The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08/03/2001, STUDY SESSION - NEW COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING AT 1039 MONTEREY STREET (ARC 78-01) (2) 0council 'A-6,D�9_3_ol A AQcn0A REpont '�'S�u by G�:sSIDAJ C I TY OF SAN L U IS O B I S P O FROM John Mandeville, Community Development Director Prepared By: Ronald Whisenand, Deputy Community Development Director and.eD Whitney McIlvaine, Associate Planner SUBJECT: NEW COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING AT 1039 MONTEREY STREET (ARC 78-01) CAO RECOMMENDATION 1. Receive presentation regarding the proposed new County office building at 1039 Monterey Street, and 2. Authorize the Mayor to sign a letter forwarding the City Council's comments to the County Board of Supervisors. DISCUSSION Background/Overview Prior to considering this report and the presentation by the County, the City CAO wishes to offer some added context, which is: The new County Administration Building is an extremely welcome project for our downtown and will fulfill a very important goal for both the City and the Downtown Association. In summary, the building represents a long-term commitment by the County to the downtown. This commit will: (1) provide convenient and centrally located county services for thousands of city and county residents; (2) help to consolidate scattered county office uses into major County buildings, thus freeing up space to meet other downtown needs; and (3) assure a strong customer base for our downtown merchants. It was not too many years ago that the County was strongly considering directing its building expansion efforts outside of the City of San Luis Obispo. One does not have to look any further than the City of Ventura to see how important it is to retain the strongest possible County presence in a downtown (downtown Ventura suffered irreparable harm when the County Courthouse was relocated to Victoria Avenue). The CAO suggests that we keep this larger context in mind as we consider the County's daunting task of building a major facility in our dense, historic, and highly regarded and protected downtown core. .SSI- f Council Agenda Report—8/3/01 New County Offices at 1039 Monterey Page 2 Data Summary Property Owner: County of San Luis Obispo Representative: Greg MacDougall, County General Services Architects: Kaplan McLaughlin Diaz Zoning: Central Commercial (C-C) General Plan: General Retail Environmental Status: The County is preparing an environmental initial study Proiect Description/Presentation The County is proposing to construct a 97,000-square foot, 4-story office building with two levels of underground parking (137 spaces). The building would be roughly 55 feet high with an additional 10 (+/-) feet for a roof mounted mechanical screen. The existing County parking garage and the Sunshine Donuts building would be demolished. The Carrotwood trees along Monterey Street, the large Ficus tree on Santa Rosa, and several on-site trees would be removed. The proposed architectural style is modern, incorporating extensive areas of glazing within a concrete structural frame. The building is predominantly rectilinear with the exception of a two- story, semi-circular extension on the Monterey Street fagade that would house the new Board of Supervisors' chambers. A series of sun shades are shown on the plans as part of the building's climate control system. See attachment 2. The project architects will present a color and materials board at the meeting. Together with County General Services staff members, they will also be able to answer specific questions regarding the overall program for the project and other design questions the City Council may have. City Review Process Because County jurisdiction supercedes that of the City, no formal review of County projects is required. However, as a courtesy to the City and its residents, the County has been very forthcoming in involving City staff and solicting input regarding the proposed design from the City's Architectural Review Commission (ARC), the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC), the Planning Commission, and City Council. Summary of Comments to Date Architectural Review Commission: On July 16, 2001, the ARC heard a presentation of the County office project. The majority of Commissioners felt a modern architectural style, incorporating significant energy saving features, is appropriate for a new civic building. Not all commissioners were convinced the proposed design would fit in with its surroundings. Several suggestions were made to improve the SSI- 2 Council Agenda Report—8/3/01 New County Offices at 1039 Monterey Page 3 architectural compatibility of the project within the context of the downtown, especially given the proximity of key historic and architectural buildings, such as the Freemont Theater and the J.P. Andrews building. Commissioners were primarily concerned that cost considerations might result in another Social Services style building, pointing out that everything is in the details—especially with such a large building - and loss of the "add on" features like the use of limestone tile, the roof deck gardens, decorative cornices, artwork above the main entry, and the copper (or comparable metal) sheathing on the exterior of the Board chambers would seriously diminish the building's aesthetics. Therefore, the City letter to the Board of Supervisors should encourage support for these features. A member of the public, Mr. Fred Vemacchia, who owns the mustard-colored building at the comer of Monterey and Santa Rosa Streets, was concerned with the lack of adequate parking and with the overall massiveness of the proposed building. With regard to parking, the City and the County have previously entered into a memorandum of understanding to cooperate in the potential development of additional parking northeast of Santa Rosa Street. At the present time, County General Services staff is working with our Public Works Department to participate in a forthcoming study of such a new facility. Cultural Heritage Commission: On July 23, 2001, the CHC reviewed the project for consistency with the City Historical Preservation Guidelines. Although the property is outside the downtown historical preservation district, it is practically adjacent to the Fremont Theater, a master list property, and is located at a strategic gateway to the downtown. Committee members recommended that the design be modified as follows to better fit in with the historic context of the downtown: 1. Step back the upper levels after the second story to reduce the scale and massing and apparent height of the building. 2. Use an exterior material like brick to better relate to existing historic structures like the J.P. Andrews building and the Historical Museum. 3. Increase the setback at the Santa Rosa and Monterey Street corner. 4. Provide additional setback from the back of sidewalk. (Both the County buildings across Monterey have much greater setbacks than what is proposed for this building.) 5. Modify the building design to reflect more of the traditional downtown architectural elements and minimize the use of modernist elements. Tree Committee: On July 23, 2001, the City Arborist reviewed the tree removal issues with the Tree Committee, with the focus on the ficus tree on Santa Rosa Street. The Committee ultimately asked that they SS �- 3 Council Agenda Report—8/3/01 New County Offices at 1039 Monterey Page 4 be consulted before determining the appropriate replacement tree. This request will be accommodated. Planning Commission: On July 25, 2001, the Planning Commission reviewed the project for general plan conformity as required by the Government Code. The Commission focused on relevant Land Use Element policies, several of which specifically discuss development in the downtown and the civic center in particular. By unanimous motion, the Commission found that, overall, the proposed new County office building conforms with the General Plan, but recommended special consideration of the following items to better ensure consistency with policies related to design principles for downtown development: 1. Pedestrian safety as it relates to the Monterey Street mid-block crossing; 2. Pedestrian safety as it relates to the entrance to underground parking; 3. Solutions for additional parking and parking demand management; 4. Relationship of the new building to the Freemont Theater, a historic landmark; 5. Inclusion of the limestone cladding and the roof gardens as part of the full project description and add alternates, which priority given to the roof gardens Letter from the City After Council receives the presentation by County staff and considers the prior comments of City advisory bodies and the public, consensus direction from the Council will be sought in order to draft a letter to the Board of Supervisors. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity map 2. Reduced plans 3. Relevant Land Use Element policies to be reviewed by the Planning Commission 4. Letter summarizing ARC comments 5. Letter summarizing CHC comments Larger 11" X 17" will be distributed to individual Council members prior to the meeting. S � 1 - y O o hme t G O C-R F-H CR -H PF PF-H � J 0 V' J i•'3�^Y..n bNYrvt ill C 4: CIC 0 C-C-H C� O C-C R4 0 -H Vicinity Map- . 1039n/ 1057 Monterey y N 100 0 100 200 Feet GPC � ARC 78®®1 A S: 51 I } I,,�� l(Ilq I l illll[1 111111 16 c:Irinc lil�l li•• ,IiI!III�IIIIII�II�IIII I,I�n^IiII;Il fle,.��'1��1iLI'g��f D1[dc/lI�iIl!!lf��`.P.IIi■.,■llIir�i'i.Ii�i:'diu1u1l(1'°L1 II,IIlI • .I'loan O .I�m■■.B,I.iIIl,lIIl _._.0. IIl.1■uuoi■■Lilia mono i�ne, E11111,51F. ; 111 ." I�IIl1E ;rlrmM. w✓• Ij—ll 1I!, IEIoil l.. Ull.I' 10 111 ��BIl„Il il�nIi li6ll'I I1 IOliaIfIMON1a�me11 : I ! l 1 �� 11■ a I 'ri IIP' • ow, lain—I 1 f 1 ®I I • rl•naii ?d rni ,,.lel■lrta:al11�I•'IIl�I�111i'il��'llil I - L 'iA q�ii'lll�l■mllll IrICg\t `� � Iri ual•min.I i'illll� �m^.'.�. -t I® 1111�IIII'IIII IiIII I ®I!Ii5illpp ■Q'llll �ne�.il�iijl a IIMill lel�11 I 1 it R;II n• n lulls a111'.9111 II ®III I I I�I ei16,1 iEI L.'.,• i a II®III 0111 IyI,I��BI�I I 1 MI■eIIRtIIIICI IID' �IIiII 1 w ■ .■ I= ��■ �Isu•.e ..11. .• I milia d I I� I?�f II IIT C'��Iliill�l I �I'f: 11'C I9 IIIE I _i, �■ 11.1 0 111IIIiIIIIIlipI. I IIII . .� �fl •�irlli. ��.. '��111�I01I��A tl�'.nl'[7III I ' ii I�IIIA Ir• it wi:ill! �I9 d R;YI7114 I„II 1111111 Will If,lllllli hll11 11fill ii�� ;'111111 � 1 I. II•• a aS0[ mill il IIII -_ o bili ii I 13s.�101//1+� `ifs�ei�"hill: > hi 11'u .'IwFB11��■■■■B.o . �. I ��I ' ill I w i' 7■$if�1�G �;�� ,I 1'I �. — Ill II J � ■SII a II-- �'1 ' .� III d I ��e■ E..I�i`I llir�l ll�i 4S — ■ emu n re;, µ•MONO;m.m •IIII�i r m ■III 8 P':IIII I I II i� 'T:111 I�ii:i hilt i !i Irurnnow, a pro, o ly I I Il li r � a II III 41 1 ' O N L� N r , • dm_� ' • i L>H S iiil w1 nll al , ( t .. •� ra , t l�l�. , � , , 'IQ •i '� ir��`i ci l;��ill�i;•�,l� E; � .t I^,;I� _r::� Alll`'1 r91 �Illlln -��IIIIII q� 1111141 �I■i1' 1: 19111¢ rll llllLfafll . q O�'lllll 'IauIII � llglll� ®iiia , Irl, rr:� w r:ru, •'•.y ��I�fi. 1.1.E I �I� rol ��II w dean �•f.G,;I Is;:E milli zac tr_gsl �CIo!IG II;@h911 III 4�!Ilr�of rV4� 'd � milli p • 1 I ffY,l. �y IF I'l 11 �iII�Y�I 1(iiI IIIIIi ��+a,,�a�• �Y' \. U I�II�I �i�•iY mqq+Y (p� ; ar pll r�nl1 tu�lllll }''''I�� R16111®Illllml�� Il.-�1 X111 a'U� II91��III I I np wulallu a ! IlIII'� ri iii ,. -- '� 11111; t 61 11�" . ••ewas:..f Ii @ erli �IIIIII inle!q ! wool .`..':I�llll�lll�(II�� w i I<�ol � �i11 i� I�I; I�► ill�Ih s 1 1l - LHi a , a a— i�l lilll iII�A111 S i� ��c�i■�III��9III! I 9: 111ll ! t` nil-_ ' I l albI�i Emmons • N N Yr p N IV • d.�,N V , • tJ A G r7+ • ♦ _ a � C R— Attachment 3 General Plan Conformity Evaluation for the Proposed New County Office Building at 1039 Monterey Street GPC 78-01 General Plan Goal/Policy LAND USE ELEMENT Goal 4: Protect public views of the surrounding hills and mountains. Con unent: The building's location and height will block views of the Santa Lucia Hills which are now visible to the east beyond the Freemont marquee. Because Monterey Street runs roughly east/west, portions of the hillside will still be visible from the right-of-way. Providing upper level roof decks or gardens would better ensure consistency. LAND USE ELEMENT Goal 33: Develop buildings and facilities which will contribute to our sense of place and architectural heritage. Comment: The building design should be modified to incorporate more of the elements characteristic of the downtown's most attractive buildings, such as large, deeply recessed upper floor windows; the use of transom windows for ventilation; decorative cornice projections above the first story and beneath the-roof parapet; prominent building piers and base treatment to visually ground the buildings; recessed entries; window awnings; craftsmanship in construction details such as ornamental masonry and cornice brackets. A modern design could include these same elements, using more contemporary materials. LAND USE ELEMENT Goal 35: Focus its government and cultural facilities and provide a variety of business services and housing in the downtown. Comment: Consistent LAND USE ELEMENT 4.4: Public Gatherings Downtown should have spaces to accommodate public meetings, seminars, classes,and similar activities in conjunction with other uses.Downtown should provide a setting which is festive, and comfortable for public gatherings. Comment: Final design treatment of the paseo,the area near the main entrance on Monterey Street, and the area outside the food service facilities on Higuera Street should enable various degrees of public gathering space. LAND USE ELEMENT 4.5: Walking Environment Downtown should provide safe, exciting places for walking and pleasant places for sitting. To invite exploration, mid-block walkways, courtyards, and interior malls should be integrated with new and remodeled buildings, while preserving continuous building faces on most blocks. Downtown streets should provide adequate space for pedestrians. General Plan Conformity Report Attachment 3 New County Office Building at 1039 ivtonterey Street Page 2 There should be a nearly continuous tree canopy along sidewalks, and planters should provide additional foliage and flowers near public gathering areas. Comment: Where feasible, street trees should be retained, and the building modified accordingly. Where trees are removed, they should be replaced and the building should be designed to accommodate a mature tree canopy. Varied setbacks along portions of the building's three frontages would enable places for benches or landscaping and help to relieve the apparent massing of the building. Whether the paseo is inviting or merely efficient will depend on final design details. LAND USE ELEMENT 4.6: Public Safety Indoor and outdoor public spaces should be observable from frequently occupied or traveled places, to enhance public safety. Comment: Window and lighting details along the paseo will be especially important as a means of enhancing public safety. LAND USE ELEMENT 4.7: Open Places and Views Downtown should include many carefully located open places where people can rest and enjoy views of the surrounding hills. Downtown should include some outdoor spaces where people are completely separated from vehicle traffic, in addition to Mission Plaza. Opportunities include extensions of Mission Plaza, a few new plazas, and selected street closures. Comment: The project offers the opportunity to create roof decks and gardens where the public, or, at least, County employees, could enjoy views of the surrounding hills. Enlarging the area outside the Monterey Street entrance and/or portions of the paseo would improve consistency with this policy. LAND USE ELEMENT 4.12: Building Conservation and Compatibility Architecturally and historically significant buildings should be preserved and restored. New buildings should be compatible with architecturally and historically significant buildings, but riot necessarily the same style. Comment: See discussion under Goal 33 above. LAND USE ELEMENT 4.13: New Buildings and Views New downtown development should respect views of the hills, framing rather than obscuring them. Comment: See discussion under Goal 4 and LUE 4.7 above and LUE 4.16.4 below. LAND USE ELEMENT 4.16: Design Principles The following principles should guide construction and changes of use within the commercial core: 4.16.1: Street Level Activities The street level should be occupied by stores, restaurants, and other uses benefiting SSI -9 General Plan Conformity Report Attachment 3 New County Office Building at 1039�..onterey Street Page 3 from and contributing to pedestrian traffic, such as offices with frequent client visits. Stores and restaurants may occupy upper levels. Offices not having frequent client visits should be located above street level. Comment: To increase pedestrian traffic during the evening, the paseo should be inviting and accommodate outdoor dining. 4.163: Continuous Storefront There should be a continuous storefront along sidewalks, at the back of the sidewalk, except for the Courthouse and City Hall blocks, plazas, recessed building entries, and sidewalk cafes. Comment: Consistent 4.16.4: Building Height New buildings should fit within the existing vertical scale. They should respect street-level views of the hills, allow sunlight to reach public.open spaces, and defer to a few tall, "landmark'." buildings. Generally, new buildings should not exceed two or three stories (about 35 to 50 feet). Where necessary to protect significant views, sunlight, and street character, new buildings should be limited to two stories, or about 25 to 35 feet tall. A few taller, landmark buildings (about five stories or 75 feet) may be developed where they will not obstruct views or sunlight for public spaces. These taller buildings would be more appropriate at mid-block than at corners, and their floors above the second or third level should be set back to maintain a lower street facade. The tall buildings should include publicly accessible, open viewing spaces at the upper levels. Comment: The proposed building height would be roughly 55 .feet, with another 10 feet (+/-) of mechanical screening, or about as tall as the Freemont theater marquee. The building will obstruct views of the hills. Inclusion of a publicly accessible, open viewing spaces on the roofs above the third floor and above the Board chambers would offset the loss of views and sunlight. 