building covers the entire site and provides 7,186 square feet of
commercial and retail sales space. The second and third floors each have approximately
5,400 square feet. The building area totals 17,986 square feet.
Construction
The exterior walls and common walls between the three original buildings are of
unreinforced masonry construction. Floors, roofs and interior walls are wood framed. The
building does not have an automatic fire -suppression system.
Condition
The upper two floors have suffered from neglect over the past 40 years. Water damage is
prevalent throughout the upper floors near roof drain locations. All the exterior windows
are in disrepair and will need to be replaced The Monterey Street facade is of
questionable structural condition both for lateral (seismic and wind) loads and vertical
(gravity) loads. The floors at the upper levels appear to be in fair condition. In addition,
the building still has most of the problems and code violations that caused the upper floors
to be vacated.
Zoning
The site is zoned C -C -l3, Central Commercial Zone with an Historical and Architectural
Preservation Overlay. Dwellings are allowed in this zone; however, a density bonus or
some other method might be required to provide sufficient density. The allowable density
in the C -C zone equals 36 density units per acre. The site consists of 0.165 acres.
Therefore, the allowable number of density units is 5.9. A one -bedroom apartment is 0.66
units and a studio apartment is 0.5 units. The consultant team proposes a total of 9.58
density units, which would equate to 58 density units per acre. Refer to Chapter 7 for
finther discussion of the density allowed by City Zoning Regulations.
Page 5-4
0
r
t41`� -,*,!f
!
ri.
Wil}
Proposed exterior after remodel
Proposed Conversion
Housing Type
The housing type proposed in this case study would be single -bedroom apartments and
studio apartments. Sizes would range from 440 square feet to 648 square feet. The entire
project would provide 15 apartments as follows: four non -handicapped -accessible, one -
bedroom apartments, two accessible (or adaptable) studio apartments and 9 one -bedroom
accessible (or adaptable) apartments. Refer to pages 5-8, 5-9 and 5-10 for the proposed
floor plans.
Intended Client Group
The project would be intended to serve publicly assisted elderly and handicapped tenants
as defined by the Federal Government.
Accessibility Issues
For the proposed client group in this case study, it would be necessary to provide an
elevator. The four units described as non -handicapped -accessible are on non -accessible
floor levels, 18" above accessible levels. The other 11 apartments could be constructed as
accessible units at this time or adaptable units that could be converted to accessible units if
the demand arose.
Page 5-5
Transportation Issues J
According to the Housing Authority, individuals in this client group generally do not own
automobiles. This, coupled with the fact that there is no room on the site for parking,
leads the team to suggest that a number of spaces could be set aside in the nearby Palm
Street parking structure to satisfy the limited demand of the project. Public transportation
is also available nearby. For the most part, the downtown location should preclude the
necessity for personal transportation for shopping or recreation.
Necessary Changes to the Building
In order to change the upper floors from bedrooms with bathroom down the hall to the
unit mix described above, it would be necessary to remove and replace most, if not all, of
the existing partitions 'within the building. Floors, ceilings and walls would need to
conform to sound -transmission and fire -resistance requirements for apartments. It is
anticipated that all the building's infrastructure systems (water, sewer, electrical and
mechanical) would need to be replaced and an automatic fire -suppression system installed.
In addition, the building would need to be strengthened to meet the City's unreinforced
masonry seismic upgrade requirements.
With this design, the consultant team proposes, that the unreinforced masonry wall facing
Monterey Street be removed. This would mitigate the concerns withthe structural
adequacy of this wall as well as allow more architectural freedom with the elevation. The
team also proposes that the design for the exterior of the building. recall the architecture of
the building as it was originally constructed, integrated with the new proportions that were
created when the building went from two stories to three.
Additional Design Factors
The consultant team proposes reconstructing the roof over the storage areas at the rear of
the retail/commercial spaces and converting that area into a private, protected courtyard
for the benefit of the apartment occupants. The elevator has been located on the Chorro
Street entrance of the building for two reasons. First, it allows access to apartments that
are on the same floor but different levels. For example the floor of studio apartment 6 is
about six feet above the floor in apartment 5 (see the plan at page 5-9). Locating the
elevator elsewhere would have eliminated accessibility to at least another four apartments.
Second, it is located in the least valuable retail space, i.e. space that is farthest from
Monterey Street and which has functionality problems due to the awkward floor -level
changes.
Impact on Utilities and Services
Considering that the uses within the structure would be intensified, going from completely
vacant on the upper floors to 15 apartments, it follows that there would be an impact on
utilities and services. However, the size of the project would not be so great that those
impacts could not be absorbed by the existing systems.
Page 5-6
Ownership / Financing Options
The design of this case study has been based on the idea that the Housing Authority of the
City of San Luis Obispo would manage the housing in the finished project and have an
outside agent manage the commercial sections of the building. The development could be
accomplished in a number of ways: The Housing Authority or the Non -Profit Housing
Corporation could purchase and remodel the building with the help of Community
Development Block Grant funds. A private developer could purchase and remodel the
building and then sell it to the Housing Authority or the Non -Profit Housing Corporation.
Or the structure could be purchased by the Housing Authority, subdivided as a
condominium, and the ground floor sold off.
Government Fee Implications
Because the project would be owned or actively managed by the Housing Authority, it
would be exempt from all development review fees (per City Council Resolution no.
7030). In addition, it would be exempt from the new traffic impact fee because it is an
existing structure. Wastewater and water impact fees would not affect this project,
because of the credits that would be obtained as the project went from 28 hotel rooms to
15 apartments. Although it would not be necessary to use them, credits for the
development fees would also be provided from the cost of the engineering analysis of the
unreinforced masonry retrofit. School fees would be required for this project and would
total $16,200.
_ Benefits of Conversion
This project would provide good quality, affordable housing as well as add to the fabric
and vitality of the downtown. This conversion from abandoned space to housing would
also make it -possible to upgrade this very significant building in a highly visible location.
Compatibility With Other Uses
With proper sound and fire -resistance measures, which are important between residential
uses and commercial uses, compatibility between the ground level and the upper floors
should not be an issue. As.for adjacent uses, this section of Chorro Street now houses a
mix of residential and commercial uses that would fit easily with the proposed project.
Page 5-7
M o n t e r e y S t r e e t
CASE STUDY #1- BLACKSTONE HOTEL
PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR
Page 5-8
U
M o n t e r e y S t r e e t
CASE STUDY #1- BLACKSTONE HOTEL
PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR
Page 5-9
M o n t e r e y S t r e e t
CASE STUDY #1- BLACKSTONE HOTEL
PROPOSED THIRD FLOOR
Page 5-10
Financial Evaluation by Schenberger, Taylor, McCormick and Jecker, Inc.
Blackstone Hotel: (a mix of 5,438 square feet of street -level retail and 13,000 square feet
of residential and support facilities totaling 15 units)
• Projected monthly gross rental income (commercial and residential) is $ 16,207
• Based on a detailed analysis, the Net Operating Income (NOI) is $ 1209100
• At a capitalization rate of 0.9, this income would support a project value of $ 1,335,000
• Cost of new construction (see Chapter 7) $ 1.957.900
Cost above value: $ 622,900
If the land value is added (as appraised recently by S,T,M&n 9207000
Net difference between project costs and value in this scenario is $- 12542,900
Construction of this project would require a mixture of subsidies totaling approximately
$1.5 million or $103,000 per unit.
Page 5-11
Case Study #2: "Granada Hoter, 1116 Morro Street
Photograph of building in 1995
Existing Building Description
Location
The building is located on Morro Street in the middle of the block between Marsh and
Higuera streets. The principle ground floor addresses for the building are 1116, 11182
1120, 1126, 1128 and 1130 Morro Street.
Current Uses
The ground floor is occupied by a tailor, a florist, and other retail uses. The second floor is
operating as a rooming house. Originally there were approximately 20 single -room
apartments, but the first -floor units have been converted to retail uses. The building is
privately owned.
Ezisting Size
The site consists of an 11,675 -square -foot lot. The ground floor occupies 5,510 square
feet of the site. The balance of the site contains a driveway and parking at the rear of the
structure. The second floor provides 4,740 square feet of building. The building totals
10,250 square feet.
Page 5-12
Construction
The structure of the building is unreinforced masonry exterior walls with wood -framed
floors, roof and interior walls. The budding does not have an automatic fire -suppression
system-
Condition
ystem
Condition
The exterior of the structure has a fairly bland appearance. The rough stucco texture
suggests that it was applied as a method of covering a previous cracldng problem. In
addition, the replacement windows languish from the use of inexpensive mill finish
aluminum frame and clumsy proportions.
Zoning
The site is zoned C -C -H, Central Commercial Zone with an I-Estorical and Architectural
Preservation Overlay. Dwellings are allowed in this zone, ' however, a density bonus or
some other method would be required to provide the density proposed. The allowable
density in the C -C zone equals 36 density units per acre. The site consists of 0.267 acres.
Therefore, the allowable number of density units is 9.6. Because a studio apartment is 0.5
units, 19 studio apartments are all that would be currently allowed. The consultant team
proposes 38 studio apartments or 75 density units per acre.
Proposed exterior after remodel.
U
Page 5-13
Proposed Conversion
Housing Type
The housing type proposed in this case study would be a single -room -occupancy hotel.
The 38 rooms would each run approximately 150 square feet, each provided with a small
closet and lavatory. Common facilities would include a kitchen, dining room, laundry,
storage lockers and living area. Also included would be a live-in manager's apartment on
the first floor. Five handicapped -accessible units would be provided on the ground floor.
Common bathrooms would be provided at a ratio of one bath per five rooms.
Intended Client Group
This project would be intended to provide transitional, supportive housing for individuals
who might be homeless or near to it if this type of housing were not available. The intent
would be to provide a supervised, stable and secure environment where people could
make a transition from the edge of homelessness to more permanent housing as their
situation improves.
Accessibility Issues
Because accessible units have been provided on the ground floor, it is not required to
provide accessible units on upper floors. By avoiding the initial cost and maintenance of an
elevator,. other amenities could be included in the project.
Transportation Issues
Typically, individuals in this client group do not own automobiles. However, this project
would be unique to downtown, in that parking spaces are available on site. (Although
there might be some problems with the sub -standard driveway width). Public
transportation is also available nearby. In many cases the location of the project would
preclude the necessity for personal transportation for work, shopping or recreation.
Necessary Changes to Building
To provide the floor plan proposed in the drawings shown on page 5-16, the portion of
the building that now contains the tailor shop would have to be removed and a new
lobby/reception area constructed. As with the other case studies, floors, ceilings and walls
would need to conform to sound -transmission and fire -resistance requirements for
apartments. It would be anticipated that all the building's infrastructure systems (water,
sewer, electrical and mechanical) would need to be upgraded. In addition, the building
would need to be strengthened to meet the unreinforced masonry seismic upgrade
requirements and an automatic fire -suppression system would need to be installed.
It is proposed that a third floor be added to the structure. If necessary, because of financial
considerations, density concerns or other reasons, the third floor could be omitted. That
would reduce the scope of the project by 14 rooms.
Page 5-14
The occupancy of the structure would be intensified from 20 apartments to 38. Therefore,
there would be an impact on utilities and services. However, the size of the project would
not be so great that those impacts could not be absorbed by the existing system.
Ownership/Financing options
A project of this nature would most likely be held by a government agency such as the
Housing Authority. There are examples, however, of similar projects in other cities that
are owned by non-governmental organizations and even by for-profit private developers.
Government Fee Implications
If the proposed project were owned or actively managed by the San Luis Obispo Housing
Authority, it would be exempt from all development review fees (per City Council
Resolution no. 7030). In addition, it would be exempt from the new traffic impact fee
because it is an existing structure. Wastewater and water impact fees would be based on
the increase in the number of units. Those fees combined are currently $6,608 per
apartment unit. The project would also require fees for water allocations and parking
based on the increase in use. Credits for the development review fees would be available,
based on the expense of the engineering analysis of the unreinforced masonry upgrade
design. School fees would be based on the additional square footage on the third floor and
would be approximately $6,897.
Additional Design Factors
This design proposes removing the part of the structure currently occupied by the tailor
shop. That area would then become a common outside space for the tenants and the main
entry to the apartments. Considering the type of units proposed, the design of the common
spaces would be critical for success of the project.
Another aspect of the design would be to enhance the exterior appearance of the building.
The consultant team proposes to re -proportion the windows, remove and replace the
existing stucco, and add architectural features where appropriate. The third floor would be
stepped back from the street to help maintain the block's low-rise character and exterior
balconies would be provided at the second and third floors.
Compatibility With Other Uses and Adjacent Properties.
Compatibility might be the issue that presents the largest hurdle. Neighboring property
owners might object to the intensity of the project and to the tenant group proposed. It
should be noted, however, that the intent of this project is to provide managed and
supervised housing. With housing of this type, the tenants would be better able to find the
stability required to find work or otherwise progress with their lives. The intention is not
to make this permanent housing but to make it transitional supportive housing. This site
also appears to be one of the best locations in the downtown for this use. This block of
Morro Street is relatively quiet and the businesses tend to focus toward Marsh and
Higuera streets or toward the inside of the Downtown Center.
Page 5-15
Second Floor Plan
Ground Floor Plan
M o r r o S t r e e t
CASE STUDY #2 - GRANADA.HOTEL
PROPOSED FLOOR PLANS
Page 5-16
Third Floor Plan
Legend
1 Retail / commercial space
2 Entry and common lobby
3 Reception and manager's desk
4 Manager's apartment
5 Kitchen
6 Dining Area
7 Laundry is
8 Accessible Room
9 Accessible bath
10 Lightwell
11 Entry courtyard
12 Parking
13 Typical room
40
Financial Evaluation by Schenberger, Taylor, McCormick and Jecker, Inc.
Granada Hotel: (a mix of 950 feet .of street4evel retail and 37 residential units plus
support facilities) -
• Projected monthly gross rental income (commercial and residential) is $14,138
• Based on analysis, the Net Operating Income (NOI) is $ 61,100
• At a capitalization rate of 0.9, this income would support a project value of $ 680,000
• The land and building value (estimated by consultant ) $ 9007000- $1,100,000
• Construction of new facility (based on architect's evaluation) $ 1.619.600
Project Costs: $ 2,519,600 - 2,719,600
Net difference between project costs and value in this scenario [$ 1,839,600 - 2,039,600]
Approx. cost per residential unit (room) excluding commercial costs $ 45,000 — 51,100
Page 5-17
Case Study #3
968 through 982 Monterey Street
Photograph of the buildings in 1995
Description of the Existing Buildings
Location
The buildings are located on Monterey Street in the middle of the block between Morro
and Osos streets across the street from a city parking lot. Access is available from both
Monterey and Palm Street through an easement at the rear for parldng.
Building Description
The buildings under consideration for this case study are two individually owned single -
story unreinforced masonry structures.
Current Uses
Currently the buildings are occupied by seven different retail and office uses. The buildings
are held in separate private ownership by different individuals. The building at 978
Monterey is owned by the same people as the budding to the north of it, the I P. Andrews
Building.
Existing Size
The sites consist of a roughly 7,200 -square -foot lot (968, 970 and 974A and B Monterey)
and a 5,700 -square -foot lot (978 and 982 Monterey). The existing buildings occupy 4,566
square feet at 968, 970 and 974 Monterey and 5,200 square feet at 978 and 982
Monterey, respectively.
Page 5-18
Construction
The structures have unreinforced masonry exterior and interior demising walls. Roofs and
some interior walls are wood framed. The buildings do not have an automatic fire -
suppression system.
Condition
At the street level, the building elevations display a simple structure with individualistic
storefronts at each of the independent businesses. The buildings appear to be in fairly good
condition, with the exception that the seismic upgrading for the unreinforced masonry
walls has not yet been performed.
Zoning
The site is zoned C -C -K Central Commercial Zone with an Historical and Architectural
Preservation Overlay. Dwelling units are allowed in this zone, however, a density bonus or
some other method would be required to provide the density proposed. The allowable
density is 36 units per acre. The combined lots offer 11,766 square feet or 0.27 acre. That
would allow a total of 9.7 density units. This would equate to nine two-bedroom
apartments, or sic three-bedroom apartments, or four dwellings with four or more
bedrooms. The consultant team proposes 13.3 density units, for a density of 49 units per
acre.
Proposed exterior after construction.
Page 5-19
Proposed Conversion
Housing Type
The consultant team proposes that, for the purpose of this case study, these two lots be
considered combined. The existing buildings would be demolished, and eight one -bedroom
and eight two-bedroom, market -rate apartments or condominiums would be constructed
on the second and third floors above new commercial space on the first floor.
Intended Client Group
The consultant team's proposal would provide housing for middle-income individuals and
couples.
Accessibility Issues
Since housing would be provided on upper levels, it might be necessary to provide an
elevator, as much for accessibility as for marketability in this price range.
Transportation Issues
Typically individuals 'in this client group would own automobiles. Some parking spaces
might be available on site, accessible by easement from Palm Street. Another possibility
would be to set aside a number of parldng spaces in the Palm Street parking structure
nearby. Ideally, the residents would be employed in the downtown area, thereby reducing
their dependence on the automobile. It should be emphasized that without a reasonable
amount of convenient and safe parking, this type of housing might be difficult to promote 40
in the downtown core.
Necessary Changes to Buildings
The consultant team proposes, for this case, that the entire existing structures be removed
and replaced. As with the other case studies, floors, ceilings and walls will need to
conform to sound -transmission and fire -resistance requirements for apartments.