4.16.6: Sidewalk Appeal Street facades, particularly at the street level, should include windows, signs, and architectural details which can be appreciated by people on the sidewalks. Comment: Plans are still preliminary. However, as long as proposed finish materials are not eliminated as a cost cutting measure, the building's articulation would be consistent with this policy. LAND USE ELEMENT 4.17: Government Offices City Hall and the County Government Center should remain at their present locations. Additional administrative office space which cannot be accommodated within the County Government Center should be developed nearby within the downtown. Comment: Consistent �S1 -/ 0 General Plan Conformity Report ) Attachment 3 New County Office Building at 1039 Monterey Street Page 4 LAND USE ELEMENT 5.1: Public Facilities 5.1.1: Grouping for Convenience Government offices that provide similar types of services should be grouped for efficient service delivery. Comment: Consistent 5.1.3: Joint Projects Government agencies should cooperatively plan for new or expanded facilities. They should consider joint projects when mutual objectives can be met. Comment: Consistent. Depending on project schedules, there maybe an opportunity to coordinate the Monterey Street Plaza project with the new County offices. 5.1.4: Civic Center There should be a downtown civic center(Figure 5). The following functions should be located in the civic center, along with compatible businesses: A) City Council offices and meeting rooms, clerk, administration, finance, attorney, personnel,community development, utilities, and public works administration and engineering. Any additional space for these functions should be in or close to City Hall. B) County supervisors offices and meeting rooms, administration, courts,jury commissioner, clerk, auditor, assessor, counsel, district attorney,personnel, engineering, planning and building, environmental coordinator, and voter registration. Any additional space for these functions should be provided in or close to the County Government Center(Courthouse block). Comment: Consistent LAND USE ELEMENT 5.1.12 Building Intensity (in areas designated for Public Facilities) Generally, the ratio of building floor area to site area shall not exceed 1.0 in outlying areas and 2.0 downtown. Comments: As proposed, the ratio of building floor area to site area for the new office building would exceed 4.0, including the below ground parking. LAND USE ELEMENT 5.3: City and County Offices Downtown The City and County will jointly develop a plan for meeting their additional downtown space needs. They will coordinate site selection, building design, circulation and utility services, parking, means to reduce vehicle trips; and funding. ssl - 1I General Plan Conformity Report I . ! Attachment 3 New County Office Building at 1039 monterey Street -- Page 5 Comment: The project site has long been identified as appropriate for an expansion of County offices. City and County staff will coordinate circulation and utility services. However, the project will create roughly 75,000 net square feet of new office space while providing very few additional parking spaces. LAND USE ELEMENT 5.8: Public Art The City will encourage inclusion of appropriate public art in all projects. Comment: This project offers an excellent opportunity for installation of public art. The decision of whether or not to include public art rests with the Board of Supervisors. LAND USE ELEMENT 6.6.3: Remodeling and New Buildings Changes or additions to historically or architecturally significant buildings should be consistent with the original structure. New buildings in historical districts, or on historically significant sites, should reflect the form, spacing, and materials of nearby historic structures. Comment: This building has a modern architectural style. See comment under Goal 33 above. The ARC and CHC will provide the County with comments regarding conformance with this policy. Attachment 4 �Iil�lll I�IIIIII�II�� "IIIIIIIIIIIII� II city osAn luis oBispo A I 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 July 18, 2001 Mr. Gregory MacDougall County Dept. of General Services 1087 Santa Rosa Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 SUBJECT: Courtesy review for the ARC of the New County Office Building at 1039 Monterey Street Dear Greg: On July 16, 2001, the City of San Luis Obispo's Architectural Review Commission heard a presentation by you and David Hobstetter regarding the proposed design for a new County office building at 1039 Monterey Street. The majority of Commissioners felt a modern architectural style, incorporating significant energy saving features, is appropriate for a new civic building. Not all commissioners were convinced the proposed design would fit in with its surroundings. Several suggestions were made to improve the architectural compatibility of the project within the context of the downtown, especially given the proximity of key historic and architectural buildings, such as the Freemont Theater and the J.P. Andrews building. Commissioners were primarily concerned that cost considerations might result in another Social Services style building. It was pointed out that everything is in the details—especially with such a large building- and loss of the "add on" features like the use of limestone tile,the roof deck gardens, decorative cornices, artwork above the main entry, and the copper(or comparable metal) sheathing on the exterior of the Board chambers would seriously diminish the building's aesthetics. Specific comments addressed the pros and cons of metal sun shade in terms of their appearance and maintenance; the need for a more traditional approach to cornice design at each apparent roof line; the somewhat awkward appearance of the overhang element at the comer of Santa Rosa and Monterey Street; the desirability of a different material or treatment at the very base of the building beyond merely score lines in the concrete;the desirability of retaining the large Ficus tree on Santa Rosa Street and of having large-canopy street trees rather than the somewhat columnar trees proposed_; the importance of soliciting community input prior to taking the final design to the Board of Supervisors; and the importance of incorporating as many elements of the traditional vernacular(window rhythm, pilaster dimensions, cornice details, etc.) into the design as possible. Several commissioners also noted that the // The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. V� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410. S S / / ARC review of new County office bu. .gig 7/16/01 1039 Monterey Street Attachment 4 Page 2 vestibule leading into the Board chambers seemed a bit narrow and awkward and not well designed to accommodate members of the public attending meetings. A member of the public, Mr. Fred Vemacchia, who owns the mustard-colored building at the corner of Monterey and Santa Rosa Streets, was concerned with the lack of adequate parking and with the overall massiveness of the proposed building. Commissioners appreciated the opportunity to review the proposed design, recognizing that County jurisdiction supercedes that of the City, and no formal architectural review of County projects is required. We hope these comments will be helpful to you as you finalize the project's design. Sincerely, Ro ald Whis and, Deputy Community Development Director cc: City Council David Edge, County Administrative Officer Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer John Mandeville, Community Development Director David Hobstetter, Kaplan McLaughlin Diaz, Architects Kimberly Bobic, Vanir Construction Attachment 5 �III�BI�II�1118II��Illll�llllllllllll� III criiiiN of sAn WIS OBISPO 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 July 24, 2001 Mr. Gregory MacDougall County Dept. of General Services 1087 Santa Rosa Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 SUBJECT: Courtesy review for the CHC of the New County Office Building at 1039 Monterey Street Dear Greg: On July 23, 2001,the Cultural Heritage Committee reviewed the proposed design for a new County office building at 1039 Monterey Street for consistency with the City Historical Preservation Guidelines. Although the property is outside the downtown historical preservation district, it is practically adjacent to the Fremont Theater, a"master list" historic building, and is located at a strategic gateway to the historic downtown. Committee members recommended that the design be modified as follows to better fit in with the historic context of the downtown and nearby small businesses: 1. Step back the upper levels after the second story to reduce the scale and massing and apparent height of the building. 