It should be noted that the buildings selected for this case study demonstrate a situation
typical of many sites identified in the building survey as Category 5 — sites could be
cleared for new housing (refer to Chapter 3). The individual properties might not be large
enough for the development of efficient housing projects, the economics necessary for
success might be achieved by combining properties.
Impact on Utilities and Services
The addition of housing at this density would not have a major impact on utilities and
services.
Page 5-20
1 Ownership/Financing Options
The consultant anticipates that a project like this would be privately held. Condominium
ownership of the residential units as well as the commercial space could provide the return
on investment that developers require.
Government Fee Implications
The project would not be owned or actively managed by the San Luis Obispo Housing
Authority. Therefore, it would not be exempt from development review fees. In addition,
it would be not be exempt from the new traffic impact fees, because it is providing a new
use even though there is an existing structure. Those.fees would be $1,095 per dwelling in
this land -use area. Wastewater and water impact fees would also be based on the number
of new units. Those fees combined are currently $6,608 per apartment or condominium
unit. The project would also require fees for water allocations and for parking based on
the increase in use. Credits against the development review fees would be available from
the expense of the engineering analysis of the unreinforced masonry seismic retrofit study.
School impact fees would also apply.
Additional Design Factors
In this case, the consultant team proposes constructing a new, three-story building, but the
portion of the building adjacent. to Monterey Street is proposed to be only two stories high
to keep the visual scale of the project in line with the buildings on either side of it. The
third floor would be stepped back from the street.
Small, private exterior spaces would be provided at both levels of the housing on roof
decks. As with the other case studies, this would give the residents an outdoor living
space.
Compatibility With Other Uses and Adjacent Properties
With the possible exception of how the parking is handled, there should be no
compatibility problems with the construction of housing at this location. The site is near
the largest concentration of housing in the downtown area, the Anderson Hotel, and is
located across the street from the last proposed residential project in the downtown, the
Court Street Project.
Page 5-21
Financial Evaluation by Schenberger, Taylor, McCormick and Jecker, Inc.
968 through 982.Mont ft:
Alternate A A mix of eight single -bedroom and eight two-bedroom apartment units
above ground -floor commercial
• Based on a detailed analysis, the Net Operating Income (NOI) is $190,109
• At a capitalization rate of 0.85, this income would support a project value of $2.200.000
• Construction of new facility (based on architect's evaluation) $2.500.000
Project Return: $ - 300,000
Alternate B: Assume 12 studios and eight single -bedroom units above ground -floor retail.
• Monthly rental is $ 24,800
• Based on a detailed analysis, the Net Operating Income (NOI) is $192,509
• At a capitalization rate of 0.85, this income would support a project value of $2.264.800
• Construction of new facility (based on architect's evaluation) $2:520.000
Project Return: $-2551100
While slightly better than the first assumption, there is still a negative return.
If the land were assumed to have a value of $40 per square foot ($400,000)
The project would require a subsidy of $655,200 or an average of $32,760 per unit.
Alternate C: Retail first floor, office of 8,000 s.£ on second floor and dwelling units on
the third floor.
• Monthly rental is $ 27,000
• Based on a detailed analysis, the Net Operating Income (NOI) is $215,460
• At a capitalization rate of 0.85, this income would support a project value of $2.540.000
• Construction of new facility (based on architect's evaluation) $1.954.000
Project Return 586,000
This equates to a land value of $43.43 per square foot.
Alternate D: Retail first floor, office of 16,000 st on second and third floors
• Monthly rental is estimated to be $ 39,000
• Based on a detailed analysis, the Net Operating Income (NOI) is $311,2200
• At a capitalization rate of 0.85, this income would support a project value of $3.680.000
• Constriction of new facility (based on architect's evaluation) $2,824,000
Project Return 856,000
This equates to a land value of $66.36 per square foot.
In summary, only offices above retail commercial would generate a positive land value.
All the residential options would require housing subsidies.
Page 5-22
Case Study #4
779 Higuera Street
Photograph of the Building in 1995
Existing Building Descriptions
Location
The building is located on Higuera Street between Garden and Chorro streets. Although
the building has openings to the rear, they do not provide a legal access or exit. The
building was constructed to the property lines and no agreement for an easement exists
with the adjoining property owners.
Building Description
The building under consideration for this case study is a one-story unreinforced masonry
structure. Some of the construction on this building dates back to at least the late 1880s.
Current Uses
The building is occupied by four different retail businesses. The building is privately
owned.
Existing Size
The site consists of a 6,750 -square -foot lot entirely covered by the structure.
Construction
The structure of the building is unreinforced masonryy exterior and interior demising walls.
Roofs and some interior walls are wood framed. The building does not have an automatic
fire -suppression system.
Page 5-23
Condition
At the street level, the exterior elevation of the building displays a simple structure with
individualistic storefronts at each of the independent businesses. The budding appears to
be in fairly good shape with the exception of the need for seismic upgrading of the
unreinforced masonry walls.
Zoning
The site is zoned C -C H, Central Commercial Zone with an Historical and Architectural
Preservation overlay. Dwellings are allowed in this zone, but a density increase would be
required to accomplish the proposed project. The allowable density is 36 units per acre..
The site is 6,750 square feet, or 0.155 acres. That would allow a density of 5.6 units. The
consultant team proposes four one -bedroom apartments and four two-bedroom
apartments, which add up to 6.64 density units.
Proposed. Conversion
Housing Type
For the purposes of this case study, the consultant team proposes adding four one -
bedroom apartments and four two-bedroom apartments above the existing one-story
commercial building. The apartments would be two-story units occupying the new second
and third floors, with living areas on the first level and bedrooms on the upper level. The
dwellings would be accessed from a corridor at the center of the building on the second
floor. Commercial and retail uses would continue on the first floor.
Intended Client Group
The consultant team's proposal would provide housing mainly for students, working
singles and couples.
Accessibility. Issues
If the apartments were privately funded and located on an inaccessible floor, it would not
be required to provide an elevator. Also, with the "townhouse" design of the apartments,
the market demand for an elevator might not be great, because the apartment entrances
would be only on the second floor.
Transportation Issues
Typically, individuals in this client group would own automobiles. There is no private
parking available on or near the site. One possible solution would be to set aside a number
of parking spaces in the Marsh Street parking structure nearby. Ideally, the tenants would
be employed in the downtown area, which would reduce their dependence on the
automobile. It should be noted, however, that without the provision of some parking, this
type of housing might be difficult to promote in the downtown core.
Page 5-24
7 Necessary Changes to Building
To provide the housing on the upper floors as proposed in this study, it might be necessary
to reconstruct much of the existing building. As with the other case studies, floors, ceilings
and walls would need to conform to sound -transmission and fire -resistance requirements
for apartments. The consultant team anticipates that all of the building's infrastructure
systems, ie., water, sewer, electrical and mechanical would need to be upgraded. In
addition, the building would need to be strengthened to meet the unreinforced masonry
seismic strengthening requirements, and an automatic fire -suppression system would need
to be installed.
Additional Design Factors
The entire project would be three stories in height, but small balconies would be provided
at the living and bedroom levels of the apartments. For light and ventilation and to avoid
the requirement of protected openings (per UBC Table 5-A) the team proposes stepping
the second level back from the property line. Although this would satisfy the requirement
for light and ventilation, it would not satisfy the egress requirement for bedrooms. The
balcony would need to have a conforming exit to Higuera Street and this would be
impractical to provide at each location. Therefore, it would be necessary to provide a
conforming window or door into the common courtyard. The courtyard would then be
designed as required for an exit court as defined by the Uniform Building Code. A similar
solution would be provided at the second bedroom of the two-bedroom apartments.
Refer to the drawing on page 5-26.
Impact on Utilities and Services
Because the use of the site would be intensified, there would be an impact on utilities and
services. However, the size of the project would not be so great that those impacts could
not be absorbed by the existing systems..
Ownership/Financing Options
The consultant team anticipates the project would be privately held, although a project of
this nature could possible fit into a Section 8 or some other method of public assistance.
Page 5-25
Government Fee Implications
The project would probably not be owned or actively managed by the San Luis Obispo
Housing Authority. Therefore, it would not be exempt from development review fees. In
,t addition, it would not be exempt from the new traffic impact fees, because it is providing a
new use even though it is, in part, an existing structure. Those fees would be $1,095 per
dwelling in this land -use area: Wastewater and water impact fees would also be based on
the increase in the number of units. Those fees combined are currently $6,608 per
apartment or condominium unit. The project would also require.fees for water allocations
and for parldng based on the increase in use. Credits against the development review fees
would be available from the expense of the engineering analysis of the unreinforced
masonry seismic retrofit. A rough estimate of City fees would be $66,000 for the entire
project. In addition, on the basis of 11,200 square feet of residential area, the school fees
for this project would be $16,800.
Compatibility With Other Uses and Adjacent Properties.
Probably the most contentious aspect of this proposal would be the disruption to adjacent
business and the businesses within the building during construction. Housing currently
exists in the building to the west of the subject property.
7 __M 1 2 � 1
6x 1�m 111 31 I I4
Two Bedroom Apartment 18 8 I One Bedroom Apartment
Higuera Street
SECTIONAL DRAWING
Commercial / Retail
Legend
1 Skylight
2 Skylight for light and ventilation
3 Window to meet egress requirements.
4 Window or door to meet egress requirements.
5 Stepped balconies
I
5
0
6 Balconies
7 Cornice design to compliment existing architectural features.
8 Entrances to apartments.
9 Property line
Page 5-26
Financial Evaluation by Schenberger, Taylor, McCormick and Jecker, Inc.
779 Higuera Street: (a mix of 6,750 square feet of street -level retail and eight apartments
on the upper floors)
This evaluation is for the residential component only — no land acquisition costs would be
required, since residential development would be done by the owner.
• Based on a detailed analysis, the Net Operating Income (NOI) is $ 531000
• At a capitalization rate of 0.85, this income would support: a project value of $ 623,500
• The land/bldg. value (exists, no additional cost to owner for acquisition) 0
• Construction of new facility (based on architect's evaluation) $1.743.550
Project Costs: $ 1,743,550
Net difference between project costs and value in this scenario
Approx cost per residential unit (no commercial costs)
To meet market -rates, cost per unit (and break even), the unit value is
(For a 109/o return on investment the cost per unit would have to be even lower)
The ratio of value to costs is
The subsidy per unit in this case would be $ 140,003
Page 5-27
[$ 1,120,050]
$ 217,943
$ 77,940
36%
case study #5
This case study is actually a discussion of various sites that are currently underutilized or
vacant, i.e., Category 3 or 5 of the building survey.
Locations
A Vacant land:
582 I-Eguera.
1108 Monterey - combined with 1132 Monterey.
895 Palm Street - next to City Engineering on Morro Street.
B. Vacant buildings:
1144 I-Eguera, formerly Spring Toyota.
C Sites with high potential if completely redeveloped
(four sites with the best potential of the Category 5 sites):
1132 Monterey - County and San Luis Bay Motors.
1330 Monterey - Stanley Motors.
1219 Monterey - Grove Motors (If combined with 1235 Monterey - Ken's Bicycle).
56511iguera - Super Muffler and Brake (could combine with 561 Higuera)..
Introduction
The sites discussed here were selected for the physical ease of converting them from
existing uses to new housing. Any housing projects on these sites would most likely
combine some type of commercial use with the housing.
Most of these sites were used historically for highway commercial uses. When the
highway 101 freeway was built it marooned these uses, making them less appropriate for
their location. Four of these sites, 1144 Monterey, 1330 Monterey, 1219 Monterey and
1144 lEguera, were or are car dealerships. Commercial property in a more appropriate
setting (Los Osos Valley Road) has become available for this type of use, and some of the
dealerships have relocated.
One benefit of the former dealership sites is that they are relatively large sites
unencumbered with structures. As such, they provide the opportunity for larger -scale
development without substantial demolition costs or the need to combine parcels.
Specific Sites
1132 and 1103 Monterey - County of San Luis Obispo and San Luis Bay Motors .
This site, if combined, would provide one of the largest lots in the study area The site is
proposed as an expansion area for the County Government Center. To provide housing in
this location would require that the County develop a mixed-use project with offices,
Page 5-28
parking and, most likely, assisted housing. Depending on the configuration, it might also
entail a density bonus and possibly an exception to the height limitation.
1219 and 1235 Monterey - Grove Motors and Ken's Bicycle Shop.
These privately held properties could be combined and a small-scale, commercial -
residential project developed. It would be necessary to displace the current uses.
1330 Monterey - Stanley Motors
This is the site of the largest car dealership in the downtown study area. If this site were to
be combined with 1308 Monterey (Union gas station), it would compare in size to the
County site (1144 Monterey). This site would also have the advantage that the adjacent
uses are currently'residential. This may be an appropriate location for mixing commercial
uses and market -rate housing. A project would require the displacement of the existing
businesses.
1144 Higuera - Spring Toyota
This site has many of the advantages of the 1330 Monterey site, but, most important, it is
vacant. The City's Downtown Conceptual Physical Plan has identified this site for a
transportation center. Possibly there could be a mixed-use project, with either market -rate
or publicly assisted housing.
895 Palm Street - next to City Public Works Department on Morro Street.
The city recently demolished the structure on this site and built a parking lot. The site, as
with other parking lots, could be used for housing by building over the parking lot.
565 and 561 Higuera - Super Muffler and Brake.
If combined, this could be the site for a small-scale development, because the properties
are developed below their potential, especially for their location.
582 Higuera
This parcel is vacant land. It could be the site of a small-scale development combining
commercial uses with residential and on-site parking.
Summary
In general, these specific sites, in addition to the others identified as Category 3 or 5 in the
building survey, hold the potential of providing housing within the downtown core area
Because of the sites' varied of characteristics, including such features as location, size,
existing uses, adjacent uses and ownership, there is a wide variety of projects that could be
developed. This discussion is intended only to offer the possibilities.
Page 5-29
Financial Evaluation by Scbenberger, Taylor, McCormick and Jecker, Inc.
Several sites with vacant land:
Since the properties are so varied, no economic evaluation has been provided. In these
cases, conventional economic pro -forma studies would be routine. The significant factors
affecting development would be the relatively higher land costs in the downtown core and
the number of residential units that could be placed on a particular site.
Page 5-30
Chapter 6: Analysis and Recommendations
Chapter 6: Analysis and Recommendations
Introduction
One finding of this study is that, under current economic conditions, there is a significant
gap between the returns a private developer can expect from a housing project and the
cost of producing that housing.. Itis cheaper and easier to build housing in areas other
than downtown. Further, while there is interest in living in the core area, those who wish
to live there are either not able or not willing to pay the market rates needed to support
new housing. This gap is the reflection of a long-term trend that will not easily be
reversed for a community the size of San Luis Obispo
The same cost differential occurs throughout California and has made the suburbs the
"cheap" option. To quote the recent publication Beyond Sprawl, by the Bank of America
and others, "Continued sprawl may seem inexpensive for a new home buyer or a growing
business on the suburban fringe, but the ultimate cost — to those home owners, to the
government, and to society at large — is potentially crippling." The "cost" described here
is the ultimate cost to the community in maintenance services, pollution and degradation
of the quality of life for the residents.
Yet the City has a vested interest in preserving and enhancing its downtown, and housing
can be one of the components in that process. The City's interest is shown by their
investment in utilities and public transportation networks, and their efforts to maintain
the economic vitality of the core area. There is also a civic pride and emotional
attachment to the downtown on the part of those who live and work here.
This study evaluates the opportunities, constraints and programs that effect the supply of
housing in the downtown San Luis Obispo study area. At this point, development
opportunities available to the private sector do not offset the constraints and costs. The
result is that no significant housing is being constructed in the core area. In fact there
continues to be a slow erosion of the existing housing stock, according to the U.S. Census
Bureau
San Luis Obispo is no exception to those trends and perceptions. While some limitations
to sprawl have been implemented here, perhaps to a greater extent than in many other
communities in California, there is still a significant number of people who commute to
work in San Luis Obispo from neighboring areas. Further, the passing of significant costs
on to developers and ultimately to buyers and tenants tends to reinforce this dispersion of
housing to surrounding areas. It is the consultant team's conclusion that the present
combination of policies and conditions is a significant disincentive to the development of
new housing in the core area. Recent changes to the Housing Element, while potentially
beneficial to low- and moderate -income housing users, have not closed the gap for new,
market -rate housing projects downtown.
Page 6-1
What does all of this mean for our community? What are the constraints to new
downtown housing projects? How can we overcome them, and what are the costs? The
next several pages contain the consultant team's evaluation of the issues facing
downtown housing and offer recommendations for creating a better atmosphere for
housing development.
The Cost Differential: What Are the Problems?
There is limited demand for market -rate housing downtown, that is, housing that would
serve middle- and upper-income users. This modest demand would be difficult to change
because it would require a change in people's attitude about where and how they live.
Many people live in the San Luis Obispo area because it has a relatively small-town
character and a rural setting. Individuals, especially those at the upper end of the
economic spectrum, who could afford to pay market rates, tend to prefer living in the
single-family neighborhoods or rural areas of the County because they can maintain
residences on large parcels of land. Those strongly attracted to the urban lifestyle and
who are willing to pay for it, tend to live in larger metropolitan areas.
Many California coastal communities such as Monterey, Santa Barbara and Santa Cruz
face similar challenges in maintaining a strong residential component in the downtown.
The consultant team found that while some of the solutions generated in these
communities were successful, they actually produced relatively few housing units in their
core areas. In Monterey and Santa Cruz, multiple -use commercial and residential
redevelopment projects have been completed in existing buildings. In Monterey, the
redevelopment costs of one building, which was critical to the downtown area, exceeded
estimates, making it unlikely that the process will be repeated in a similar fashion. Santa
Barbara has used redevelopment funds in areas adjacent to the downtown to develop
housing but has not had significant success using them in the core area. Santa Cruz has a
private mixed-use building with commercial development on the ground floor and a
variety of apartments on upper floors that required less public support than similar
projects in Santa Barbara and Monterey and is now self-sustaining. So far, however, that
is the only successful mixed-use project that the consultant team is aware of that has
brought housing back into downtown Santa Cruz in an existing structure.
As we mentioned before, it seems improbable that there will be a significant change on
the demand side for downtown market -rate units. Therefore the balance of this section
will deal with the issues that affect costs on the supply side of the equation. In other
words, it will examine how the City can assist developers in making downtown housing
more affordable by reducing costs.
Page 6-2
The consultant team identified several issues relating to the cost of providing housing in
the core area. They are as follows:.
1. Operation costs and management
According to several local property managers, the cost to manage housing is nearly
twice that of managing comparable retail and office properties_ This is in part the
result of higher turnover rates and vacancy factors. According to Jerry Taylor of
Schenberger, Taylor, McCormick and Jecker, there is also a higher maintenance
factor, because kitchens and bathrooms in residences require more maintenance than
commercial space. Commercial tenants also have a greater direct interest in a weIl-
maintained facility, because the image of their business depends on it, at least in part
These factors are reflected in a higher capitalization rate for housing projects (a rate
that takes into account all the factors effecting return on investment such as vacancy,
maintenance and related risks). The higher rate means that there must be a higher
income per square foot for the building to achieve the same economic return to the
owner. That is generally true of any comparison between a multi -family residential
building and a commercial structure.
2. Building Code issues.
Residential structures have more -stringent exiting, lighting and ventilation
requirements than commercial structures. The Building Code requirements that
affect housing, such as special fire- and sound -resistive floor and wall construction,
make the development of the upper floors of downtown buildings into housing, more
expensive than a commercial occupancy. The requirements add cost and thereby
make the potential return on an investment in a residential project less than the return
on the same investment in a commercial or office structure.
3. Remodel inefficiency
The conversion of an existing office or even of a residential building to contemporary
housing seldom results in a layout that is as efficient as a new structure. The
remodeled spaces are often difficult to make compatible with residential market
requirements and current codes. Exits, kitchen and bathroom requirements, and
expectations have changed since many of the early residential buildings were
designed. Conversion of existing office structures to residential uses may prove to be
even less efficient because kitchens, bathrooms and exit routes must be superimposed
over the old structural layout.
For example, the building at 729 Higuera has nearly 12,000 square feet of space
available for new apartments. Yet a reasonable architectural layout could achieve no
more than 12 apartments. In a new building this amount of space could yield 16 to
18 units, depending on floor plan. The reason is twofold. First, construction above
existing commercial space is constrained by the locations where stairs and elevators
can be placed. A premium is paid for the location of exits and circulation. Second,
Page 6-3
the layout is often less efficient because of external constraints such as the size or
shape of the lower floor, flues, vents or other similar projections, historical features,
and structural constraints.
A new building can accommodate as many as 25% more units than an old hotel or
boarding house on the same site, according to evaluations prepared in the case study
process.
4. Higher land cost.
Land adjacent to the core is valued in the $20 to $25 per square foot range, whereas
in the core area, it is between $40 and $60 per square foot. The expected return on
commercial land in the core might be two or three times as high as for a similar -size
parcel of residentially zoned land near the core. The result is that the land cost per
dwelling unit in the core area can be twice as great as that in the perimeter area. This
differential can be partially offset by greater residential densities, which help equalize
the land value on a per-unit basis.
5. Remodel costs.
While it would appear that the purchase of an existing building would save a
significant amount of the new construction cost, our case studies indicate that this is
not always true. The case studies show that remodel costs per square foot vary
considerably from building to building. In recent years, the economic scales have
increasingly tipped away from the old buildings because of unreinforced masonry
seismic retrofit and fire -sprinkler requirements, as well as handicapped access. While
these items are laudable, they have added to the costs of conversion.
The additional costs inherent in the remodel of an existing building manifest
themselves in three ways. First, only some portions of the original building can be
saved and reused. In fact, often only the shell and the floors are preserved. Secondly,
the exterior, usually masonry, might require significant reinforcing to meet seismic
requirements, and often the openings have to be modified to meet Code requirements.
Finally, new construction in the interior is more costly because it must be done within
the confines of an existing shell with more labor=intensive methods. Contingencies
for asbestos and unknown conditions must be included in any cost computations.
Page 6-4
6. City fees.
Building fees are higher in San Luis Obispo than in neighboring communities such as
Arroyo Grande, Atascadero, Santa Maria and unincorporated areas of the county.
Fees in San Luis Obispo are estimated to be in the range of $11 to $12 per square foot
for a nonsubsidized residential project of eight or more dwelling units. For
Atascadero the equivalent range is $7 to $7.50; Arroyo Grande $9.40 to $10; Santa
Maria $8.90 to $10.20 and in unincorporated areas of the county, such as Los Osos,
$3.50 to $4.00. The only communities with higher development fees are Templeton
and Paso Robles. Both of those communities have fees in the $13.25 range when their
traffic or bridge fees are included. (Appendix H has a more detailed analysis of these
fees.) Development fees are therefore 10% to 35% higher in San Luis Obispo than in
Atascadero, Arroyo Grande and Santa Maria, which are the major competitive
housing markets. Assuming a construction cost of $80 per square foot, the
development fees add as much as 14%.
7. Processing time
The design of any housing project downtown can be a very complicated process,
particularly the remodel of an existing building or the addition of new floors over an
existing commercial structure. The required city processing might include a
conditional use permit, Architectural Review Commission review, Cultural Heritage
Committee review and Building Code review. While certainly necessary, these can
add significant time and uncertainty to the design process.
While difficult to quantify, this uncertainty is perceived as a significant disincentive
to development in San Luis Obispo. Feedback from Jerry Taylor as well as members
of the focus group revealed that some developers prefer to do a quick, superficial
remodel rather than take on a complex project, out of concern about significant
impact fees, design review time and other delays. This attitude might not be
consistent with all potential builders, but it does reflect a perception that certainly
doesn't.help produce housing downtown.
Page 6-5
Recommendations
These constraints to downtown housing are formidable. The recommendations below,.
while certainly not a panacea, will help to establish a positive atmosphere for the
development of housing downtown. We encourage the City to take these steps now so
that when economic conditions improve, developers and the community will be in
position to enjoy the benefits.
The items contained in Recommendation #1 are intended to reduce costs and to shorten
the time necessary to develop a project. The other recommendations deal with related
issues and could help overcome some of the obstacles to bringing housing to the core
area of San. Luis Obispo.
Recommendation 1: Change ordinances and policies to facilitate core area housing.
1.1. Housing Density in the Core Area
Issue: The City limits housing density to 36 units per acre in the core area for
market -rate housing, with a 25% or greater bonus allowed for "affordable" housing.
This is not sufficient to offset land and other costs in the development of housing in
the downtown. (Note that the City defines one density unit as equivalent to a two-
bedroom dwelling.)
Evaluation: The density issue has two components, 'I)the small size of many of the
parcels downtown, and 2) land costs that are much higher downtown than in
peripheral areas.
Concerning the former, many of the downtown parcels are less than 0.2 acres in size.
This translates into a maximum of four to six (two-bedroom) units per parcel. The
administrative costs (including permitting, financing and project administration) for a
four to six unit project are nearly the same as for a 20 -unit project. The effort is high
for a small return.
The second issue relates to the cost of developing a project downtown. If the land is
two, times more expensive downtown than elsewhere in the city ($40 to $60 per
square foot downtown as compared to $20 to $25 per square foot out of the core), the
net return to a developer would clearly be better in other areas of the City.
An obvious concern is that if allowable densities are raised significantly, our
community character could be diminished. The issue is not so simple. First of all, the
physical size of downtown housing is substantially less than comparable housing
elsewhere. A two-bedroom unit downtown might be 850 square feet in size, whereas
a single-family, two-bedroom house could be 50% larger. Secondly, the consultant
Page 6-6
team is proposing that allowable densities be raised only to the level that already
exists downtown.
For example, the E.E. Long building at the corner of Marsh and Garden Streets has as
many as 12 one -bedroom apartments on a 0.15 acresite. Correcting for the two-
bedroom "density" designation (a one -bedroom unit equals 0.66 units), the actual
density comes to 52 units per acre. Another example is the Anderson Hotel, which
has 70 studio apartments (0.5 units each), which equals 83 units per acre. These
buildings are accepted as part of the community character.
Recommended Action:
• Increase the allowable density for core -area housing projects from 36 to 60 units
per acre. Control of the character and bulk of any project should be maintained by
the existing development permit processes.
• Ask the Architectural Review Commission to develop design guidelines that
would keep core -area buildings using this higher density, compatible with the
community character.
1.2. Codes and. Construction Ordinances
Issue: Openings in the property -line walls of existing buildings, which provide light
and ventilation to the upper floors, are not permitted by current Building Department
policies because of concerns about the spread of fire.
Evaluation: One of the chief concerns of the Building Code has always been the
possible spread of fire from one building to another. In the past, openings in property -
line walls have .been allowed, but more recently the Building Code has prohibited
them. If a property owner wants to do a substantial remodel that alters such walls, the
openings have to be closed If they are allowed to remain, they can pose a fire danger
and infringe on the ability of the adjacent property owner to construct a building that
would cover the openings.
While there has been concern about the constraints of the Building Code and other
City construction ordinances on downtown housing, most of the requirements are not
subject to change, because they deal with public health and safety issues. Relaxing
those standards can lead to legal liability issues for both the City and any
professionals involved However, a more -flexible interpretation of the Code sections
relating to openings in property -line walls might help to facilitate housing in
downtown situations where such openings exist. The consultant team believes that
this interpretation is within the discretion of the Building Official and that
appropriate health and safety protections can be incorporated.
Page 6-7
Recommended Action:
e Adopt permissive language in the City's Construction Code to allow openings in
the walls along a common property line between existing buildings to remain on a
case-by-case basis when the following conditions are met:
1. Both property owners enter into a recorded agreement accepting the situation
and its limitations.
2. The total area of both buildings, when combined, does not exceed the area
allowed by the Building Code based on the construction type.
3. Automatic fire protection is provided at the openings.
1.3. Parking requirements
Issue: Current parking requirements are ill suited to the needs of downtown housing.
Evaluation: The City's parking requirements vary, depending on the number of
bedrooms per dwelling. For a studio apartment the requirement is one parking space.
For larger units the requirement is one -and -a -half parking spaces for the first
bedroom plus one-half of space for each additional bedroom in a unit, plus one for
each five units in developments of more than five units. In the Central Commercial
zone (C -C) this requirement is reduced to half of that required in other zones. The
City's rationale for this is that many of the shopping and work trips do not require an
automobile and downtown residents are more likely to walk or use public
transportation.
The consultant team believes that there is a need for at least one parking space per
dwelling unit in the core area and that the 50% reduction for housing in the C -C zone
should be repealed This is higher than the current requirements for the studio and
one -bedroom market -rate units. This recommendation reflects what the consultant
team sees as a cultural trend, that virtually every adult or couple owns an automobile.
This might not be the case with elderly and handicapped citizens, and the reduction
allowed for projects serving those tenants should be continued. Similarly, it is our
feeling that the guest parking requirement should be dropped for projects in the
downtown area because there are sufficient spaces in the parking lots and structures,
particularly in the evenings and on weekends.
The issue of the location of parking is critical. Based on discussions with \Jerry
Taylor and the focus group, the consultant team is strongly inclined to recommend
that, in the case of new buildings, as much of the parking be provided on site as
possible, at least 50%. The remainder of the spaces, orin the case of a remodeled
building where on-site parking is impossible, all the spaces should be provided
through reserved, secure parking in a lot or structure nearby. The lot or structure
could be public or private but should be within two blocks of the proposed units. The
City might explore the idea of a private area in its newer structures that can be
Pace 6-8
accessed only by the residents. The consultant team found that the lack of secure,
convenient parking is one of the most serious constraints on the demand for housing
in the core area One property manager in the focus group suggested that tenants
would be willing to pay the higher rates necessary to cover the cost to provide it.
Recommended Action:
• Revise the City parking ordinances to require that, in the downtown core area,
there be at least one parking space per dwelling unit, but keep the current
exemptions for elderly and handicapped tenants.
• Revise City parking lot and structure design policies to allow for reserved, secure
parking for downtown residents.
• Include in the parking requirements that in the case of a downtown building, as
much of the required parking be provided on-site as possible. The remainder of
the required spaces, should be provided through reserved, secure spaces in a
parking lot or structure within 500 feet of the units. If the off-site lot or structure
is public, in lied' fees would be appropriate to pay for the spaces. If the lot or
structure is private, a durable, long-term agreement for the parking spaces would
be necessary.
- 1.4. Physical Constraints to Construction
i�
Issue: Construction in the core area is hampered by a lack of staging areas and limits
on working time.
Evaluation: One of the greatest physical problems facing a contractor working in the
downtown area is the lack of a staging area, which is needed for material storage and
the assembly of building components. There is a need to show support for housing by
making it easier to build downtown. Consideration should be given to providing more
street space on a temporary basis. There is also the potential to re-route pedestrian
traffic temporarily.
Recommended Action:
• Extend the hours available for construction in the core area, particularly in the
morning.
• Review the construction barrier guidelines with an eye to reducing the expense.
• Temporarily re -stripe streets to facilitate better movement of vehicles and
materials..
• Make unmetered parking available for construction projects in the core area to
accommodate workers and delivery of materials.
Page 6-9
15. Housina Specialist
Issue: The City's development review procedures are perceived by many to be
complex In general, developers and owners believe that it takes large amounts of
time and effort to achieve project approval.
Evaluation: Project review is complicated and processing requirements often
change. Issues such as density, development fees, unreinforced masonry building
strengthening and fire -sprinkler requirements, not to mention funding sources, all
need to be understood for the successful completion of a project. Accurate and
current information about these issues must be available to the property owner or
prospective developer. The appropriate source' of this information is the City staff,
but because inquiries are few, no one staff member has a complete understanding of
all the issues. If downtown housing is to be promoted to the extent suggested in this
report, a greater effort will be required.
Recommended Action:
• Designate one staff member as a housing specialist whose duties would be to
handle all core -area housing projects. This person would be an ambassador for
the permitting process and act as an advocate for housing. This person should be
knowledgeable about all aspects of downtown housing, including financing
programs, and should have the authority to schedule the necessary review steps.
1.6. Development Impact Fees
Issue: The City imposes significant development and resource -impact fees on any
project.
Evaluation: The City's development review fees are relatively small and are
designed to cover processing costs incurred by the staff in reviewing a project Far
more significant are the City's resource -impact fees, an area where the City's policies
are seen to be contradictory. For example, downtown housing is encouraged, but the
resource impact fees attached are onerous. Air and traffic impact fees would be
collected for a downtown housing project even though air and traffic impacts are not
generated by such a project to the same degree as by a project at the edge of town.
This issue is discussed further in Chapters 4 and 7.
Recommended Action:
• Reduce the development fees for market -rate downtown housing projects by 70%.
(Public projects and those that qualify as low-income housing would continue to
have all fees waived.)
Page 6-10
1.7. Use of City funds
Issue: Is the use of City funds in support of housing a valid request in light of the
many competing demands? To what extent should those funds be devoted to housing
in the core area?
Evaluation: The City has a backlog of housing demand and a Housing Element
policy that calls for the supply of more low- and moderate -income housing. Yet
without a significant change in the local economy and a related increase in the
support for housing by those living here, the downtown housing supply will not be
developed in the foreseeable future. It is the opinion of the consultant team that if
there is to be a significant amount of new housing developed downtown, the City will
have to assist by devoting money and effort to the process.
Recommended Action:
• Develop a grant and loan program by which the cost of housing in the core area
can be offset by direct City support up to a limit of 20% of the cost to produce
comparable housing outside the downtown.
L& Financing Strategies
Issue: There is a gap between the cost to produce housing and the income generated.
Evaluation: The case study evaluations confirm that under today's market
conditions, housing in the core area will not generate returns to the owner sufficient
to make it a worthwhile investment. If housing is to be provided, the means will have
to be found to close this gap. A variety of financing strategies is available. In
addition to direct support, the City can facilitate financing by setting up programs to
receive block grants, enabling access to low interest loans and providing assistance to
owners in obtaining favorable financing.
Recommended Action:
• Concentrate Community Development Block Grants and Home Program fimding
in the downtown core.
• Use Section 108 funds to support loans for downtown housing.
• Make greater use of tax -credit financing for downtown housing.
• Encourage local lenders to lend at below market rates for qualifying housing
projects in the core area
• Seek to package several different types of funding sources, which will help close.
the economic gap.
• Work to extend favorable mortgage financing loans through Section 108
Cguaranteed loans.
Page 6-11
Recommendation 2: Guide development in critical areas
The consultant team feels that some sites in the core area are so critical to the
public's perception of the downtown that they should be developed under special
guidance by the City and should include housing. These sites are near the Mission
and adjacent to many of the city's most prized historical buildings. They are locations
where two or three stories are appropriate and the residential component would serve
as a valuable addition to the area. A poorly designed or non -compatible building in
these locations would be a particular loss to the fabric and character of the
downtown.