2. Use an exterior material like brick to better relate to existing historic structures like the J.P. Andrews building and the Historical Museum. 3. Increase the setback at the Santa Rosa and Monterey Street corner. 4. Provide additional setback from the back of sidewalk. (Both the County buildings across Monterey have much greater setbacks than what is proposed for this building.) 5. Modify the building design to reflect more of the traditional downtown architectural elements and minimize the use of modernist elements. Committee members understand that, as a review body, they have no purview in this case. However, they were grateful for the chance to provide some input into the project's final design and hope that the Board of Supervisors will consider their comments and the potential impacts of the new building on the historic and architectural character of the downtown. OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deal (805) 781-7410. SS/ - IS CHC review of new County office bi,__.ig 7/23/01 1039 Monterey Street Attachment 5 Page 2 Sincerely, Ro ald Whisen nd, Deputy Community Development Director cc: City Council David Edge, County Administrative Officer Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer John Mandeville, Community Development Director David Hobstetter, Kaplan McLaughlin Diaz, Architects Kimberly Bobic, Vanir Construction SSS - ! E • • n ` C � C � - 3 V Q C o ro z • v m cw c} Zoo , ^ � Z m 0 • Z C r N r m � r � p • — s w 1, i ----------- ------ I �• • �_�� wtl �IrllJ1 • _r5 �_1\ n` r� Y �i� • • =—l(--' Ill ❑�"I` • • ��— I LI. ,► tli w _ • �•_,= L: I\ /\ .oma=�=a,=�=aa,�=Jw.�, - I _ F • � . Ir Y � I • I I' C C) U) N c Q m 7 N v • • ••. D ' • • ' � � • n N r • sY, r zol ND O • `� a D cn. �+ • (Dv • � W • • m o � I o yN a II ® I 'O IX I NI oo N rn N C� 1 NAt OXN XN < 0 53 XN it I 70 . I I II I I I I I I II � � I I C--- I d n C I I G N V cc I � cn II � • I I � I A 1 - /J \ / C•) C� f7 I t1 1! I I I I I I � I I I I I m N Z d Nm go ,m ? � I m S C r.cn f*I I Z'� I I I I I I I I I I I I f7 0 _ C CL- m m-Z O n Q CZ ro �_ 3 m °0 3 o • Z N ` ® T -0 0 O C os I �I D op 1 I � i I I I I I m r I n I I I � g I I I / JI A 0 0 10 CK Q9 I I I I I I AP I - �- - - - - I I I I m•m o P.m A I Zr I I I I I I 0 � • ;a m � Cn V4&. No 3 C ' o Z N J _ • . T O O Q Z c' 1 v m ;a 0 19'-11° a '-1�12'-0°� 28'-0° m 27'-2" 30'-0° 30'—.On 19'-10" > // �� I I I , I I � i 0 / 00 � I o o m I I I I I I // o r - - \. � N PQ co o mp / FF 1—I-- '---- L---- (n m q I o — — — — I � o om g W w En --f >� I i oOM g o o 000 ® �L� I I I o m m m m — I II I I A I n I NZI'1 I o i mm m z z 06 16 m — — zm cn cn o m _o � I o0 00 � gmomn � � � � z I cnr I I N VQ I o I I I I I I I IIm I I m L4 z II II o o 8 VIII o cn0 + m i r cn o v, II LOrri _0 gill < Mz CD �n (moi+ Tm = m N rn cn F z m mcg o � - I O � cn �• m z p O 0 Z 0 m O C m0Q ' j r JL . _ • N -ZI Cr c: - II O o Z cTi ��' Q cn NO _ N 1, ® m �0 0 0'-0 � - ' 27'-2A '-0" m 1 '-10° 19 -11 1 12 -0n 28-0 D . I I I I I 1 � _ I o I I I I N 30 � o I I ,4 co I I o O Cl O Jit — -a--- —�--- — ■ on o711I o ZI o m ;� I • m p � I � � r-� a'o�oLA rn I ~= I I I I I Q oCD I o � (nZ v n U; 'fi rn r � m ri I O �� I w �+ v�,� z I I I I N I vLn I I I I o ❑ uLi luul co mom— I I I I CD � �z 6m I I I C jco -` 0 nn • Amo O m • o � � ZOr , _ � � N J u ppI N • o c3 -� Zy 3 z 0 0 • Q CA o 0'-0 19'-11° a '-1�12'-0" 28'-0° 27'-2° 30'-0" 30'-0" *10" > 12I-0" I I I rI I I I I N ! � o I - r - O C I v bo I I L, pco o � o 0 � Ln = z N rrir I I I 'FrS� < LP a W 13 0I I o gL"ma it i m z I o m �v i r mnvq1I `r� A I w ' I I I I I I ^•'_ I I I i 4 I I 0 a / wpm Ln p I w El Ln I I I I a A N n I I - mrn X I I I I z mo Om rn -z I I I I C) I I I I I � o c D =! C T o n c- M m \ Q Q z 0 \ O m ' 5 CCmoo A) ` O J . m O —� o 3Q Z o o 0'-0 19'-11" a '-1 �12'-0" 28'-0" m 27'-2" 30'-0" 30'-0" 1 '-10" > 12'-0" I I � i lI_ I I — I p I I I I I I ? I I I O I I I I I I I I I 1 C I I v 0 N � I n O 0 vZ I Os P u ov+z cn n s\ < + Ll o h m IEN cmc �+ • m I `; I I At— LQ Ln I I I I Q I o I I s i I \ i Ln O N CT p ( CA I I I t o cl Li Ej L4 1 s N CD I I � vII A I I I I rn Ern M.I I I I I I • n •o 0 � y Z :E �, \. O m n . n O a 3 E � % N O C .i 0 Z cn —��/ Q N O 3 m 0 0 0 z LT 11 m -a m 0 I T�.�• '�JC/.S�'7"\.� w � ,� it- -o' T,2'-0n 28 I _ m � � Do. m °o � o O u m g ®® 7 M 3 �1 CA n i I Z � j O iy z Im� Imo ' O I I m D O Z X-C C o�cn � N CD o � ' cc m o m I In I p m a, n = m� Z Z ; z tin m m o cc I I I �n nx CL J 713) �'� ' .• N m It CD m Fn 7 C"1 Z 0 CO C r s Z )bbO — T �" `�. — o mo ZO yCn o ' C m n Q 1, � o 44 , I r J • N ^ C C fM)r in N 3_ __ — o 3 =� 0 N Q Z 0 O m �p 0 19'-11" '-1 T 12'-0" 28'-0" Fn 27'-2" 30'-0" 30'-0" 19'-10" D 12'-0" I I I I I I Ll T7 O �II W I O I I �I I 1 0 0 tl- - I LQ II o I v II I I I n II xI rm— I I C> I I I I n a I o I m n m A O m I I I I I 1 0 a JI I I I I I I N O a Li Li I I I I I I I I I I O I; T m �- - - - - - - - v. rrnn rn cr Z rr, � N CO c I•n m ' cc FEL I f I I I I Q c • , CD OW• No � � m ' 0 3 n Z w � N oN 0 o Z y v e m �p 0 qlII r✓ _ r t �_ `t�i•ll®111 JUIP, �. W. 1:41 IlfiUt. IIINaomi W - IVA l now liv ♦t Y.�'TJ � ,,• ,e1�a�r �,� � fa��a6I�•j�i I �� wun' IMlllJI� III�.: I�I4��aI'y�1i�ll�l� I, IIIII'IIAAI�AI� r' Inrl11m■�I: � n' L. � r{W I! rot t;a rt•n I ►-rE I ',i , �1�•-- '�'.xjM cac -1 � C � u can I},�- •� � = ��la •.. t,�El��I t t� It et-iC/ ei +c�1ir... �8- �I1p1�I11II�II ' d � — {-- -. ■ din' r ce+� -:: rc /11[11 I _ Illy ■� �lil'�j� ' IN- All :�_ � i nLae`m`itai�ries IIID taft >E 'tiI� i�ti4; �0 INC 20iLIIIIE; !IIII —, 20! �I�IIII�s! �IiYI I mm�i dill®Ili' . kk r� Ilts�llil;; l�cih' — �i ri r t L - I r Ipi o N N 'o .� N p.y • • - T � 1 y i .ter •,t a3 � I�h F I'YII ��Il��l•fil�tillN,;'' t iii•.q11f�Mlllm1Is1 '`' I yj . est /+Can m•'[1Y IS. ,III li u;�iitl sigma, • � Ilf 'J�lik Ullt.�� I+it �I�II:t�;�11 ]• dam.-�. � •"I' �`- ■ 2�11Y1111s , BillNess A 1 ��I 11111 In i ■ 1301 I'1R R yam . . �ml 19l'�,p0lt�l�iN llli•�,II/GiIrMA �' ��ll•�,IIMI�lrr�ll Ln+nrux um�$- lnl••>lat•l�ll�l�tu l'alf I�I�r®r'�I I•=��a • n n N �. � r - n L � D D N � • o J N ^' • • .r 1 �'1�h�1A,1��lI®I!�!I®II�IIII° airr►,mn.r�'rm'q' i _ ►�'!I IIOI;�I� cl�lll� I ,ala,; `,q, .r."O'W�i ,f, ..i1��A1111��!!�ta �•.. I''- r 10 P�1101 a•c. ��.y � R!�;, ;4 '`y��lr'III'.�IB II I YCy • 17ro Illl��i�III I�` ��u) • I�� ` >��I. . '� r call E kh ' -* I IIIA. 3 9 �Y3��fl II�'9YIY I Imo~ ,IIL� J° r SMat IIQf j yj11! IP ILII r"•i, 'M�.,Illwin y lVale �lrIMI WHO HO ' .+�'L` Itill�(.�?'a�9i �! m 1l',�_ T U �; 'x: 1.1=- �>llnlla Ilii ewnl�. milli 1'al Mal 11l� I • _ ;��II IWIM5 II'MII 10-_ ' llH L R 1 l,it I _ f n (n N O Q � N �r — F N 1 • q;.1. y r � o -a007 �„-: a • ► lliali,l;;I,IMllfl ► "�' ',:'� .,_ • it ilii err ` • _ _. ,,� � = :. gAAII 16ii titer 1 w i iqi IN.! 1 m �_� IIIIII - IV "'�" .illi 11 .17 III � ,•�,,�.„�II��'�I � . �Gldifi�iil� Alf. !all aKmi s �IIIIA'��IlllNllrl-lR = ��mail I IIN I!111'!�Ilrl;MaI�A!IIII . rl 11 lig. II;� n�. �i 7t1{ r lillr ml i . ) '�• I�111��III!��t III � W!'!'��i11� IMF�l1 mom I tow �� 'fie IIS�►,III��:+1�� .. � _. . �I�i� �_ .� ' �,■„■!.� " . "+'SIE Ir►=�°I°I � �,, , �E�II!i,E E Idl!�'i1�3i�11_. 3 • n n N F.p Y ¢i 7 N V • • N � � g O r • • _ • JV Atilt I It "L kii mallqql (�! II�� ! i V ii � r IUB I I t .. . . �A I Ila"I111 16 Ila I S �lilll IV , Ilion 0 III will "7 Weil IIi '�I I w ul I�HI_!'!�IIMFilrl�illl'i j�dWAmuIILSILII�'W�glu _ ,!1II � ��ri�r lIIIA'!�IIII IoilLrFMAI it,1110p �N IIII'A�!�Ilr!!�IwMllll u■ ;, 111! 1!r ;liM E MISI1�i1�III II _�I If }, •I •III�n �.�� _ . . .IF. .... : III._,_ -•jr .' ,®or,f1 'V - 1: lig �' • i4 Iw. OLI�:�I�l��lii;t��•� -ice" • ■n.■,■iu�r�r • (l Cn N .r n ✓� $ N ro 7 N • • N T r• g n 7: • % �! r DCD • �• • • •r / rr / rr /Z 1�-O /Z -'O �2 - O 1 ' i o L Ll - ILM SO MC 6)=r ^y� -� 3 3 3 r �c r-O z m m m O Dcn� N=� °Z m D D D < y �m ym ° r r r m �zD �X -rin n c a m mmm on mn o a z z ° Zn° M Zm z CA v' m n z>00 z n -1 = r mZZ ic D m� -4 C m 40 n m m z m m m O o v 0 n O 0 (D m m�p ;�— �• 4 Z o < 0 3 C m C oZ �' • 3 Z � 0 N m 70 H 0 �Z• � � a L�<Y 4 O_ • , I� ' ° 274TH � 4 .?i. *S i,�`•� 't . � v j1Z .. I . .O ' I oOc o� Z Sao °�� °>m m N > 5z> 5> n pn ° Z-am pm xDm Mn z m Dn° m 00 >Z 3 mmp m > mm m m z n m m m 47 0 ® • n O ^� `—�• m z r11 C � -- Q ` 7O v. z0 - �. / Fig C (D m n Q .:. 