A. Former Blackstone Hotel
This site is at the corner of Monterey and Chorro streets. The current structure
provides a backdrop to Mission Plaza and fronts on Monterey Street across from
the Sinsheimer Building. Use of Community Development Block Grant funds in
conjunction with the guidance of the Housing Authority is recommended to insure
that this key site is developed appropriately.
B. Palm - Monterey block
The city -owned property within the block between Monterey and Palm streets and
Chorro and Morro streets has been proposed for multi -use development by several
people, including City Hall architect Fred Sweeny and by the authors of the
Downtown Physical Concept Plan. This site provides a unique opportunity for a
mixed-use project, because of its topography, size, location and City ownership.
Development of this land should be a long-range, multi -phased effort by the City,
with housing as a major component on the upper floors above commercial uses.
Recommendation 3: Consider formation of a redevelopment district
Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz and Monterey are communities that are successfully using
Redevelopment Districts to improve their downtowns. Santa Barbara and Monterey
have used redevelopment to provide assisted housing at key sites. Monterey has
restored an old hotel in the commercial business district. Santa Barbara has even
gone so far as to provide assisted housing in a private -sector project outside the
district. San Jose, while not comparable in size or character to San Luis Obispo, has
one of the most successful Redevelopment Authorities in the United States. It
defined its tax base to include much of the Silicon Valley and has a working income
of over $60 million a year. Parks, housing, recreation facilities and historical
preservation have all used money from this program. 'See page 6-2 for further
discussion.
The formation of a Redevelopment District can provide significant resources. The
consultant team understands, however, that the City may find the formation of a
Redevelopment Agency a formidable task The issue of whether there is enough
Page 6-12
O
"derelict" property to qualify for a Redevelopment District might be raised-
However,
aisedHowever, the number of unreinforced masonry buildings assures that the downtown
would meet that criterion. The advantages of property consolidation and
redevelopment financing might be worth the effort it would take to evaluate this
option further as one component in bringing housing to the core area.
Recommendation 4: Encourage housing in the downtown periphery
The peripheral, area is defined as the area surrounding the downtown within a two- or
three -block radius. The area includes much of San Luis Obispo's most urban housing,
that is, projects that are greater than single-family in 'density. Even though it is
outside the study area, housing in the downtown periphery is a resource that meets
many of the goals of housing in the core area. It is within two or three blocks of the
downtown and is therefore within walking distance. The residents use the'downtown
almost to the extent that those living in the core area do.
Periphery housing is a significant resource because of the area's relative compactness
and easy access to the downtown. Some 60 residential blocks are within easy walking
distance of the core area.
While it is beyond the scope of this study to evaluate the means of facilitating
housing in the periphery area, many of the recommendations listed above could be
made to apply to the downtown periphery. Consideration should be given to raising
the density, but this must be balanced with the need to protect historical structures
and the character of these neighborhoods.. Perhaps, as with the downtown, additional
design and development latitude can be given if the neighborhood character is
preserved
Page 6-13
Chapter 7: "How To" Manual
Chapter 7:"How To" Manual
Intent
This chapter is intended to aid the landowner or developer by providing information
about the issues and procedures involved in developing housing downtown. There are
often many questions about the process and even some myths and misunderstandings.
These issues are discussed briefly below and in more depth in the previous chapters. This
chapter outlines the factors affecting project development and gives the landowner or
developer some direction on the issues involved. Previous sections are referenced where
appropriate.
In some instances recommendations are made about changing City ordinances or fees.
Where that occurs, the corresponding section in Chapter 6 will be noted, but the status of
the recommended changes should be checked with City staff.
The items in this section are general enough to cover a wide variety of projects in the
downtown area, and, as a result, all items might not apply to every project. To help with
understanding the issues, the former Blackstone Hotel at the corner of Monterey and
Chorro Streets is used as an example.
Zoning, Density and Parking
Housing projects in the downtown area are affected by many factors. The primary factors
to be reviewed include the current zoning, the allowable density, and the amount of
parking that would be required by the project.
1. Zoning.
Within the study area, the current zoning falls into the following categories as defined
by the City's Zoning Regulations:
C -C Central Commercial Zone.
C -C -H Central Commercial Zone with Historical and Architectural Preservation
Overlay.
C -C -H -PD Central Commercial. Zone with Historical and Architectural Preservation
Overlay with Planned Development Zone (applies only to the Court to
Osos, Monterey to Higuera streets block).
C -C -S -H Central Commercial Zone and Special Consideration Zone with Historical
and Architectural Preservation Overlay (applies only to the Mission site).
Page 7-1
Ty
O -H Office Zone with Historical and Architectural Preservation Overlay.
PF Public Facility Zone.
PF -H Public Facility Zone with Historical and Architectural Preservation
Overlay.
C-R Retail Commercial Zone.
These zoning classifications are delineated on the City's Generalized Zoning Map
which is available at the Community Development Department.
According to Table 9, "Uses Allowed by Zones" in Section 17.22.010 of the City of
San Luis Obispo's Zoning Regulations, dwellings are allowed in all zones with the
exception of Public Facilities (P -F) zone. In the C -C and C-R zones, the Community
Development Director's approval is required for dwellings on the ground floor. In the
Office Zone (0), dwellings are allowed on sites occupied only by residential uses, but
an administrative use permit is required to establish dwellings on mixed-use sites.
The purpose of the Historical Preservation (H) Zone is to "Identify parcels, areas or
structures that (1) are architecturally or historically important, and (2) may be eligible
for benefits offered through the City's Historical Preservation Program" (Chapter
17.54, City Zoning Ordinance). Two of the main benefits provided in this program
are the Rehabilitation Assistance Program, a financial assistance program to help
owners with the cost of restoring historical residential buildings, and being able to
use the provisions of the State Historical Building Code, which allows alternate
methods of meeting standard Building Code requirements. Unfortunately the
financial assistance program is not currently being fimded. For more information
refer to the City's publication; "The Historical Preservation Program Guidelines".
2. Density.
According to Section 17.16.010 of the City's Zoning Regulations, density is defined
as the number of dwelling units per net acre. In the C/OS and R-1 zones, each
dwelling unit counts as one unit. In other zones, including the downtown study area,
different size dwellings have unit values as follows:
a. Studio Apartment, 0.50 unit,
b. One -bedroom dwelling, 0.66 unit;
c. Two- bedroom dwelling, 1.00 unit;
& Three-bedroom dwelling,. 1.50 units;
e. Dwellings with four or more bedrooms, 2.0 units.
The maximum density allowed in the downtown area is 36 dwelling units per acre.
But, if a developer is proposing a housing project that incorporates housing that is
affordable to low- and moderate -income households or qualifying seniors, the project
Page 7-2
n may qualify for a "density bonus". Under the Affordable Housing Incentives,
u Chapter 17.90 of the Zoning Regulations, qualifying projects may receive increases in
density of at least 25% over the maximum density otherwise allowed. In addition,
further incentives may be allowed if approved by the City Council. These incentives
may include items such as density bonuses in excess of the 25% noted above, waivers
of application and processing fees, utility connection fees or in -lieu park fees, City -
funded installation of off-site improvements that might be required for the project,
write-down of land costs, or the direct subsidy of construction costs or construction
financing costs.
3. Parking.
In the downtown commercial core, the current parking requirement is half that
required elsewhere in the city.. Because most sites with existing buildings do not have
room for on-site parking, it necessary to pay in -lieu fees for the parking spaces that
are required but cannot be provided. Refer to Section 17.16.060 of the Zoning
Regulations for specifics of the parking requirements and to the section below for a
discussion of in -lieu fees.
Government Agency Costs and Fees
The City and other agencies will impose fees on a proposed development and those fees
will fall into three general categories; development review fees, resource impact fees and
what we will call other fees:
1. City development review fees:
A. Architectural review fee - $650.00 per application.
B. Building permit fees - Based on valuation of the construction.
C. Building plan review fee - Based on valuation of the construction.
D. Fire safety plan review Based on valuation of the construction.
Note that projects owned or actively managed by the San Luis Obispo Housing
Authority are exempt from all development review fees (per City Council Resolution
no. 7030). Development review fees may also be offset by the cost of the engineering
analysis required for the strengthening of unreinforced masonry buildings.
2. Resource impact fees
A. Water and wastewater impact fees - These fees add up to $8,260 for single-family
dwellings and $6,608 for apartments and condominium units.
B. Water allocation program - The City has a water allocation program which
requires developers to offset the water demand of a new project by retrofitting
existing facilities with low -flow toilets. The retrofit currently costs $150 per
toilet, but the number of toilets required to be retrofitted is based on the specifics
of the proposed project
Page 7-3
C. Transportation impact fees This fee, which became effective June 5; 1995,
amounts to $1,095 per individual dwelling in a multi -family residential project.
The fee is not imposed on existing buildings that are; remodeled.
D. Parking in -lieu fees Downtown projects that cannot provide sufficient on-site
parking to meet the zoning requirements for the proposed use must pay in -lieu
parking fees at the rate of $4,000 per space. The City provides a financing
program to help with the cost of these fees.
E. School fees - Pursuant to Assembly Bill 181, school districts have been allowed
to impose fees on new development. Currently this fee is $1.50 per square foot of
new residential construction.
F. Possible affordable housing fees - Although not currently implemented, new
development fees could be required as described in the current city Housing
Element.
3. Other fees
A Water Meter Installation - Depends on the size of the water meter required by the
project.
B. Construction Unit Tax - A flat tax of $150.00 per new dwelling:
Any prospective developer should sit down with the appropriate City staff members
and go over the list of possible fees early in the process of planning a project.
Building Codes and City Ordinances
In addition to zoning and planning issues, there are various construction codes that will
affect a downtown housing project. Within the City of San Luis Obispo; several Building
Codes have been adopted. The following is a listing of the principal codes and their
impacts on construction. A thorough code check should be prepared by an experienced
architect early on in the process of developing a project. Attachment 1, at the end of this
chapter, is an outline of the typical code search methodology and Attachment 2 describes
this process as it applies to the hypothetical Blackstone Hotel project which is described
in chapter 5. The code search outline references both the 1991 and the 1994 edition of
the Building Code.
1. Uniform Building Code (UBC) (with California Amendments).
This is probably the most important document affecting construction. The current
version officially adopted by the City is the 1991 edition, but the 1994 edition has
been approved by the State and; therefore takes precedence.
Page 7-4
2. Uniform Code for Building Conservation.
This code book was created to "provide a community with the means to preserve
their existing buildings while achieving appropriate levels of safety" (International
Conference of Building Officials, ICBO). The main impact of this code on
construction in the downtown would be the seismic strengthening of unreinforced
masonry buildings. In addition, the code provides alternative solutions for fire- and
sound -resistive assemblies for existing buildings.
3. State Historical Building Code.
This code may be beneficial, as it provides for alternative materials and methods of
construction in historical structures. As discussed in the Zoning section of this
chapter, buildings in the Historical Preservation Zone may be eligible to use this
code.
4. City of San Luis Obispo Construction Codes.
This publication covers amendments that the City has made to the model codes and
other requirements specific to construction within the city. It is indispensable for
construction in the downtown. Of special importance in this document are the
following:
a. Fire -sprinkler substitution for one-hour construction.
b. Flood proofing.
c. Unreinforced masonry strengthening provisions.
5. Uniform Fire Code.
Provisions in this code can have a substantial impact on housing, especially those
provisions dealing with fire sprinklers and alarm systems.
6. California Accessibility Statutes and Regulations (Accessibility Reference Manual).
Printed by the State Architect, Office of Regulation Services, Access Compliance,
this manual is the latest available document covering the State handicap accessibility
standards.
7. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
Although this is not a Building Code per se, but rather a civil rights act, it's important
not to ignore the provisions of this act when developing a project. Many of the
provisions have been incorporated into the California Accessibility Statutes and
Regulations. Copies are available from the Office of the State Architect in
Sacramento.
8. Other Construction Codecs.
Other Codes adopted by the City include:
a. Uniform Plumbing Code;
b. Uniform Mechanical Code, and;
c. National Electrical Code.
Page 7-5
Structural Issues
The structural issues involved with a housing project in the downtown depend entirely on
the configuration of the project. Is the project to be a new building or a rehabilitation of
an existing one? In projects that entail the rehabilitation of an existing building, there are
a couple of structural issues that are likely to be common to those buildings. One issue is
that many of the buildings downtown are, at least in part, constructed of unreinforced
masonry.
It has been found from work throughout the State that the structural retrofit of
unreinforced masonry buildings costs about $20 per square foot. This is an average and
the range can go from a low of about $8 to a high of $45 per square foot or more.
Fortunately, here in San Luis Obispo all of the unreinforced masonry buildings have been
analyzed, a repair scheme prepared, and the costs estimated. Those reports are on file
with the City Building Department
Another question that is likely to be common to existing buildings is the adequacy of
their wood framing. In some cases the floor framing is not sufficient to sustain current
code -required loads. The problem is usually solvable by either supplementing the
framing or shortening the span. Similarly, the roof framing is occasionally insufficient
This might be apparent by virtue of a noticeable sag in the ceiling or even broken framing
members. Sometimes the problem is due to excessive layers of roofing applied over the
years. The repair almost always includes removing all layers of roofing, supplementing or
supporting the framing, adding a plywood shear diaphragm and re -roofing the building.
If the proposed project includes adding floors to a building or substantially altering the
existing shell, a new steel frame and foundation system might be the only option.
Services and Utilities
When considering any type of project downtown, it is necessary to review the effects of
the project on the existing utility and civil infrastructures.
Water supply and distribution.
If the current use of the structure is changed or the proposed improvements exceed
50% of the replacement value of the building, it will be necessary to provide an
automatic fire -sprinkler system. This will require an additional connection between
the structure and the water main. In addition, new housing may require that a larger
connection be installed for the domestic service. Even though desirable, it might be
difficult to meter residential units individually simply because the meters take up a
lot of space.
Page 7-6
2. Wastewater collection system.
In general, it is the practice of the City Public Works Department to require video
inspections of existing building sewer lines from the building to the City sewer main
as a condition of any substantial remodel. As a result of this inspection, most older
building's sewer lines are found to have problems and are required to be replaced.
3. Electric utility system.
These systems are typically adequate in the downtown area. The main consideration
will probably be the upgrading of the existing, antiquated electrical systems within
the structure. As with water meters, it might be difficult to provide individual
metering because of space constraints.
4. Telephone and cable TV systems.
These systems are typically adequate in the downtown area. The main consideration
is likely to be providing the locations for these systems within the building.
5. Natural gas utility system.
If the demand for natural gas is increased significantly by the proposed project, it
might be difficult to provide adequate gas service, depending on proximity to the Gas
Company main lines. As with water meters, it might be difficult to provide individual
metering because of space constraints. The Gas Company at one time provided
sidewalk vaults for gas meters but no longer follows that practice.
6. Flood control and drainage systems.
Much of the downtown area of San Luis Obispo is in a flood zone defined on the
National Flood Insurance Program, Flood Insurance Rate Map as "A0, Depth 2". This
is defined as "Areas of 100 -year shallow flooding" with a depth of 2 feet. It is a
federal requirement that any building in this area be flood proofed when the value of
a proposed project exceeds 50% of the depreciated replacement value of the structure
excluding the land. Note that flood proofing would be required even if the
construction work was limited to the second floor. Refer to the City of San Luis
Obispo's Flood Damage Prevention Regulations.
Page 7-7
The Process as applied to the Blackstone Hotel
The following evaluation takes the project review methodology described above and
applies it step-by-step to the building used in Case Study #1, the former BIackstone Hotel
at the corner of Monterey and Chorro streets.
It is suggested that owners review the document "Consumer's Guide to Hiring an
Architect, " published by the State of California Department of Consumer Affairs and
available at the City Community Development Department, when selecting an architect
to perform services.
Step 1: Survey of existing building.
The initial step in determining the housing potential of a structure is to complete a
survey of the existing structure. The items that need to be considered in the building
survey can be broken down into three main categories:
A. Examine the physical condition of the building.
The end product of this part of the survey should be a set of as -built drawings that
fully describe the existing geometry and structure of the building. If possible (as
in the case of the former Blackstone Hotel), plaster, floor sheathing and other
coverings should be removed to expose the type, size and condition of structural
members, bearing configurations, etc. An investigation of the existing mechanical
systems is also warranted. This should include the existing electrical, mechanical,
and plumbing systems. An architectural review of the building should be
prepared, with a description of types and conditions of existing materials. It is
also highly recommended that an analysis of the building for materials that may
contain asbestos be performed. As noted before, all of the unreinforced masonry
structures in the City of San Luis Obispo have been analyzed for structural
retrofits. This information should be incorporated as part of the physical building
survey.
B. Determine historical issues.
The City of San Luis Obispo's Community Development Department can provide
information about the history of any building in the downtown area This
information may be limited to building permits on file for the building or it may
be a complete historical description of the structure, as in the case of buildings
that are on, or have applied for, an "historical" designation as part of the
historical resources inventory. Another source of information is the County
Historical Society, which may be able to provide literature and photographs.
This information is useful in determining the extent of remodel work that has
been performed in the past, for helping with projects where restoration may be
Page 7-8
called for, and for determining previous uses, which may help in the overall
understanding of the building. In the case of the former Blackstone Hotel, quite a
bit of historical information was available. (See the History section of Case Study
#1, Chapter 5.)
C. Identify planning issues.
At this point, a review of the applicable City ordinances is appropriate. Items to
consider include, the current use of the property, potential for the property under
current zoning, potential density including any bonuses that might be available,
deficiencies that the building may have, such as unreinforced masonry bearing
walls and adjacent uses that may be in conflict with.housing.
Step 2: Architectural programming.
Concurrent with the survey of the building, an architectural program should be
developed. This program should set forth the goals and objectives for the project,
such as a description of the type of housing to be provided, the type of occupant, size
requirements, accessibility provisions, utility requirements, and general information
that affects the final configuration of the floor plan and remodel approach. A
construction budget should also be part of the program. (See Housing Type, Client
Type and Accessibility Issues in Case Study #1, Chapter 5.)
Step 3: Code search.
As a part of the project development it is necessary to initiate a code search. The
primary codes which will effect a project at this stage will be the Uniform Building
Code and the California Accessibility Regulations. See Attachments 1 and 2 below
for a review of the code search process and a description of how it was applied in the
Blackstone Hotel case study. As designs for the project are being developed, other
code issues will make themselves apparent and the code search will continue.
Step 4: Design.
Using the information developed in steps 1 through 3, an architect should be able to
provide schematic designs for the owner's review and approval. After the schematic
designs are approved, the next step is for the architect to refine the design in a
process referred to as design development. The documents that result should be of
sufficient detail to submit to the City's Architectural Review Commission (ARC). In
the case of historically significant structures, the drawings will also be submitted to
the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) for their review and comment. Refer to the
Page 7-9
Permit Processing Outline, Attachment 3 at the end of this chapter, for a description
of that process.
Note that at this point in the process, no construction documents or engineering, other
than preliminary work, has been prepared It is suggested that this work (and expense)
be postponed until after the Architectural Review Commission has approved the
project, in case revisions are required.
Step 5: Construction cost estimate.
At this stage, it is suggested that a general contractor or a professional estimator
familiar with this type of work be hired to prepare a preliminary estimate of the cost
of construction. An example of a preliminary estimate, prepared for the Blackstone
Hotel project, is shown as Attachment 4 at the end of this chapter. Note the line items
referred to as "Contingency (10%)" and "Asbestos Contingency". It is strongly
advised that both of these figures be included in the preliminary estimate and that
they be generously applied.
Step 6: Develop fee estimate.
This step can occur as soon as a preliminary estimate has been developed, because
some fees are dependent on the cost of the improvements. Refer to the Government
Agency Costs and Fees section of this chapter for a discussion of the current fees that -
a developer can expect in the City of San Luis Obispo. Also refer to the Cost and Fees
section of the case studies in Chapter 5 for examples of how fees affect those
projects. The City staff will develop an estimate of fees for the developer's use before
the project is submitted This estimate, along with the construction cost estimate, can
be used to test the economic viability of the project by comparing the anticipated
costs with projected income.
Step 7: Submittal to the City.
The Permit Processing Outline shown as Attachment 3 at the end of this chapter
describes the processing necessary to receive approval from the City's Community
Development Department. The outline covers the process for a simple housing
project and has been compiled with the factors of time, document stages, and fees as
references. The outline does not include the steps involved in obtaining a variance,
subdividing property, or changing the zoning of the property.
Page 7-] 0
�l
Summary
In general, the steps involved in developing a housing project in the downtown area
include:
1. Surveying the building with regard to its physical condition, historical status and
zoning issues.
2. Preparing an architectural program.
3. Preparing a search of the Building Codes with respect to the building and proposed
project.
4. Preparing a schematic design of the project.
5. Preparing a construction cost estimate.
6. Preparing an estimate of the fees involved in the project and, using these figures,
preparing a financial analysis of the project.
7. Processing the preliminary design.through the City.
After successful completion of these steps, the project proceeds to the design
development and construction document phases. At each of these phases, the
construction cost estimate should be updated and the financial analysis re-evaluated.
Page 7-11
Attachment 1
Building Code Search
From "Effective Use of the Uniform Building Code" introductory chapter of the Uniform Building Code,
Volume One, published by the International Conference of Building Officials. Italic type reflects interpretation by
the consultant team. Both the 1994 and 1991 editions of the Uniform Building Code are referenced. Attachment 2
demonstrates the application of this code search methodology to the Blackstone Hotel Project, Case Study #1.
Even though the UBC is the primary building code, other City codes should be reviewed for requirements that
may be more restrictive, e.g. building height limitations in the zoning ordinance.
1. Classify building.
a) Occupancy classification.
Compute the floor area and occupant load of the building or portion thereof and determine the
occupancy classifications as defined by the UBC (Table 3-A)(Table 5-A, 1991 ed.). For projects
involving housing above or adjacent to downtown businesses, the following occupancy
classifications may be involved:
i) Group R- Residential (Section 310.1) (Chapter 12, 1991 ed.).
Specifically: Group R, Division 1, hotels, apartments and congregate residences (each
accommodating more than 10 persons) and Group R, Division 3, Dwellings', lodging houses
and congregate residenceS2 (each accommodating 10 or fewer persons).
ii) Group B -Business (Section 304.1) (Chapter 7, 1991 ed.).
A building or structure or portion thereof used for office, professional or service type
transactions, including the storage of records or accounts, and eating and drinking
establishments with occupant loads of less than 50. (described as Group B -Division 2 in the
1991 ed)
iii) Group A -Assembly (Section 303.1.1) (Chapter 6, 1991 ed.).
Specifically: Group A, Division 3, Any building or portion of a building having an assembly
room with an occupant load of less than 300 without a legitimatestage, including such buildings
used for educational purposes and not classed as a Group E or Group B occupancy.
iv) Group M -Mercantile (Section 309.1) (Chapter 7, 1991 ed.).
A building or structure or portion thereof for the display and sale of merchandise and involving
stocks of goods, wares or merchandise incidental to such purposes and accessible to the public:
(Described as Group B -Division 2 in the 1991 ed.)
b) Type of construction.
Determine the type of construction of the building based on the building materials used and the fire
resistance of the various parts of the building. See UBC Chapter 6, Types of Construction
(Chapters 17 through 22, 1991 ed.). Most of the existing buildings in the downtown study area
would be classified as Type VN construction.
A "Dwelling" is defined as `any Building or portion thereof which contains not more than two dwelling units" (UBC Section
205-D)A Dwelling Unit is any building or portion thereof which contains Irving facilities, including provisions for sleeping,
eating, cooling, and sanitation, as required by this code, for not more than one family, or a congregate residence for 10
2 persons or less.
A *Congregate Residence" is any budding or portion thereof which contains facilities for living, sleeping, and sanitation as
required by this code, and may include facilities for eating and cooking, for occupancy for other than a family. A
congregate residence may be a shelter, convent, monastery, dormitory, fratemity or sorority house but does not include
jails, hospitals, nursing homes, hotels or lodging houses. (UBC Section 205-C).
Page 7-12
Attachment 1, continued
i
c) Location on property.
Determine the location of the building on the site and clearances to property lines and other
buildings. See Table 5-A and Section 606.3 (For Type V buildings) for fire resistance of exterior
walls and wall opening requirements based on proximity of property lines. Note that this will be an
important step in determining the allowable door area. Also determine where walls face public
ways and yards over 20 feet wide for allowable floor area increases.
d) Allowable floor area.
Determine the allowable floor area for the building. See Table 5-13 (Table 5-C in the 1991 edition)
for basic allowable floor area based on the occupancy group and type of construction. See Section
505 for allowable increases based on location on property and installation of an approved automatic
fire sprinkler system. See Section 504.2 for allowable floor area of multistory buildings. Refer to
the Blackstone Case Study for an example.
e) Height and number of stories.
Compute the height of the building, Section 209 (Section 409 in the 1991 ed.), and the number of
stories, Section 220 (Section 420 in the 1991 ed.). See Table 5-B (Table 5-D in the 1991 ed.) for
the maximum height and number of stories permitted based on occupancy group and type of
construction. See Section 506 (Section 507 in the 1991 ed.) for allowable story increase based on
the installation of an approved automatic fire -sprinkler system. Note that increases in height or
floor area allowed by providing an approved automatic fire -sprinkler system are limited to an
increase in one or the other, not both -Also, if the sprinkler system is used as a substitute for fire -
resistive construction, it cannot be used for increases in height or area.
Once this initial study has been completed on the project, and the building is found to comply with these
requirements, it is necessary to complete the UBC code search by reviewing the following elements:
2. Review the building regarding occupancy requirements (UBC Sections 303 through 312), (Chapters 6
through 12 in the 1991 ed.).
The critical sections for downtown housing will be Section 303 - Requirements for Group A
Occupancies, Section 303 - Requirements for Group A Occupancies, Section 304 - Requirements for
Group B Occupancies, Section 309 - Requirements for Group M Occupancies, and most important,
Section 310 - Requirements for Group R Occupancies.
3. Review the building regarding the type of construction requirements (UBC Chapter 6), (Chapters 17
through 22 in the 1991 ed.).
As stated before, most buildings will fall under Section 606 (Chapter 22), Type v huil&ngs. Some might be
classified as Type 3, Section 604 (Chapter 20).
4. Review the building regarding exiting requirements (UBC Chapter 10), (Chapter 33 in the 1991 edition).
This chapter will determine the number, width, location, and distance between exits and specific requirements
for stairs, doors, ramps exits etc.
5. Review the building for other detailed regulations (UBC Chapters 4, 7,through 11, 14, 15, 24 through 26,
and 30 through 33 and the Appendix.), (Chapter 29 through 54, Chapter 56, and the Appendix in 1991 ed.).
6. Review the building for conformity with structural engineering requirements (UBC Chapters 16 through
23), (Chapters 23 through 28 in the 1991 ed.).
Page 7-13
Attachment 2
Blackstone Hotel Project, Case Study #1, Code Search.
1. Classify Budding.
a) Occupancy classifications per UBC Table '3-A
First floor: Groups B andA41'
Second and third floors: Group R, Division I
Floor Level Floor Areas° Uses Occupant Load Factor' Occupant Load
1 5,749 SF' Stores -Retail Sales 30 SF per occupant 192 Occupants.
Ground Floor
1 1,437 SF Storage & Stock Rooms 300 SF per occupant 5 Occupants
2 5,403 SF Dwellings 300 SF per occupant 18 Occupants
3 5,403 SF Dwellings 300 SF per occupant 18 Occupants
Totals 17,992 SF 233 Occupants
Note: UBC Section 302, Mixed Occupancy, Table 3-B, requires fire -resistive separations in buildings of
mixed occupancy: Tiiis table regudres a one-hour separation between the Group B and M occuponcies
Jand the Group R, Division One occupancy.
b) Type of construction.
From UBC Table 6-A the existing building will conform to a Type VN structure. If the exterior
walls could be rated for a 4 -hour fire resistance, the building could be a Type IIIN (From Table 7-
B, Rated Fire Resistive Periods for Various Walls and Partitions, Item number 1-1.1 Solid Units (at
least 75% solid) Brick or Clay, a minimum of 8" thick provides a 4 -hour rating.) Therefore, if it is
beneficial, it would be possible to classify it as a Type III Structure.
c) Location on property.
Building Setbacks: Note east and north setbacks are variable at the second and third floors.
North = 0 Feet South (Monterey St.): Distance to Centerline of Streets = 35'
East = 0 Feet West (Chorro Street): Distance to Centerline of Street = 25'
'Assumes no restaurant on the fast floor.
`Gross Floor Area to exterior face of walls.
S From UBC Table 3-A
s From UBC Table 10-A Minimum Egress Requirements
r Estimate 80% sales area, 20"/o storage and stock rooms.
°'For the purposes of this Section, the centerline of an adjoining public way shall be considered an adjacent property fine.'
(UBC Section 503.1).
Page 7-14
Attachment 2, continued
From UBC Table 5-A "Exterior Wall and Opening Protection Based on Location on Property for
All Construction Types"
Occupancy
Group Type
B&M VN
R-1 VN
Construction
Bearing
One Hour less than
20 feet, NR elsewhere
One Hour less than
5 feet,.NR elsewhere
Exterior Walls
Non -Bearing
Same. As Bearing
_ Same As Bearing
Openings
Not permitted less
than 5 feet, protected
less than 10'
Not permitted
less than 5 feet
d) Allowable floor area:
From UBC Table 5-B, `Basic Allowable Building Heights and Basic Allowable Floor Area for
Buildings One Story in Height".
i) Occupancy Groups B &M, Type V One Hour Construction:.
Basic allowable area = 14,000 Square Feet (s.f.)
Allowable building height in stories = 3 (Note that for Type VN construction, the maximum
allowable is two stories, but this may be increased by one story if an automatic sprinkler system
is provided. However, if the sprinkler system is used for an increase in the number of stories, it
may not be used for an increase in area).
Maximum height = 40', (Zoning Regulations limits height to 50' in CC zone).
ii) Occupancy Group R-1, Type V One -Hour Construction:
Basic allowable area = 10,500 s.f.
Allowable building height in stories= 3
Maximum height = 40', (Zoning Regulations limits height to 50' in CC zone).
"Group R, Division 1 occupancies more than two stories in height or having more than 3,000
square feet of floor area above the first story shall not be of less than one-hour fire -resistive
construction throughout except as provided in Section 601.5.2.2'', UBC Section 310.2.
"The total combined floor area for multistory buildings may be twice that permitted in Table 5-
B for one-story buildings, and the floor area of any single story shall not exceed that permitted
for a one-story building", UBC Section 504.2, Areas of Buildings Over One.Story.
"When a building houses more than one occupancy, the area of the building shall be such that
the sum of the ratios of the actual area .for each separate occupancy divided by the total
allowable area for each separate occupancy shall not exceed one", UBC Section 504.3,
Allowable Floor Areas of Mixed Occupancies.
"Where public ways or yards more than 20 feet in width extend along and adjoin two sides of
the Building floor areas may be increased at rate of 1 1/4 percent for each foot by which the
minimum width exceeds 20 feet, but the increase shall not exceed 50 percent', UBC Section
505.1.1, Allowable. Area Increases, Separation on Two Sides.
Page 7-15
�l
Attachment 2, continued
Therefore:
Group R-1
Two-story increase
Increase for separation on two sides
1 1/40/o[(35'-20')+(25'-20')]--25%
Increase for fire sprinklers (100%)
Total Allowable R-1 Area
Therefore:
Occupancy M, Type V Construction
Increase for separation on two sides
1 1/4%[(35'-20') + (25'-20')]=25%
Increase for fire sprinklers (100%)
Total Allowable R -I Area
Tyne V one-hour Tvne VN
10,500 s.f.
6,000 s.f.
+10,500 s.f.
+6,000 s.f.
+5,250 s.f.
+3,000 s.f.
+26,250 s.f.
0 (using increase for
number of stories)
52,500 s.f.
15,000 s.f.
Tyne V one-hour
Tyne VN
14,000 s.f.
8,000 $.f.
+2,000 s.f.
+2,000 s.f.
+16,000 s.f.
0 (using increase for
number of stories)
32,000 s.f.
10,000 s.f.
Check Section 5043, Allowable Floor Areas of Mixed Occupancies:
As Type V non -rated construction,
(5.403 s.f. + 5.403 s.f) + (5.749 s.f. + 1.437 &Q = 1.439
15,000 s.f. 10,000 s.f.
The result of the ratio is greater than one; therefore, it is necessary to go to Type V one-hour
construction.
As Type V, one-hour construction,
(5.403 s.f. + 5.403 s.f) + (5.749 s.f + 1.437 s.f) = 0.43
52,500 s.f. 32,000 s.f.
(Less than 1, therefore OK.)
Page 7-16
�J
Attachment 3
Permit Processing Outline
Processing Step Comment Stage of Documents Process Time City Fees
Initial contact Review the project on a preliminary basis with No drawings at this Over -the- None
a staff planner (The housing specialist point counter
proposed in Chapter Six). Obtain the process, while
information available from the City as outlined you wait.
above.
Second over- Review schematic plans with both building Schematic design Over -the- None
the -counter dept. staff and housing specialist to obtain drawings counter
review with preliminary input on design implications prior process
City staff to preparing documents for ARC and CHC.
Submittal for Staff will determine if the application is Design development 2 weeks from $650 ARC
review complete. If so, the applicant will be notified drawings completed submittal Fee
the application has been certified complete, to meet ARC
and the project will be forwarded for ARC, requirements
CHC and environmental review
Cultural If the building is historically or architecturally Design development 6-8 weeks Part of ARC
Heritage significant, on the historic master list, or in an drawings completed from submittal Fee
Committee historic preservation district, CHC will review to meet ARC
(CHC) documents and provide input to the ARC. requirements
Environmental Planning staff provides an environmental
review
review of the project. If are no significant
impacts, a Negative Declaration will be issued,
and processing will continue. Other options
include issuing a mitigated negative
declaration, requiring the applicant to revise
the project description, or requiring an
Environmental Impact Report.
Architectural
ARC will review documents and hold a public
Review
hearing. Input will be received from the City
Commission
Building, Planning Engineering and Fire
(ARC)
Department staff. Project may be approved at
first public hearing or some comments may
need to be addressed requiring subsequent
hearings.