3 0z Q 3 0 M � ° z O m N M 0 I Ili�llllll ll�llllllll INIII� I 'I � � ` I� ��I �� IIIIII�1111III�11111111 IIII �� !i" � � �IIII� I�II ,� �� 011111 IIII�11�11 �INiIII'I�if ryry '�', ! � III��II1111I�IIiIIiIPl�llllllllifl� 'I !I� IIID MEETING AGENDA�.'5�7�7 t�y ( -3 ITEM# _ n memoizanbum July 23, 2001 c9UNCIL Z<DD DiR R'C,AL C FIN DIR FLERIZORIG ❑ FIS CHIEF TO: Council Colleagues NEY I�-pW DIR i� ® POLICE OHF ❑ D7 FROM: Christine Mulholl F,A ® ® ®IR RILITIL DIP }� G HA DIR SUBJECT: Sustainable Building Practices Attached are notes from a presentation given to the SLO County Democratic Business and Professional Caucus on February 9, 2001. Local architect, Ken Haggard, made a presentation along with others, on the topic of"Shedding Light on the Power Crisis in California." Although we will not be able to have great influence on the County's new office building design, I believe these ideas stressed by Ken Haggard are important as alternative energy practices for future building. I am introducing these ideas to you now in the hope that we can begin to incorporate them in our City building practices and policies. Attachment Ken Haggard, representing the viewpoint of alternative power. He has been off the grid for six years, occasioned by a fire which took out his transmission lines, causing what he called "horizontal integration." It is now technically possible to have horizontal integration. Industrial power usage is based on economy of scale. Alternative energy is inherently renewable, and sustainable. One of the less thought of alternatives is the building itself. There, we integrate at the smallest possible scale, with production and use on the spot, in the building itself. This involves small power plants,that are more efficient. I would like to illustrate with an example of passive solar technology. We now have more information, moving the issue from idealistic pie-in-the-sky consideration, to a matter of real costs. They involve cost of kilowatt hours, plus health and environmental costs. For fossil fuels, such as natural gas, which starts at 5 cents per kilowatt hour,the actual cost is 12 cents, when one counts in health and environmental costs (global warming, habitat and pollution). Oil starts at 7 cents, but is actually at 14 cents. The price of coal is 7 cents, but actual costs are 18+. Nuclear is 10 cents, mounting to 20+, when one counts the government programs to deal with waste, liability, etc. In addition, nuclear is attended by collectivist, centralized planning and execution of its imponderables. Hydro when a large development starts at 4,but ends with 12;when small is 6 to 10. Geothermal has a narrow range, starting at 7, ending at 9. Biomass starts at 8, ending at 10. Solar starts at 8, ending at 10. Wind starts at 6, ending at 7.5. Photovoltaic starts at 15, ending at 17. Passive solar starts at 2 to 5, ending at 0 to 3. The real.cost of 0 has to . do with the improvement of health with the use of natural light. On the pattern of costs,the Tribune in its article of January 7'b, cited that PG&E paid 33 cents for its power. As information becomes available, we will at some point have to move to real costs, and also to decentralization. Buildings use about 40% energy. We can reduce the use by 75%,through redesign, utilizing passive solar technology. An office building, now finished, in Los Altos Hills in Silicon Valley utilizes integrated design, reduces energy consumption 73.5%. There is no energy consuming cooling system, utilizing California's cool nights and special handling of sunlight. (There is no reason to air condition in California, except in the desert regions like El Centro,)Natural lighting is more healthful, especially for children, who do better in naturally lit schools. This building produces as much energy as it consumes, using PG&E as its battery in the winter, selling in the summer. Direct sunlight does not get into the building after April 1,through architectural overhangs. There is a great deal of attention to getting the heat out of the sunlight,then reflecting it through successive surfaces into the building. The figures cited were developed through computer programs, initiated at Cal Poly in 1978, sponsored by the California Energy Commission, at the instance of Governor Jerry Brown. That program is now the basis of a federal program. Materials in the building are important variables. The walls on three sides are of straw bales, derived from the extensive rice crop, and which is ordinarily burned, producing more pollution than all the utilities combined. The insulation factor is high, at 50 RV. Photovoltaics are extensively used. The real cost is coming home to roost, as evidenced by the degradation of the health of the planet,to result in super hurricanes, record tornadoes, and flooding due to a rise of the ocean level. This building reduces the CO2 input into the system by 24.5 tons per year, plus a quantity of nitrous oxides. It is also more healthful as a workplace, a win-win situation. A member of the audience asked concerning the capital cost per square foot. Haggard answered that straw bale wall construction was the same as conventional construction. It was theoretically less, inasmuch as volunteer labor is feasible. Stuccoing of the inside walls costs more than dry walls. One needs to figure life cycle costs, with a saving of 2-5 cents a KW Hour. It is unfair to ask for first costs. In the Information Age, sustainable economics will be the economics. BP has changed its name to Beyond Petroleum. h. _ ANG AGENDA 5TUDy DATE ITEM# mss o m e m o Rm o u m July 27, 2001 TO: City Council FROM: Ken Hampian SUBJECT: Background Information for August 3, 2001 Council Meeting: City- County Parking Memorandum Of Understanding(MOU) Since parking will likely be discussed during the County Administration Building session, I thought it might be helpful to provide Council members with a copy City-County MOU concerning parking. OLINCIL DD DIR A0. ❑: DIR N DIR 0 _ �CHIEF ORNEY IQW CLERWORIO 0 POLICE CHF O,DEPT HEADS C] REC DIR Q C: UT1L DIR �- ❑ HR DIR ��3ochem ,�p�pq/ecvsk� RECEIVED JUL '3 0 2001 SLO CITY COUNCIL • council 0.8Dam agcnaa Report 'C11 �� CITY OF SAN LUI S O B I S P O FROM: John Dunn, City Administrative fice SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO STATING OUR JOINT INTENT TO PURSUE JOINT PLANNING FOR PARKING SOLUTIONS IN THE NORTHERLY EXTENSION OF THE DOWNTOWN NORTH OF SANTA ROSA STREET. CAO RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the County for a joint pursuit of parking issues northeast of Santa Rosa Street. DISCUSSION: As the City Council is aware, for some months the City Administrative Office (CAO) and the County Administrator, and other staff members of both jurisdictions, have engaged in discussions concerning our respective future plans in the northeasterly end of the downtown. Current pursuits of both the City and the County include: 1. The County is in the planning and design stage for a new County Administrative building in the area from the Fremont Theater to Santa Rosa Street. Part of the impetus for this planning is the need for additional County/Court facilities, which could then be provided in the area of the current.administrative office space. In the process, the County has looked at various parking options: (1) to provide a substantial portion of this parking on site; (2) to provide one or two underground levels of parking on site; (3)to provide all of their parking needs off- site. Their current thinking favors the latter two options. 2. The City is currently engaged in a study of off-street transit faculties, and the consultant has looked most closely at the block including the former Toyota Motors site and the Bank of America/Old French Hospital block. 3. With City Council and Board of Supervisor approval, the City, or the City and the County, will soon be retaining a parking consultant to look at the general area described in No. 2 above as a location for a parking structure, perhaps in conjunction with the off-street transit facility. Such a parking structuremight serve the parking needs of County employees, commuters, transit system users, County Court system jurors, and downtown employees. 4. The City has been engaged for some months in discussions with representatives of the Copeland family regarding their proposal for a mixed-use development of the Court Street C11-1 Council Agenda Report—MOU Between the City and County Page 2 parcel and the Palm/Morro area ("Chinatown Historic Area What was pointed out during the recent public presentation of July 20' is that the parking needs for this development, both for replacement parking and for the new development, can only be partially accomplished in the Pahn/Morro area, and the balance has to be accomplished elsewhere. 