Architectural
If items are left unresolved or require redesign
Review
in order to receive approval, additional
Commission
hearings may be necessary.
additional
hearings
page 1-11
Design development
drawings completed
to meet ARC
requirements
Design development
drawings completed
to meet ARC
requirements
Design development
drawings completed
to meet ARC
requirements with
changes as
necessary
4 to 6 weeks Part of ARC
from Fee
submittal;
includes 30 -
day appeal
period
6-8 weeks $650
from submittal
Resubmitted
plans are put
on first
available
agenda (2-4
weeks)
Part of ARC
Fee
Attachment 3: Permit Processing Outline, continued
Processing Step Comment
Stage of Documents
Process Time
drawings
Appeal to City Only necessary if decision at ARC level creates
Design development
Depends on
Council a project that would be unacceptable to the
drawings completed
Council
developer.
to meet ARC
schedule
requirements;
Correction and
Working drawings are corrected in response to
additional
resubmit of
plan -check comments and resubmitted to the
documentation as
plans for
Building Department.
necessary for valid
approval
response
City Council A hearing before the City Council may also be
Hearing of necessary if the project requires additional
incentives or incentives that must be approved by the
variance Council or a variance.
Design development Depends on
drawings completed Council
to meet ARC schedule
requirements;
additional
documentation as
necessary
Constriction
Working drawings are submitted to City for
Completed 6-8 weeks
drawings
review and comment by the Building Planning,
documents including
Engineering and Fire Departments.
all architectural,
engineering and
landscape drawings
Correction and
Working drawings are corrected in response to
Completed working 2-3 weeks
resubmit of
plan -check comments and resubmitted to the
drawings with
plans for
Building Department.
changes.
approval
page 7-18
City Fees
None
None
First half of
plan review
fees
Balance of
building
permit fees
plus parking
in -lieu, school
and impact
fees
0
�.� Attachment 4
Preliminary Cost Estimate for Blackstone Hotel
Section "A" items
Pedestrian bypass +/- 701.f.
27/11
$1890
Demolition netting +/_ 4000 s.f.
.50/s.f.
$2000
Sidewalk closure +/_ 140 l.f.
12/l.f.
$1680
Ramps & flooring +/_ 420 91
4/s.f.
$1680
Demolition labor (general)
7 men 6 weeks
$15/hr.
$25,200
3 men 6 weeks
$25/hr.
$18,000
Demolition equipment allow
$ 3,000
Demolition disposal (general) est. 8 containers/ floor
$200 ea.
$ 4,800
Demolition brick
est.
$12,000
Demolition sidewalk etc.
$ 3,000
Foundations +/- 64 cu yds
300/cu.yd.
$19,200
Excavating for above
$ 4,000
Structural steel +/_ 26,250 lb.
$1.45/lb.
$38,063
Underground Electric, fire sprinkler, etc.
$25,000
Framing labor and materials
First floor 7,186 s.f.
$8/s.f.
$57,488
Second floor 5,700 s.f.
$10/s.f.
$57,000
Third floor 5,700 s.f.
$15/s.f.
$85,500
Rough hardware (general)
.25/s.f.
$ 4,647
Rough hardware (seismic @ masonry)
510+/- Hilti type anchors w/ bolts to Simpson-LTT to joist w/
blocking
510 x $46 per labor and materials
$23,460
Page Total
$387,608
Page 7-19
Attachment 4, continued
Section "A", continued
Roofing 70 squares w/ parapets
$200/square
$14,000
Water proofing and sub -deck Courtyard 1640 s.f.
$4/s.f.
$ 6,560
Surface above
$6/s.f.
$ 9,840
Exterior finishes etc.
Plaster M 350 sq yds
$30/yd w/ trim
$10;500
Plaster C 610 sq yds
$15/yd w/ trim
$ 9,150
misc. 150 sq yds
$22/yd w/ trim
$ 3,300
foam plant -ons and detail work, add
$ 6,000
Store front first floor 650 s.q.+/-
$15/ s.f.
$ 9,750
Store front doors
$850 ea.
$ 8,500
Windows(60 count) +/-1200 sq ft
$25/s.f.
$30,000
Awnings +/- 841.f.
$100/l.f.
$ 8,400
Misc. signage, monuments, Quoins etc.
$20,000
New exterior flatwork inc. curb/gutter/mission tile 1726s.f.
$11/s.f.
$18,986
Systems (elevator, electrical, HVAC, plumbing, fire):
0
Elevator 3+ story, 2 entry
$40,000-
40000Electrical
Electrical(all) 18,673 s.f.
$7.50/s.f.
$140,048
Plumbing (general) 18,673 s.f.
$4.50/s.f.
$84,029
Plumbing (fixtures) 70+/-
$400 ea. avg.
$28,000
Heating& Ventilation/AC
0
(wall heat) apts. 15
$800/unit avg.
$12,000
commercial 7186 s.f.
$9.50/s.f.
$68,267
general/misc. metal/shafts etc.
18,673 s.f.
$3/s.f.
$56,019
New water and sewer lines to street
$13,000
Sub -total
$596,349.
Page 7-20
Attachment 4, continued
Section "A", continued
Fire sprinkler & alarm
Riser & controls
$ 9,000
Heads +/_ 320
$120 each
$38,400
Alarm system & monitoring station
$12,000
Drywall & Acoustic ceilings/walls
Drywall 5/8" +/- 70,268 s.f.
$0.75/s.f.
$52,701
R.C. channel 16,800 s.f.
$0.25/s.f.
$ 4,200
Acoustic ceilings 7,000 s.f.
$1.30/s.f.
$ 9,100
Insulation (all)
$0.25/s.f. avg.
$ 8,350
Finishes (Cabinets, doors, trim, rails etc.)
Interior doors with hardware 75+/-
FS300/ea. avg.
$221500
Finish lumber 16,000 s.f.+/-
5/s.f.
$28,000
Finish labor 16,000 s.f.+/_
$1.25/s.f.
$20,000
Allow additional for stair trim
$15,000
Cabinets and counters
+/-18 Lf lowers w/ tops x 15 units
$150/11
$40,500
+/-13 7.f uppers x 15 units
$75/11
$14,625
Finish hardware - doors, all 15 x 300 + 800
$ 5;300
Paint +/- 75 doors
$45/ea.
$ 3,375
60,000 s.f. drywall
$0.35/s.f.
$21,000
misc. trim etc.
$ 7,000
exterior details
$12,000
Appliances
$1,500/eaunit
$22,500
oven
$650+/ -
refrigerator
S500+1 -
microwave
$350+/ -
Window Coverings 41
$100
$ 4,100
Sub -total
$3497651
Page 7-21
Attachment 4, continued
Section "A", continued
Finishes (continued) — —
$1,384,482
Supervision
Appliances (continued) washers, dryers
General Labor
$ 4,000
Floor Coverings 18,487 s.f.
$2.00/s.f. avg.
$36,974
file - 300 s.f.
$8A0/sf.
$ 2,400
Skylights 4 +/- 4x8
---
$1500/ea
$ 6,000
--- 2 +A 4x4
$750/ea
$ 1,500
Sub -total -
-- _
$50,874.00
Section `B"
General Labor and Supervision
$1,384,482
Supervision
$57,600
General Labor
$46,000
Construction clean-up including final
$18,673
Sub -total =
-- $122,273
v rwLa.au a�u Fav1ll.�l..VALI QGWIs� Use r1J%O oI --A
ContinQenm - T Ice 50/^ of "A" + czn AM a el,�
Total "A"
$1,384,482
Overhead & Profit (15% "A") -
$207,672
-- - - - Contingency (10%) - -
$138,448
Asbestos Contingency
$30,000
Total. "B": _
-
122;273
Sub -total
- -
-
Architect and Engineer, printing, misc.
-
75,000
--
TOTAL
$1,957,875
Estimated Cost Per Square Foot (18,673 s.f.)
$105/ s.f.
Page 7-22
Appendicies
APPENDIX A
1990 Census Data.
The population for the San Luis Obispo core area for 1990 was derived from the U.S.
Department of Commerce 1990 census block statistics. Since the study area included
only portions of the census blocks in some areas, the consultant team included field
information to complete the calculations. The portion of each block within the study area
was estimated and the average occupancy factor was used to generate the population. As
with all census data, there will be variations vacancy and with the accuracy of the
original data since it depended on resident response. The occupancy levels may also have
varied slightly since the census was taken. The blocks and data for the core area are as
follows:
Block Number
Housing Units
Persons
234
17
21
235
0
0
240
0
0
232
3
9
231
0
0
236
9
7
239
1
3
403(50%)
0
0
237
6
7
402(50%)
12
12
226(50%)
0
0
227
11
19
228
0
0
230
0
0
238
13
12
401(50%)
0
0
215
0
0
214
0
0
213
0
0
229
68
65
212
17
16
322(50%)
0
0
208
0
0
209
0
0
210
0
0
211
0
0
APPENDIX A, continued
321(50%)
0
0
244(50%)
0
0
241(50%)
1
6
122(50%)
0
0
121
0
0
123
0
0
114(50%)
2
5
120(50%)
3
6
11.7
1
2
164
190
San Luis Obispo City Central Business District
1990 Block Data % %
V522�\2� 206 112 4 J,�'7
218 . 216
�%(' 1 s�
/
523 219 cwt Busio= Distia
K \ 2171 - -- - 119
i \= = 21 Study Area Boundry
?24\\, 1 12� % 30
_ __gam,
1. 223
311
22�`_,_ ---'IN
=31.9
32� 318
407\316
408 502 �_� 415 X410
—_ 41 3 Wes
503 509 7`" 51141 42
1 .
416 0 ., = .2
\41 420
APPENDIX B
Focus Group Members
I.
Housing Authority .........................:....
Steve Nelson
2.
................................
City Cultural Heritage Committee ........
George Moylan
Garth Kornreich
3.
City Planning Commission ...................
Barry Karleskint
4..
City Architectural Commission .............
Curt Illingworth
5.
City Planning Department ...................
Jeff Hook
6.
City Engineering Department ...............
Mike McCluskey
7.
Property Owners ........................... :.....
Al McVay
...........................................
Rick Porter
8.
9.
Realtor ................................................
Developer
Alex Gough (Adobe Realty)
...........................................
Jim Sargen (Forum)
Pam Copeland
10.
11.
Tenant ......Thomas
....................... .
Downtown merchant
Pipes
...........................
Coreen Kotta (Express)
APPENDIX C
Downtown Housing Study
Questionnaire
(4-20-95)
This questionnaire is designed to assist the Downtown Housing Study Consultant Team better understand the
"feelings" of the community about provision of housing in the San Luis Obispo Core area. It is the intent of the
City of San Luis Obispo and the San Luis Obispo Housing Authority to provide as many housing. options as they
reasonably can within the city. One of those options is to add more housing in the downtown commercial district
where there is access to jobs, shopping and social services as well as an ambiance which cannot be matched any
where else within the community. Your help in defining those who would most benefit from living in the downtown
as well as benefit the downtown itself is appreciated.
Question A:
There is a wide range of potential residents who could live and benefit from living in the downtown.
A -l: Please rank from 1 (the highest priority) to 10 (the lowest) those you feel most benefit living in the
core from their own needs and lifestyles.
A-2: Please rank from 1 (the highest priority) to 10 (the lowest) those you feel would most support the
character and the economic viability of the downtown.
A-1 A-2
Rank Rank
• college students
• working single persons
• working couples (no children)
• small families (four or less) self sustaining
• large families (more than four) self sustaining
• the homeless (provide a shelter)
• families requiring economic assistance
• retired single elderly
• retired couples
• handicapped or disadvantaged
A-3: Please allocate by % the proportions of the various categories that you feel should be provided
housing in the downtown. (Not all categories need be represented.)
• college.studems
• working single persons
• worldng couples
• small families (four or less) self sustaining
• large families (more than four) self sustaining
• the homeless (provide a shelter)
• families requiring economic assistance
• retired single elderly
• retired couples
• handicapped or disadvantaged
Total 100
APPENDIX C, continued
Question B•
To provide housing, it may necessary to alter, demolish, or provide alternative building programs to meet the
City's housing goals. Please give us your best response based upon what you know to some of these programs by
checking the appropriate line. "Maybe" means, you need more information or haven't made up your mind based
upon present conditions.
yes maybe no
1. Do you feel that housing downtown adds to our City's vitality
both socially and economically?
2. Do you support the concept of mixed use buildings — e.g. housing on
the upper floors of retail stores?
3. Should the Housing Authority give greater priority to the downtown area
even if it costs 10 to 20% more per unit than equivalent units elsewhere?
4. Should the Housing Authority give greater priority to the downtown area
even if it costs 25 to 50% more per unit than equivalent units elsewhere?
5. Should the City depend entirely on market forces to provide housing
for private sector buildings - e.g. no requirements or incentives?
6a. Should the City develop programs which would provide incentives_fbr
housing on upper floors of commercial buildings in the downtown area?
6b. Ifyes to 6a: Would you support the City's provision of parking incentives
(in lieu fees or offsite parking) to facilitate provision of housing?
6c. If yes to 6a: Should the City provide fee incentives to facilitate provision
of housing? (e.g. relaxation water and sewer fees, reduce plan check fees etc.)
6d. If yes to 6a: Should the City provide density incentives for downtown
housing? (e.g., a twenty percent increase in the number of units allowed)
7. Should the City develop programs which would require housing on
upper floors of commercial buildings in the downtown area?
8. Would you be willing to see the City provide economic incentives
to facilitate adjacent land owners to combine tots / buildings?
9. Should the City use condemnation as a means to acquire
adjacent land to combine lots / buildings?
I0. Should housing downtown be provided as a higher priority than offices
on the upper floors of new commercial buildings?
11. Should upper floor offices of existing buildings be removed and replaced
by housing?
APPENDIX D
Central Business District Overview
Abstracted from "Central Business District Analysis Market Study/Economic Feasibility
for Retail, Office and Apartment Use", by Schenberger, Taylor, McCormick and Jecker,
Inc., July, 1995.
1. Central Bnsiness District Housing
There are basically two types of housing in the central business district, second -story
monthly rental apartments over retail space and transient nightly .and weekly hotel/inn
rentals.
The transient units include the modest Granada Hotel and the vacant Wineman Hotel.
The Granada Hotel, located over commercial retail space across Morro Street from the
new Downtown Center, provides low-cost monthly rentals. There is limited parking
behind the Granada Hotel.
Sterling Hotels leases the now vacant Wineman Hotel which is located in the 800 block
of Higuera Street above Copeland's Sports. The building. has limited parking accessed
from Marsh Street. The historically -significant hotel is an unreinforced masonry building
and also needs a fire suppression sprinkler retrofit. A representative from Sterling reports
that the plan for the hotel is to convert it to an "upscale" full-service hotel. Development
has been delayed because it has been difficult to secure financing for a historically
significant building in need of seismic and sprinkler retrofits.
The upper level apartments in the central business district are mostly comprised of small
studio and one -bedroom apartment. Included in this category is the Anderson Hotel
which provides assisted housing for senior and disabled tenants. The building has
converted hotel rooms with twenty-four studio apartments of about 300 s,f renting for
$595 per month including utilities and forty-four one -bedroom units with about 520 s.f.
which rent for $643 per month including utilities. There is no on-site parking, but the
downtown location with public transportation is a valuable amenity to the tenants. One
meal per day is made available to Anderson Hotel residents for a donation of $1.50 per
day.
The recent remodeling of the Earthling Bookstore at the comer of Broad and Higuera
Street provided two studio apartments and two one -bedroom units, without any allocated
parking. The studios are 300 to 400 square feet and rent for $365 to $392 per month
including all utilities. The one -bedroom unites are 500± square feet and rent for $444 and
$476 per month including all utilities.
APPENDIX D, continued
Located at 762 Higuera Street above jim's Campus Camera and Mission Office Supply
are 10 one -bedroom units that are 500± square feet each. These unites are more than 100
years old and have had modest remodeling to include a small kitchen and complete
bathroom for each unit These one -bedroom units are about 500 s.f in size and rent for
$300 to $350 plus electricity. The apartments have eight parking spaces located in the
Mission Plaza area. Tenants report that whenever there is a public event, their parking
becomes inaccessible.
A long-time resident of the 762 Higuera Street units, states that historically the tenant
make-up has been single adults of a wide age range. He stated that if tenants marry, they
tend to move out of the apartment Presently there are six males and three females, all
single. Since the recent death of one tenant, one unit is currently vacant and being
refurbished He stated that rarely is there a vacancy, and that as soon as an apartment is
made available, it is filled. It is his opinion that limited parking is not a major concern as
most tenants work during the day and drive their cars to work or walk. Most of the
tenants in this complex do not work in the downtown area, but choose to live downtown
for other reasons.
Located just outside the central business district, near the courthouse, are a number of
monthly rental housing projects with one, two, and three-bedroom unites.
The owner/builder and on-site manager of one 16 unit two-story apartment complex built
in 1965 provided valuable information about downtown apartments. Although there was
some demand for family housing in the 1960's the current tenants are virtually all single
women ranging in qge from about 30 up to age 89. There is good on-site parking, but the
manager states that the tenants enjoy the close proximity to shopping and services, and
appreciate that once again there is a grocery store in close proximity (Scolari's)
The owner/manager stated that there is one one -bedroom unit which rents for $500 per
month including water, trash, cable TV, and hot water and it is the most popular and the
most requested In addition there are 12 two-bedroom units at $650 per month including
the same utilities and three three-bedroom units. The manager feels that there is no
demand for three-bedroom units as they receive the same rent for the three-bedroom units
as the two-bedroom units.
APPENDIX D, continued
Located nearby on Palm Street are 12 one -bedroom flats. Although there is currently one
vacant lower level unit being painted and cleaned, the owner states that there are rarely
vacancies and that they fill immediately. Theowner states that all of his tenants are
single women, with most of them choosing to locate near the central business district and
courthouse where they work The one -bedroom units rent for $425 per month with water
and trash service included Electricity and gas are metered
The three-story Park Hotel, outside the central business district, near the railroad station,
was converted to 4 studio and 17 one -bedroom apartments on the second and third levels.
The rents quoted are HUD Section 8 market rents at $462 for the 400 square -foot studios
and $542 for the 450 square foot one bedroom units. In June 1995, there were three
vacant one -bedroom units available.
The lowest -priced residential rentals in the central business district are in the former
Granada Hotel. This turn-0f--the-century building has 19 second -story hotel rooms, with
five shared bathrooms. There is a small common kitchen area. for tenant use. Each room
has a wash basin. The rent at Granada is $255 per month with no nightly or weekly rates.
This is the lowest priced housing unit in the central business district and possibly in the
city. The rent includes all utilities and some on-site parking in the rear. The complex
rials between 90% and 100% occupancy, with above -normal tenant turnover.
The current apartment market in the central business district appears to be limited to
singles with demand for studio and one -bedroom apartments. Our cursory survey found
no demand for three-bedroom units.
2. Other Central Business District Uses
Retail Commercial
Revitalization of the central business district has occurred with completion of the
Copeland's Downtown Center, major remodeling of older buildings, and completion of
the city parking garage on Marsh street at Chorro Street.
There is tenant turnover in the downtown area and relocation of some stores, however,
there is very little vacancy of retail commercial. With a slow but positive change over
the last.25± years, the central business district of San Luis Obispo has become a pleasant
and popular retail center for local residents, students, and tourists.
a
APPENDIX D, continued
The average rental range for retail space in the central business district is $1.25 to more
than $2.00 per square foot Store size and location create this range. Stores on side
streets (off Higuera) have the lowest rents due to less foot traffic and exposure. The
highest rents are at Chorro and Higuera, plus the newer Downtown Center. Typical retail
space lease terms include triple net and modified gross.
With the low vacancy in the central business district, demand cannot be met without new
construction in -fill, remodeling, and redevelopment Unreinforced masonry (URM)
buildings will continue to be a problem, requiring redevelopment or razing of structures
for new development.
Central Business District Office
A cursory review of office space in the central business district found about 5,000 square
feet of vacant second -story office space. The 15,000 square feet. above Ross Dress for
Less was recently leased after approximately two years of marketing and exposure. The
total estimated office space in the central business district is 75,000 -square feet without a
specific survey. Therefore there is a 6% to 7% vacancy at present.
Central business district office rents are typically lower than fringe area office rents,
mostly due to lack of auto parking. Rental ranges for second -story offices in the central
business district range from $0.75 to $1.93 per square foot. The average is $1.00 to
$1.25 per square foot gross. These rental rates vary with size and can be deceiving when
common halls and bathroom/mechanical spaces are not included Most downtown offices
are second -story turn -of -the -century buildings, many converted apartments, hotel rooms
or rooming houses. As such, a quoted office rent for 1,000 square feet at $1.00 per square
foot could have a prorated share size of 1,100 square feet.
The office over Ross Dress for Less is 15,000 square feet gross at $1.00 per square foot
for finished office space. The Warden Building one-half block away at Chorro Street is
$1.00 per square foot for net area excluding halls, bathrooms and mechanical areas.
The San Luis Hotel was converted to a second -story offices and apartments. The offices'
net sizes are 207 square feet at $1.93 per square foot gross to 704 square feet at $1.39 per
square foot gross. The units with windows over the street command a premium, with the
interior units at $.075 per square foot to $1.09 per square foot gross. These office sizes
are net excluding halls, common area coffee -social area, and bathrooms.
APPENDIX D, continued
The three-story retail office building at the comer of lEguera and.Nipomo Street rents for
S 1.25 to $1.35 per square foot triple net for net office area on the second and third floors.
3. MARKET STUDY SUMMARY
The areas around the central business district provide two and three-bedroom housing.
opportunities, with adequate auto parking. This area an easy walk or bike ride to the
downtown. We see very little demand for two-bedroom units and no demand for three
bedroom units in the central business district. New or remodeled units with studio and
one bedroom should receive the strongest demand for the downtown area of San Luis
Obispo.
The commercial market appears strong with demand continuing to exceed supply for
retail stores in the central business district. With continued remodeling and/or
replacement downtown, the retail future appears bright in the long term.
The central business district office market provides the lowest -priced office space in the
city. This is due to two matin factors.
1. Older, obsolete space
2. Lack of auto parking for tenants and patrons.
Newer office space downtown commands substantially higher rents but there is no newer
office vacancy in the central business district. This indicates that remodeled and
upgraded office space or new construction can command higher rents downtown.
Offices in the periphery of downtown with parking command the highest space rents and
have a higher demand over time than second and third -story offices in the core area. We
have adequate data and experience to conclude that there is little demand for three-
bedroom residential units in the central business district. The strongest demand is for the
studio and one -bedroom apartments.
a
Survey Criteria: Downtown Housing Feasibility Study,
March 10,1995
Project Information:
Address
Name:
APPENDIX E
Phase I Criteria:
(If a building or site fails to pass these criteria -- no further investigation is required. All
questions are stated such that a yes answer would make the building impractical for use in this
study. Does this factor make the building impractical for use?)
1.
Economic Alternative (loss of revenue)
yes:_
no:
(if yes: Class 2)
2.
Building conditions (demolition regd.)
yes:_
no:
(if yes: Class 5)
3.
Building conversion (excessive costs)
yes:_
no:
(if yes: Class 5)
4.
Ownership factors (Govt. use etc.)
yes:_
no:
(if yes: Class 6)
5.
Site constraints (access, adj. use etc.)
yes:_
no:
(if yes: Class 6)
6.
Environmental constraints (noise, air)
yes:_
no:
(if yes: Class 6)
7.
Historicity, will conversion damage buildings historic character?
yes:_
no:
(if yes: Class 6)
—
Phase II Criteria
If all answers are no, complete the rest of this form
Lot Size: APN: Street Frontage: Age:
Use: (gnd. floor) 2nd Fl. ; Fl
Bldg. Area Gnd. Floor. 2nd Fl. 3nd Fl. 4th Fl. Bsmt
APPENDIX E, continued
page 2: survey form
Complete this form with a 0 to 4 scale where 4 is the highest or best possible rating.
Planning Issues
P-1 Adequacy of parking (range from all possible on site [4] to none [0]).
P-2 Location Desirability (range from core area [4] to periphery [0]).
P-3 Environmental Issues
noise: (range from quiet [4] to noisy [0]).
views: (range from great [4], to none[0]).
personal safety (well lit, well used [4], to dark [0]).
adjacent uses (desirable [4) to not desirable[0]) Total / 2
Subtotal for planning issues:
Building Issues
B-1 Structural adequacy - seismic (range from sound [4] to negligible [0]).
B-2 Hazardous building materials —lead, asbestos (none [4] to significant [0]).
B-3 Ease of conversion for accessibility and exiting, including handicapped
B-4 Code issues — is building suitable to conversion regarding:
light / windows: (range from adequate [4] to minimal [0]).
ventilation: (range from possible [4], to difficult[0]).
sanitation: (range from possible [4], to difficult[0])..
fire safety (range from possible [4], to difficult[0]).
sound insulation (range from possible [4], to difficult[0]). Total / 2
Subtotal Building Issues
Total score for property (planning plus building)
Other Comments:
I
APPENDIX F
SURVEY CATEGORIES BYBUILDING
UST BY CATAGORY
rp 18..1995
I
I Cate o 1: has Poterdial for housing
I 2: has oteNtal bra has economic pmblems
3: vacamd =e
I 4: has swlertUal adddional Roars
1 5: s@e =dd bs cleared for new h=bm and/or commerdal space
1 6: no obvious erdtal for housirm
1
7: nm=
i
cat Isheet name 'address I aureM accupard
1 GARDEN 1123 TO 11271 C 4H CHRISTIAN SCIENCE READING ROOM ^'small.
. (historic name
^- I
1
2
GARDEN 1130, A to D C.6H ORLAN DONLEY, CAPELLfg
SMITH BUILDING
1
IMGUE'RA 705 IC.0-H PHONE CENTER
STOVER BUILDING
1
1
1HIGUERA Ube' KC- H ROSS DRESS FOR LESS
HIGUERA 1970 IC -C -H I MUS BAR -AF AI IF
APPENDIX F
4
HIGUERA
1741..745
IC -C -H
[SMART SHOPPE. BENIFICIAL OF CALIFORNIA
4
HIGUERA
1746 #1TO 6
1 GC -H
I TIME N TREASURES, MR. WCHAELS. YOGURT, ETC.
4
HIGUERA
I779 TO 787
C -GH
INCHON STEIGERS OPTICAL, DECADES, BOOK
4
HIGUERA
782.766.790 CCH
-AND
GONE BANANAS. AUDIO ECSTASY. COVH2INGS
4
HIGUERA
1858 to 864
IC -C -H
TIENS. BROWNS SHOES. PMS LINGERIE
4
HIGUERA
894.898
I GGH
COPELAND S SPORT SHOE OUTLET. SPORTS SHOE
4
HIGUERA
1952 - 964
C -GH
1MERmVVJ
4
MARSH
578
GC
I FEATHERS HAIR FASHIONS
4
MARSH
1640
GC
_
IMI FOREIGN AUTO REPAIRS
4
MARSH
1712
1 GC
GOODWILL STORE
4
MARSH
1717
1 GC
[LONGS DRUGS & PHARMACY
4
MARSH
1720
1 GC
I TOMWEL BEAUTY SUPPLY
4
MARSH
1722C
GH
IPOSTNET
4
MARSH
1728
C -GH
(THOMAS EVERETT SALON
4
MARSH
748
IC -C -H
I SAN LUIS TRADITIONS
i
4
MARSH
1883
C -C
IPARABLE.
4
MARSH
1043
IGC
ILAW OFFICES
4
MARSH
11114
C-R
I SURREY RIDGE CREAMERY
4
MARSH
1692.698
IGC
174B EVEN, MUFFINS 'N MORE
4
MARSH
1742 A & 8
C -GH
IAMERICAN SPEEDY PRINTING. OBISPO COFFEE
4 iMONTEREY
" 857
C -GH
IFORDENS
4
MONTEREY1877
GGH
IPUT ONS ^•Good shell"
4
MONTEREY
1886
GGH
IBELLOS SPORTING GOODS
4
4
MONTEREY
MORRO
11005.1007
11023
GGH
C -H
G
IHUDSONS GRILL
I STRAUSS LUGGAGE AND GIFTS
iSPERRY FLOUR BUILDING
4
MORRO
1019 9,1021
GGH
!DANCE SHOP, PAPER REEDS
4
NIPOMO
1051
GC
ITORTILLAFLATS
4
NIPOMO
11124. B TO D
I C -C
ISTEVEN THAYER. AKEN, AUOTO. ETC.
4
SANTA ROSA 11705, 1115
C -C
ISLO CUSTOM GOLF. FASTFRAME •^ see 1085 Hi era St. •^
4
TORO
11103
O
7COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH
I
I
5
BROAD
1019 to 1023
GH
iFRAMERY, OLD WORLD RUGS. TELEPHONE GALLERY
5
5
GARDEN
GARDEN
11129
11137
GGH
CLH
I CASABLANCA TRAVEL, RUSTIC ROMANCEI
GARDENERS COTTAGE
LAIRD BUILDING
5
HIGE�RA
563 & 565
GC
SUPER MUFFLER & BRAKE
5
5
HIGUERA
MARSH
1570 #2 TO 28 GC
600 GC
SPOCE S PLACE, FOODS. SHRIMP, TSURUGI, ETC.
OLD COUNTRY DELI
GOLDEN STATE.CREAMERY
5
MARSH
664
IGC
IAUDIO VIDEO CONCEPTS
5
MARSH
10m1
IC -C
SAN LUIS ARCO
5
MARSH
! 1023
C CSUNSET
NORTH CARWASH
5
MARSH
11095
GC
I MOBIL SERVICE STATION
5
MARSH
11120
C-R
[REPUBLICAN CENTRAL COM. OF SLO
1
5
MONTEREY
1968
GGH
TARTAGUA REALTY ssitdo case tocombme
5
MONTEREY
970
GGH
SAN LUIS GARBAGE CO. Is. demolish and
5
MONTEREY
974
GGH
[SAN LUIS JENIELRY & LOAN re lace w/ho
5
MONTEREY
976
GGH
1900 BOO RECORDS ••• osslde case sbidy to combine
5
MONTEREY
9B0
GGM
I CHRISTBS COFFEE parcels. demolish and
5
MONTEREY
982
GC -H
ISPORTS CARDS reNaze w/ tmusl —
5
MONTEREY
1185
GR
WESTSmE TIRE, NATIONAL AUTO GLASS
5
MONTEREY
11219
GR
GROVE MOTORS
5
MONTEREY
11239
GR
ISAN LUIS HONDA -YAMAHA
5
MONTEREY
11248
IGR
I SLO SPIRITS AND DELI
j
5
MONTEREY
11255
GR.
IS.L. MEDICAL SUPPORT. POPOLO. XEROX
5
MONTEREY 11329
C-R
IBIG A AUTO PARTS
5
MONTEREY
11330
CSR
STANLEY MOTORS
5
MONTEREY
1347
C-R
I MUSTANG TAVERN
5
5
MONTEREY
MONTEREY
I 1009 to 1025 C -GH
11232 TO 1244 CR
ITACO BELL MISSION CINEMAS
I DAYLIGHT GARDENS
JGFEMOUND BUS DEPOT
5
MONTEREY
T1264 & 1266
C-R
IMUSIC FACTORY, AMERICAN CLEANERS
5
MONTEREY
1351 & 1357
GR
1PRIECtSION ENGINEERING. UNIVERSITY CAR STEREO.
I
5
N?OMO
1010
PF -H
ICMnRNSMUSEUM
5
5
INIPOM0
PALM
11015
1817
IC -C -H
vacant
[PALM THEATER
CROWN SODA WORKS
5
PALM
1861
GGH
[PALINDROMES
5
SANTA ROSA 1972. 974
GR
IBUN KER, BROWN, BERESKY, CLARK
5
TORO
11115. A to H
0
IBROWN, UNDENTHALER. COUPON TABLOID. ETC.
I
I
6
BROAD
11010
PF -H
[ART CENTER ART ASSN. GALLERY
6
BROAD
11040
GC -H
IRHYTHM CAFE • smafl ^' -
1
I
APPENDIX F
� /
5
BROAD
11108
GGH
BLAZING BLENDERS •'•Snap^•
6
BROAD
1127
C -C
BOSTON BAGEL CO. •^snap^•
6
IBROAD
11127
ICC
PLUMS FOR CHILDREN •••smar-
6
IBROAD
11131
C -C
fTACOS ACAPULCO •••srnal•••
6
CHORRO
1941
_
H
MISSION SAN LUIS OBISPO
6
,CHIM
'950
C C FI
LYNDAFLYNNS —small
6
ICHORRO
1952IC-C44
ITHENAn-am ^•snap•••
6
ICHORRO
1956CCH
GIN GERSSECRET GARDENS •'•small
6
CHORRO
1970
C -m
I
6
CHORRO
11023
I C -C -H
ICARLOS & WILLIES. vacant
6
CHORRO
11029
1C{.H
!COOMBS OPTOMETRY' •••smap
DUGHI BUILDING
6
CHORRO
11033
lc -H
BURRISS SADDLERY • Soap•••
6
CHORRO
RO
1141
C -GH
flu SLO BIN,
6
CHORRO
1964.91 to 7
1 C -C -H
(ADOBE REALTY, GALLERY, BOARD SHOP, LILT CLEVER
SAUER/ADAMS ADOBE
6
GARDEN
11119
GC -H
SLO BREW. GAMES PEOPLE PLAY
JUNION HARDWARE BUILDING
6
GARDEN1212
GC
I GARDEN STREET BED &BREAKFAST
GOLDTREEIMCCAFFREY HOUSE
6
HIGUERA
1561
GC
!LIFESTYLES FAMILY HAIR CARE •••sloop•••
!
6
HIGUERA
(5 86
C -C -H
SANDY'S LIQUOR. SHETL.ER CONSTRUCTION
6
HIGUERA
672
C -C -H
IHANDS GALLERY, ACADEMY OF DANCE. SALON
6
HIGUEtRA
673
C -C -H
IBAGEL BASEMENT •^snap••
6
H IGUERA
1674
C -C -H
Ie. ANTHONY & COMPANY "•smar"
6
HIGUERA
675
C -C -H
IGOLDENCHINA ^•Smaill
6
HIGUERA
1686,
C-C•H
IMCLINTOCK'S SALOON ^•smaill
6
HIGUERA
1698
C -C -H
HIND MANUF. SPORTS OUTLET •••smar-
6
HIGUERA
17.15
C C-HIPENELOPES
•••smar-
6
HIGUERA
1717
GGH
TART OF SANDWICH •••snap•^
6
MGUERA723
C -C -H
Itills MUSIC •^snap•'-
6
HIGUERA
125
•GC -H
I MOTHERS TAVERN •^new•"
6
6"
HIGUERA
HIGUERA
1726
1728
C -C -H
IBRUBECKS •^small
I KLUVER CIGAR FACTORY
C -C -H
FROG & PEACH PUB •••smafl`
6
HIGUERA
1737
C -C -H
INATURAL SELECTION
6
6
HIGUERA
1740
C -C -H
GOLD CONCEPT '^snap"'
VOLLMER GROCERY
HIGUERA
1749
O -OH
EVERYONES FAVORITE WEDDING
!