5. The City's Downtown Physical Concept Plan shows the future desirability of a special pavement treatment area for the street area between the County Court House and the Fremont Theater, and provision for occasional blocking of automobile traffic, in order to use the area for public, ceremonial and civic events. The County has expressed interest in exploring this concept with us. It is important to point out that no definite agreements, other than to work together, have been made to date, and that the current situation is fluid and exploratory. The MOU is a statement of intention, and is not legally binding. Any agreements that result from this mutual effort would have to be previewed and approved by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo and the Board of Supervisors of San Luis Obispo County. It is also recognized that this joint planning effort, should it proceed to a certain point, would also involve cooperative discussions with the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG), the San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Agency(SLORTA) and other appropriate parties. For these and other reasons set forth in the proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), it is apparent that both the City and the County have a substantial stake in the northeasterly end of the downtown, and that our view of this area should be holistic and coordinated, rather than separate and fragmented. It is for this reason that County Administrator David Edge and I join in making this joint recommendation to you; The two agencies would work together in a coordinated and cooperative fashion in an attempt to provide the best mutual solution to our respective concerns. CONCURRENCES: City and County staff have worked together and jointly support this cooperative and coordinated approach. The County Board of Supervisors will be asked to take action on the MOU at a forthcoming meeting. FISCAL IMPACT: The adoption of the MOU will not have any fiscal impact. However, subsequent work efforts resulting from the MOU will have impacts (i.e., the joint City-County Study). These impacts will be specifically described as each task proceeds. ATTACHMENTS: Memorandum of Understanding C11-2 Council Agenda Report—MOU Between the City and County Page 2 parcel and the Palm/Morro area("Chinatown Historic Area"). What was pointed out during the recent public presentation of July 20'e is that the parking needs for this development,both for replacement parking and for the new development, can only be partially accomplished in the Palm/Morro area, and the balance has to be accomplished elsewhere. 5. The City's Downtown Physical Concept Plan shows the future desirability of a special pavement treatment area for the street area between the County Court House and the Fremont Theater, and provision for occasional blocking of automobile traffic, in order to use the area for public, ceremonial and civic events. The County has expressed interest in exploring this concept with us. It is important to point out that no definite agreements, other than to work together, have been made to date, and that the current situation is fluid and exploratory. The MOU is a statement of intention, and is not legally binding. Any agreements that result from this mutual effort would have to be previewed and approved by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo and the Board of Supervisors of San Luis Obispo County. It is also recognized that this joint planning effort, should it proceed to a certain point, would also involve cooperative discussions with the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG), the San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Agency(SLORTA) and other appropriate parties. For these and other reasons set forth in the proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), it is apparent that both the City and the County have a substantial stake in the northeasterly end of the downtown, and that our view of this area should be holistic and coordinated, rather than separate and fragmented. It is for this reason that County Administrator David Edge and I join in making this joint recommendation to you: The two agencies would work together in a coordinated and cooperative fashion in an attempt to provide the best mutual solution to our respective concerns. CONCURRENCES: City and County staff have worked together and jointly support this cooperative and coordinated approach. The County Board of Supervisors will be asked to take action on the MOU at a forthcoming meeting. FISCAL IMPACT: The adoption of the MOU will not have any fiscal impact. However, subsequent work efforts resulting from the MOU will have impacts (i.e„ the joint City-County Study). These impacts will be specifically described as each task proceeds. ATTACHMENTS: Memorandum of Understanding C11-2 l�.M - t IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA Tuesday, September 5, 2000 PRESENT: Supervisors Harry L. Ovitt, Shirley Bianchi, K. H. "Katcho" Achadjian, Michael P. Ryan and Chairperson Peg Pinard ABSENT: Supervisors . None In the matter of Consent Agenda: Consent Agenda Item B-14 is withdrawn and is added to Item C-2. Items B-16 and B-21 are withdrawn for separate action. On motion of Supervisor Ryan, seconded by Supervisor Ovitt, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Supervisors Ryan, Ovitt, Bianchi, Achadjian, Chairperson Pinard NOES: None ABSENT: None Consent. Agenda Items B-1 through B-31 are approved as recommended by the County Administrative Officer andas amended by the Board. Said Consent Agenda Items B-1 through B-31, as amended, are on file in the Office of the County Clerk-Recorder and are available for public inspection. cc: Administration; 09/05/00 cla STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss. County of San Luis Obispo ) I,JUNE L. RODEWALD, County Clerk and Ex-Officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, in and for the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a full, true and correct copy of an order made by the Board of Supervisors, as the same appears spread upon their minute book. WITNESS my hand and the seal of the said Board of Supervisors, affixed this 5th day of September, 2000. JULIE L. RODEWALD (S ) County Clerk and Ex-Officio Clerk the Board of Supervisors By: Deputy Clerk .. 5 B-1 thru B-31 • t MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Between the County of San Luis Obispo and the City of San Luis Obispo Relating to the . Creation of Additional Parking Facilities in the Area Northeasterly of Santa Rosa Street August 2000 The General Situation 1. It is mutually agreed between the two parties that there is a parlang shortage in the northeastern portion of the downtown. 2. _ This parking shortage is caused by a lack of adequate parking facilities and a large parking demand caused by the shoppers and users of the downtown,the employees of the downtown, the employees of the County, and others seeking parking in this area 3. The result of this shortage creates a negative impact on the residential and commercial neighborhoods in the northern end of the downtown, as commuters/all-day employees fill. parking spaces that residents and shop owners would like to preserve for family/friends and customers. The Present and Forthcoming Situation The County is currently facing certain situations: 1.. The County is in the process of planning a new County Administrative Building in the area north of the Fremont Theater(former Mel Smith Chevrolet and the present San Luis Donuts properties),and their tentative conclusion is that the building would function best if primarily used for administrative office space,with at least part of the parking to serve the building to - — - -be placed at-another off-site-location,- 2. If a major parking facility is to be jointly planned and financed northeast of Santa Rosa, the County would require that a specified portion of the facility be dedicated.for exclusive County use. 3. The County is interested in pursuing an idea set forth in the City's Downtown Plan that it be appropriate to have a different surface treatment for Monterey Street between Santa Rosa and Osos Streets and for the County or the City to use this area on special occasions for ceremonial, civic or community purposes. The City shares this interest and desires to work with the.County on this issue. The City is facing certain situations: 1. The City has earlier produced and approved a Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center ("Downtown Plan'j,which sets forth a desired future for the downtown,which plan extends northeasterly to Johnson Avenue. The County was invited to and fully participated in this downtown planning process. 2.. The plan recognizes that both the County and the City are major employers within the downtown, and that their continued growth and expansion should take place in this area The plan also calls for intensification of commercial and governmental uses in the downtown, and for a series of peripheral parking facilities surrounding the downtown, leaving the "downtown commercial core"free of surface and structural parking facilities. 