6
HIGUERA
751
C -C -H
I MARSHALLS JEWELERS
6
6
HIGUERA
1849
6C-11
WINEMAN HOTEL ••• lans for hotel underway",
GOLDTREE BLOCKMO7EL WINEMAN
HIGUERA
le79,
C -C -H
ITHE GAP
6
HI31JERA
1385
IGC
ISTARBUCKSCOFFEE 9620
6
HIGUERA
887C
GH
ILmmTED EXPRESS. INC. 9978
6
FOGUERA
!895
C -C -H
!GARDEN BOTANIKA, INC.
6
HIGUERA
1899c
-GH
!STRUCTURE, WC.
6
HIGUERA
1995
C -C -H
IFI ST BANK OF SAN LUIS OIi15PO
6
HIGUERA
11105
GR
BANK OF AMERICA
6
HIGUERA
11001. A TO F
C -C
i THE GRILL, SUPERCUTS -new conanerctal•^
I
6
HIGUERA
! 1065.101-301 GC
COFFEE MERCHANT, ROSSETTI
6
HIGUERA
560. A to H
C -C
INURSERY, ARCS, H&R BLOCK. SALON, KCOY
6
HIGUERA
156 I A to D
C C
ISAN LUIS AMBULANCE. TRANSgMERICA HARDING, ETC.
5
HIGUERA
1599. A to H
C -C
!POSTER MARKET, SUIGENEW DESIGNS, ETC.
6
HIGUERA
641, 100.303
C -C -H
PATRICK JAMES,.CMS; MIDLAND PACIFIC, SDG. ETC.
6
HIGUERA
1670, A to D
C -GH
RUDOLPHS, BIiKENSTOCK, KITCHEN SHOP, GREENERY
6
HIGUERA
1682, 684
GC -H
TOMS TOYS, MASSE & JOHNSTON
6
HIGUERA
697 A to 1.699 GGH
IEARTHLMG BOOKS, DAVID HO l MES. ETC. •^new•••
6
HIGUERA
733, A&B
C -C -H
IATMOSPH9iES & EDGEWARE CUTLERY ...sural••-
6
HIGUERA
778. A to G
C -C -H .
INETWORK, KOFFEE KLATSCH, CISCOS. ETC.
6
HIGUERA
949.973
GGHTE
2LJ SHOP, CAL POLY DOWNTOWN, BOYLE ENG.. ETC.
6
JOHNSON
979
GR
!ALS DRAPERY SERVICE •••snap^•
6
MARSH
1528
GC
!BOB'S BARBER SHOP—sma1P••
6
6
MARSH _
MARSH
1536
C -C
JACK HOUSE
JACK HOUSE.
1590
IC -C
IFOSTERS OLD FASHIONI� FREEZE
6
MARSH
751
0
—I FORUM. THE
6
MARSH
790
C -GH
ICENTURY FEDERAL LOAN CENTER, LYNN'S
6
MARSH
1837
GC
I COPELAND'S ENTERPRISES. MC.
6
6
MARSH
MARSH
1893
1951
GC
!POST OFFICE
U.S. POST OFFICE
C -C
!FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
FIRST PRESBYTERWN CHURCH
6
MARSH!
1010 to 1030
GC
IAbF•DICAL CLINIC Al MIN MERRIL LYNCH
6 MARSH
1027. A & B
C -C
ISTRESSBUSTERS.TAKKEMS —
Small -6
MARSH
1570 A to C
GC
VORTEX, TOM SWEM, TRTAN RJVESTMENTS
6
MARS}!
668, 670
GC
;TAKKENS BOOTS &SHOES, WESTERN WVESTMENTg
6
MARSH
733 A & B
10
I CUESTA TITLE GUARANTY, CELLULAR ONE
6
MARSH
1876.888
ICGH
WRESH CHOICE. DOWNTOWN CWE&WS
APPENDIX F
6
MARSH
1890.892.894 C -C
IJUICE CLUB. BEN It JERRY'S ICE CREAM
6
MONTEREY
1679
1
1OFMCES, paTt ofOce MLssion Placa expansion
6
MONTEREY
1956
1 CHOCOLATE SOUP ^•smalf•••
6
6
IMONTEREY
MONTEREY
11035
!1037
C -GH
1 GGH
FREMONT ThEATER
IBUONATAVOLA _
FREMONT THEATER
6
MONTEREY'
1039
C -C
!COUNTY GOVT. GARAGE -
6
MONTEREY
1050
PF -H
i COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER
6
MONTEREY
11057
GC
ISAN LUIS 08I5PO DONUTS "•sma0^'
6
MONTEREY
i 1101
i GRI
JOHNS SHELL
6
MONTEREY
11131
C-R
IDEAN WITTER "'new•'•"
6
MONTEREY .1144
C-RSL
OCOUNTY CLERK RECORDER
6
MONTEREY
11146
GR
SAN LUIS BAY MOTORS, INC.
6
MONTEREY
1308
GR
(UNION 76 - HESSL6tS11NOCAL
6
MONTEREY
11301 & 1307
GR
1743AVEN FOOD STORE, NICE NAILS
6
MONTEREY
1861, 863
C GH
SCARPA SHOES, FRAM( & COMPANY ...sma6'••
6
6
MONTEREY 1967,969
MORRO 1872
GGH
0
IYOGA CENTRE, ANGELO'S •'•historic buildin •^
IPACIFICBELL/AT&T
ILOOBUNER BUILDING
6
6
6
MORRO
MORRO
MORRO
1879
1888
955
GGH
PF -H
GG
I CALL AMERICA *"environmental Problems. vadcIng garage next door -
1 1 CRY -COUNTY LIBRARY
!CITY ENGOVEERQJG OFFICES
6
MORRO
1144
C-CH
LIMON BANK
6
MORRO
1950 & 954
!C -GH
I BERLIN RESEARCH, CARERA'S OFFICE EOL11P..
6
NBPOMO
1024101032
!GGH
THE.OL' BURRO WAGON. STRANDS
6
OSOS
11131:1135
GGH
KEMPER SECURITES, INC. ^`see 995 Hi vera St...
6
6
OSOS
PALM
PALM
11150.201-207 C -C
1800 GGH
815 C -H
C -C -H
I SLOCOG, ELLIS & COLLINS. DE LA MOTTE '—see 1010 Marsh St...
AH LOUIS STORE ••'hslr problems, small•• AH LOUIS STORE
IMEE HENG LOW ••'sma8
6
PALM
842
C -GH
!PALM STREET.PARKMGSTRUCTURE
6
PALM
1911
GC -H
"'sma0^•
1
6
6
PALM
[PALM
1990
1995
PF -H
IGC -H
I CITY HALL
I CITYICOUNTY LBRARY
ICITYHALL
6
1 SANTA ROSH 11087
C -C
I SLO COUNTY OFFICES
6
SANTA ROSA 11135
GC
iHOME FEDERAL SAVINGS, vacant
1
I
7
BROAD
;1113, 0"1 to o
GC -H
i "exbdft apwtments"'
7
CHORRO
11113
IC -GH
I '^exlsft apwbmrd"
7
CHORRO'
1978.980
IC,,C4q
I ... exWkm apartmerds'"
7
7
7
7
HIGUERA
HIGUERA
HIGLIERA
JOHNSON
[719.721
760.766.770
1777&V2 A•C
1971.A&B
C -C -H
C -C -H
C -GH
iC.R
WICHAELS OPTICAL —existing a artments^
MISSION. JARS CAMPUS CAMERA, 770 •^exfs8n s'••
HANDS GALLERY •^exist apts upstaft...
^•axisfin hotae•^
GREENFIELD BUILDING
WARDEN BLOCK
DOTON BUILDING
1
7
MARSH
1530
IGC
house•^
7
IMARSH
1777.781, 785
CC
EE LONG. HMYNATURALLY. CHEAP. THRILLS, ETC. "'exists
ts"'
7
MARSH
1778.1 and 2
C GH
VILLAGE BARBER SHOP 'existingairs•••
7
MONTEREY
1667
-
7"
MONTEREY
i 1252 A to C
C-R
I •'• existing ho -
7
MONTEREY
1335 & 1337
GR
1 SUNSHINE DAYDREAMS, SECURITY BLANKET 'existat
rear•^
7
7
7
MONTEREY
MONTEREY
MORRO
668.870
1951.955, 965
11116 to 1130
C -GH
C -C -H
C -GH
IML®O'S GROCERY, MOONDOGGIES •^exist.
IANDERSON HOTEL. SERE'NGETI WEST, BARBER SHOP
!ALBERT'S FLORIST. ROSE & HENRY, GRANADA HOTEL
MUZi05 GROCERY
JANDERSON HOTEL
I
i
f
I -
I
�
I
I
I
I
I
I
�
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I C 9UOBICOULLLSTUDY4.XLS
APPENDIX G
SURVEY RESULTS, CATAGORY 1 BUILDINGS
I
Phase B Criteria, scale 0 to 4 where 41s the best score possible.
i
Issues
I.
Bud Issues I
U
o a° w
i
sues
Address
(Name
z I > e
13 I I w
GARDEN
11123-1127
IsmrraBUnMING
.
i 0 4 l 1 i
>"
1. 1 4 1 2 1 i !
coral
GARDEN
11130 A -D
I
ISTOVERBUH.DING
I 1 3 1 3 1 2
0 1 4 1 i 1
1 2
!
1 &C i 4 1 4 3 2 1 3 18.0 1
1 1 •. 4! 3 I I 1 I
24.0
1
1705
1
! 1 1 3 1 2 2
1 3
1.5.0 1 ! 1 3 1 3 2 1 2 1 3 6.5:
235
HIGUEdA
!PHONE CENTER
1 0 1 3 1 I
1 1 1 4 i .2
1
1868
1
1 1 1 4! 3
1 3
5.51 i 1 3 1 3 ! 2 1 2 1 2 16.01
215
HIGUERA
iROSSDRESSCMS
0 1 4 1
4 i 4 1 3 1 i i
HIGUERA
1970
1
IMO'S BAR -BE- UE
1 1 2 1 3
0! 4 1 t
3
1
1451 i I 1 0 1 0 1 3 4 1 3 15.01
I 1! 4 1 1 1 1 1
245
HIGUERA
1736.73 A -I
!
!CARRISABUHAING
! ! 1 2 2 2
10 1 4 ! i
1 2
i
14.01 1 i 2 l 2 1 2 1 2 i 2. 1501
1 1 4 1 2 I i
19.0
MARSH
!
1774 A to F
ISNYDER BUILDING
I 2! 4 1 2!
1 0 1 4 I I
3
I
SS1 i 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 2 1 2 !.651
1 3 2 1 0 1 I 1
23.0
MONTEREY 1848
SAUER BAKERY
1 2 2 1 a
0 1 4 1
1 3
1 5.S 1 1 1 i 3 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 2 15.51
! 1 2 1 2 3 1 1 1! 1
20.0
1
1 1 ! .2 1 2! 4
1 4
16.01 ! I ! 2 2 2! 0! 2 1 4.0 1
21.0
MONTEREY
1235
IMDFS BICYCLE
1 3 1 1
1 3! 2 ( 2 1 1 I I
1
! 2 1 3 1 3
3
15.51 1 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 1 2 6.0
22.5
MONTEREY
840.844
iBLACKSMNE HOTEL 1 0 1 4 1 ! 1
1 1 3! 2 1 3
MONTEREY 1888 to 894
1 CALL BUILDING
.l 4 1 3
1 0 1 4
3
!
1 5S ! i 1 3 1 3 ! 3 1 2 1 2 16.5!
1 { 1 1 2 •. 2 1 1 1 I
24.0
11050-1
1
1 2 1 2 1 2!
3..14.5;
1 i ! 3 3 2 1 2 1 2 16.01
19.5
OSOS
IKENNEDY NAU=
1 0 4 I !
2 1 4! 4 1 1
I 1 3 1 2
1 2
14.01 1 ! 2 1 3( 3 1 2 1 1 15.51
23.5
I
I
l i l
I
l l i i l l l l I I
C:AIO=OULLzTuOy5J4S
f
APPENDIX H
Development Fee Comparison for Communities
in the San Luis Obispo Area.
The following tabulation presents comparable levels of development- fees for various
communities in the San Luis Obispo area. The fees were generated by assuming a 12 -
unit apartment, 850 square feet per unit, in the communities respective downtown areas.
(No decks, porches, or garages were assumed.) Basic permit and plan check fees are not
included In several cities, including San Luis Obispo, some of the fees are waived for
low and moderate income housing.
Qty of San Luis Obispo
Traffic Fees ($1,095/d.u.)
$13,140
Water Impact Fees
$58,332
Water Meter Installation
$422
Wastewater Imps
$23,112
Fire Safety Surcharge
$829
Construction Unit Tax
$1,800
Park In -lieu Fee
28,800
School Fees ($1.50/s.f.)
$15,300
Total Fees
$T12,935 $9,411/d.u.
School Fee (Templeton Unified Schools)
cost per square foot $11.07
Templeton (County of San Luis Obisoo
Grading penmt review
$500
Plan Intake
155
Addressing
30
County public facility fee ($372/du.)
4,464
Road Improvement fee ($1894/du.)
22,728
TCSD Water Unit fee ($3,642/du.)
43,704
TCSD Sewer Unit fee ($2400/d.u.)
28,800
TCSD Park fee ($850.du.)
10,200
TCSD Fre fee ($606.24/d m)
7,251
School Fee (Templeton Unified Schools)
17.544
Total Fees $1359376 $11,281 per d.u.
cost per square foot $13.27
APPENDIX H, continued
City Of Santa Maria
Traffic Mitigation ($980/du.)
11,760
Growth Mitigation ($411/du.)
4,932
Water Connection ($1032/du.)
12,384
Sewer Connection ($573/d u.)
6,876
Park Acquisition ($1810/d.u.)
21,720
Park Development ($1316/du.)
15,792
School Fees ($1.72/s.f.)
17.544
Total Fees
$91,038 $7,586/d.u.
School Impact Fee ($1.72/s.£)
cost per square foot $ 892
City of Paso Robles
Signalization Fee ($107/d.u.)
1,284
Bridge Fee ($2189/d u.)
26,268
Water Connection ($817/du.)
804
Water Meter (12 - 3/4" @ $179 ea)
2,148
Sewer Connection ($817/du.)
24,204
SMIP
59
Development Impact Fee (1996) ($4500/du.)
54,000
(new bridge and public facilities)
School Impact Fee ($1.72/s.£)
17.544
Total Fees
$135,311 $11,275/d.u.
cost per square foot $ 13.27
City of Atascadero
Development Fee (includes roads, bridges, drainage, public
$18,390
safety, parks)
Sewer Connection ($533/d u.)
6,396
Sewer Annexation ($1,123/du.)
13476
Water Connection & Installation (AMWC) (5/8" @ $1400 ea)
16,800
School Fees ($1.65/s.f.)
$16,830
Total Fees
$71,892 $5,991/d.u.
cost per square foot 5 7.05
City of Arrovo Grande
(range of fees only provided; there has been no apartment construction for several years)
Building permit including water & sewer ($4500-$6500/d.u.) $78,000
School Fees ( $1.76 / s.f.) $17,952
Total Fees
$959952 $7,996/d.u.
cost per square foot $ 9.04
Z
APPENDIX I
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Analysis of Affordable Housing Requirements recommended in the draft Land Use
Element, Munch & Associates, Consultants in land use and economics, September,
1991.
Downtown Improvement Manual, City of San Luis Obispo, 1982.
Flood Damage Regulations, City of San Luis Obispo, 1979.
Goals for Downtown, City of San Luis Obispo, 1979.
Historical Preservation Financial Assistance Guidelines, City of San Luis Obispo, 1987.
The Noise Element of the General Plan, City of San Luis Obispo, 1975.
Office Supply and Demand Study, Quad Engineering, City of San Luis Obispo,
Community Development Department, February, 1986.
Residential Growth Management Regulations, City of San Luis Obispo, July, 1986.
Seismic Safety Elements, State of California, 1975.
State Historical Building Code, State of California, 1992.
Historical Preservation Process Guidelines, City of San Luis Obispo, 1979_
Transportation Impact Fee Fact Sheet, City of San Luis Obispo, 1995.
Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Schedule, City of San Luis Obispo, 1995.
1990 Census, STF 3, Department of -Finance, State of California, 1990.
Housing Element of the General Plan, City of San Luis Obispo
Zoning Regulations, City of San Luis Obispo, July, 1993
Land Use Element, City of San Luis Obispo, August, 1994
Historic Resources Inventory, Blackstone Hotel, City of San Luis Obispo, February, 1995
Uniform Building Code, International Conference of Building Officials, 1991 and 1994.
L
APPENDIX J
CONSULTANT TEAM
Robert S. Vessely, RCE
Robert S. Vessely, Civil and Structural Engineering
742 Pacific Street, Suite B
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
Thomas G. Reay, Architect
2491 Tierra Drive
Los Osos, California 93402
Andrew G. Merriam, AIA, AICP
Principal in charge of planning
Cannon Associates
364 Pacific Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
Gerald C. Taylor, MAI
Schenberger, Taylor, McCormick & Jecker, Inc.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
1411 Marsh Street, Suite 107
San Luis Obispo, California 93401