3. The City has spent a great deal of time investigating and attempting to improve the parking situation in the downtown over the years. The City completed the Wilbur smith Downtown Parking Study is 1977,the IBI Group San Luis.Obispo Downtown Parking Study in 1986, the Meyer Mohaides Downtown Parking Report No. l in February 1997,the Progress Report No. 2 (same authors)in June 1997,the Draft Parking Downtown Access Plan(same authors) in December 1997,and the.F.IR for the above draft plan by the Parsons Group in 1999. The City built the Palm Street Garage in 1987,with County financial assistance,built the Marsh/Chorro Garage in 1992,and plans to commence expansion of the Marsh/Chorro garage in the near future. The City adopted its first Parking Management Plan in 1987, and updated the document in 1990 and 1995. 4. The City is on the threshold of performing a"Downtown Strategic Plan"which will look at where downtown San Luis Obispo is today,what its shortcomings and opportunities are,and how best to achieve its appropriate role and future potential. This study is most critical to the future vitality of the downtown. Parking is not the core purpose of this study;however, it is recognized that a limited parking supply which fails to meet the downtown parking needs will act as a constraint to achieving the downtown's future potential. 5. The City Council has authorized negotiations with the Copeland family regarding their proposal to develop the Court Street parcel and the Palm/Morro area. The latter,the "-Chinatown nmme',would have.a semi-subterranean(underground at the Palm Street.levrl)- - -------- ------ parking structure,with a mixed-use development on top of the parking structure. While the outcome of these discussions is not fully known at this date,it is assumed the project will proceed. While the project would undoubtedly increase the attractiveness,intensity and vitality of the downtown,it will also increase parking demand in the area, and call for an increase in the parking supply above what can be satisfied onsite. 6. The City, like the County, is facing its own office space shortage, and has been in a planning process for the eventual enlargement of City Hall,which,with increased office space use, will also create the need for an additional parking supply. While there are options available for doing this,none are necessarily easy or economical to accomplish. l . y 7. The City is presently engaged in an analysis to determine the location, cost and feasibility to serve both_the City's and the County's regional (SLORTA)bus system passenger transfer needs. At the Council's request,the City is also exploring the feasibility/desirability of establishing an allied parking facility. This study is planned for the near firture. Related Planning Concepts Calling for Further Analysis 1. A concern has been expressed that previously-developed andto-be-developed parking facilities"south"of Santa Rosa be primarily reserved for the customers of the downtown commercial core, and that"north"of Santa Rosa is the moreappropriate place for commuters into the City,County employees,Court system jurors,and downtown employees. 2. If it were deemed to be more appropriate to relocate Court system juror parking to a"north of. Santa Rosa"parking facility,then it is recognized that an appropriate•financial- accommodation would have to be made between the City and the County. Conclusion Because of the above considerations,it is increasingly apparent that there is an interdependence between the County's and the City's plans and expansion efforts in the northeasterly end of the downtown as it relates to the creation and utilization of parking facilities. Recommendation: It is therefore proposed that the Board of Supervisors of San Luis Obispo County and the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo recognize the potential mutual benefit of the two general purpose local government units working together in a cooperative fashion, and authorize the . County Administrator and the City Administrative Officerand their respective staffs to work together to analyze the feasibility of a location for a parking structure in the northern part of the downtown that can accommodate additional parking spaces,with appropriate cost sharing . between the two parties. Any further plans that are developed as a result of this process would be brought back to the,Board of Supervisors and the City Council for further consideration. CITY OF ISPO COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO dam-- c By John unn City dministrative Officer, r- MF91NG AQEM sMDy DRAFT ITEM .�� SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 259 2001 CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:09 p.m. on Wednesday, July 25, 2001, in the City Hall Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Allan Cooper, James Caruso, Jim Aiken, Allan Cooper, Michael Boswell, and Vice Chairwoman Alice Loh Absent: Chairman Stephen Peterson. Staff Recording Secretary Leaha Magee, Associate Planner Whitney Mcllvaine, Deputy Community Development Director Ron Whisenand, and Assistant City Attorney Gilbert Trujillo. COUNCIL CDD OR grcp ❑ FIN DIR ACCEPTANCE OF.THE AGENDA: AO ❑ FP8 CHIEF RNEY PIPW DIR The agenda was accepted as presented. IrCLERKIORIG ❑ POLICE C,HF ❑ QEP D9 CD RRC DIR ®' Cl UTIL DIR APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: ❑ HR DIR The Minutes of May 9, 2001, and June 27, 2001 were accepted as corrected. �Uft,iserwnd M�II vainG PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 956 Walnut.Street: A 168-00; Appeal of the Zoning Hearing Officer's approval of a request to allow an office in the 0 zone; David Scarry, applicant. Associate Planner Whitney Mcllvaine reported that the appellant has requested a continuance, but also noted that neither the applicant nor his representative were in attendance. Commr. Aiken commented that he did not see a hearing notice posted at the site. Commr. Caruso felt it was unusual that neither the applicant nor his representative were present. Commr. Cooper moved to continue this item to a date uncertain. Commr. Boswell seconded the motion. AYES: Commrs. Cooper, Boswell, Caruso, Osborne, Aiken, and Loh NOES: None TONf10O kiio 01S ABSENT: Commr. Peterson REFRAIN: None The motion carried 6-0. d3AI3038 Draft Planning Commission N..,utes July 25, 2001 Page 2 2. 1039 Monterey Street: GPC 78-01; Request for a General Plan Conformity Report for the proposed design and construction of new County offices; C-C zone; County of San Luis Obispo, applicant. Commr. Caruso refrained participation due to a potential conflict of interest because the applicant is his employer. Associate Planner Whitney Mcllvaine presented the staff report and recommended that the Planning Commission report to the City Council that the proposed new office building at 1039 Monterey Street conforms with the General Plan, contingent on the final design complying with Land Use Element policies related to design, historic preservation, and hillside view protection. There were no comments or questions of staff at this time and the public comment session was opened. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Greg MacDougall, Project Coordinator, County General Services, introduced the proposal for the new County Government Center and reviewed the project history. He stated that a new center is needed to accommodate future growth of government operations and to consolidate departments that currently reside at various leased spaces. The project consists of approximately 96,000 square feet of gross floor area that would initially be occupied by approximately 275 employees and includes two levels of underground parking as well as four levels of above-ground office space. The project is located where the Council-adopted Downtown Plan indicates this use should be. He reviewed County-established project goals that have aided in the building's architecture and the aggressive development schedule. Bruce Fraser, Architect, Fraser Seiple Architects, San Luis Obispo, described the site analysis and development plan, highlighting the energy conservation aspects of the project. Commr. Cooper asked if there would be public access to the proposed overlook/rooftop deck. David Hopstetter, Architect, Kaplan McLaughlin Diaz, San Francisco, described the conceptual model on display, noting the goal of creating a visual line down Monterey Street that announces a gateway to the civic center. He described the building facade and the paseo that will be created between Buona Travola Restaurant and the new civic center. Space will given to the Fremont Theater so it will not appear overwhelmed; pulling the civic center facade back and creating two-story elements will achieve this. The overall architectural expression would be a cast-in-place concrete frame that would be used as a thermal mass for heating/cooling purposes. He noted that comments received from the City's Architectural Review Commission and Cultural Heritage Committee have been incorporated into the project design. A goal is to work with and harmonize with many of historic downtown buildings. One of the desired project upgrades is a rooftop garden that would help mitigate the loss of hillside views; the rooftop upgrade and the stone facade is not currently budgeted. Draft Planning Commission h,..,utes July 25, 2001 Page 3 Commr. Cooper had staff review the Commission's purview, noting the General Plan is comprised of 11 elements and staff has included only one. He felt circulation should be considered because of the garage access on Higuera Street and the crosswalk location. Deputy Director Ronald Whisenand stated these items would be addressed as a part of the environmental document. Associate Planner Mcllvaine commented on the comments by the ARC and CHC, noting this is a County project and it before the Commission as a courtesy presentation. The most specific policies relating to the project are those in the Land Use Element that address development in the civic core of downtown. Commr. Cooper expressed concerns with the safety of vehicles exiting the building onto Higuera Street and the pedestrian crosswalks. He asked if the project is consistent with the Downtown Concept Plan. Deputy Director Whisenand stated that the expanded County Offices are identified as a program of the Concept Plan. Commr. Cooper asked if the project is under parked. Deputy Director Whisenand replied that it is, but parking options are being reviewed. Commr. Cooper asked if the City or County is taking responsibility for the relocation of San Luis Doughnuts. Deputy Director Whisenand stated relocation is not a part of the Commission's concern. Commr. Cooper asked how adjacent businesses would be encouraged to orient themselves to the paseo. For example, would Buona Travola be given right-of-way access to put tables out onto the paseo? Mr_ Hopstetter stated a right-of-way will be created on County land that will be designed to best enhance whatever activities might occur on Buona Travola and the civic center's own retail uses. There has been no discussion of tables in the right-of-way. Commr. Cooper asked what retail uses would be included adjacent to the right-of-way. Mr. Hopstetter replied the retail uses would be food service related. Vice-Chairwoman Loh felt other elements of the. General Plan should be considered in addition to Land Use Element policies. Commr. Aiken wondered if there'is any relationship between this project and the Courts occupying the existing Courthouse. George Rosenburger, County General Services Deputy Director, stated the Courts operate independently from the County. The Courts have conducted a study on the Draft Planning Commission h,...j'tes July 25, 2001 Page 4 Court System but the results and recommendations have not yet been made public. Commr. Aiken recommended any proposed crosswalks be well designed with the use of textured paving to enhance the pedestrian connection. Mr. Hopstetter stated work has begun on a street treatment master plan for this section of Monterey Street with the goal to create a sense of civic presence by modifying the paving and changing the curbs and sidewalks to create a more plaza-like environment. Commr. Aiken asked if the City would be acting on the environmental documents. Deputy Director Whisenand replied no, the Board of Supervisors would be taking action on these documents. Commr. Aiken recommended that public and pedestrian safety be given strong consideration in addressing parking and parking access. He asked to what extent will City-generated recommendations play in the final project. Deputy Director Whisenand stated the County Board of Supervisors will have the final say on the project. City staff has been included in the process and the project has been presented to the City for courtesy review. Commr. Aiken felt this is the right location for this project and he would like to see the project proceed. Commr. Boswell stated Policy 4.16.4 on page 3, concerning building height, speaks to new buildings respecting a variety of things, including landmarks. He asked if the theater considered a landmark building. Associate Planner Mcllvaine replied that it is; the Fremont Theater is on the City's Master List of Historic Properties. Mr. Hopstetter commented on Policy 4.16.3 regarding continuous storefronts. Fred Vernacchia, property owner at 1100 Monterey Street, commented on the height and massing of the building, noting the scale of the renderings show this buildings as 75-feet high, not 65-feet as was mentioned by staff. The project would seem more like a four- or five-story building at the curbside. He reviewed ARC guidelines, suggesting the structure be set back from the third story to allow a balcony/viewing area over the second floor. He suggested the proposed paseo be moved to the front of the building to soften the look. He noted that any other builder of a 97,000 square foot building would be required to provide 323 parking spaces, yet only 137 are proposed by the County. He felt another location would be better suited for this project and expressed concern about the possible expansion of the Courts and relocation to another site. He felt the parking shortfall would impact all neighboring businesses. He noted the lack of public participation at the ARC and CHC hearings and questioned why the Downtown Association has not provided input. He felt that the City is not enforcing requirements that would be applicable to private citizens because the applicant is a superior agency. Draft Planning Commission b...,ates July 25, 2001 Page 5 Mary Whittlesey, address unstated, believed the County is sincere in its need and approach to this project, but agreed that a private developer would be required to provide substantial additional parking, etc. The Commission's comments should be brought forward and considered by the County. She commented that it is a beautiful project. Mr. Rosenburger commented that the County has been in discussion with San Luis Doughnut Shop owners for over a year and has offered 10 different relocation sites and the County continues to pledge to do what is best for the owners. The County has also had discussions with other adjacent business owners with regards to the paseo. Karen Adler, 1131 Monterey Street property owner, expressed concern with the parking shortfall and urged the Commission to recommend the shortage be addressed. She felt adjacent businesses would be greatly impacted by the parking shortage. She suggested increasing on-site parking by going to three underground levels rather than two. Mr. Hopstetter reviewed the proposed floor to ceiling heights and explained that. because of the groundwater table and associated economic issues, the project is proposed with two underground parking levels. Seeing no further speakers come forward, the public comment session was closed. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Cooper moved that the Planning Commission report to the City Council that the proposed new office building for the County at 1030 Monterey Street conforms with the General Plan contingent on the final design complying with Land Use Element policies related to design historic preservation and hillside view protection with special concerns related to the Council and the applicant addressing (1) the appropriate location for the crosswalk(s) to ensure pedestrian safety; (2) the location.of the parking garage entrance to ensure pedestrian safety` (3) added parking for the area and the inclusion of a parking demand management program to relieve parking needs: (4) the building design with regards to its relationship to the landmark Fremont Theater; and (5) the importance of the stone veneer and roof gardens to the design with the roof gardens of prime importance Commr. Aiken seconded the motion. Commr. Boswell expressed concern with taking action on this item without having the opportunity to review the environmental documents. He commented on the low public turnout and questioned why the Downtown Association was not present in light of potential downtown parking impacts. He expressed concern about the building height and associated potential view impacts in relation to the hillsides and the landmark Fremont Theater. He voiced concern about the continuous storefront look and the gateway facade at the comer of Santa Rosa and Monterey Streets. He noted that overall he is generally pleased with the building and felt this is the right location. He also felt it is consistent with the Downtown Concept Plan. Commr. Aiken noted feeling torn about the apparent conflict between the public need and the County's need regarding parking. He noted County employees would not be i Draft Planning Commission hi„,utes July 25, 2001 Page 6 using downtown two-hour metered parking for their day-long parking needs, but would be parking outside of the downtown core and creating more of an impact on the adjacent neighborhoods. Commr. Osborne expressed concern with the parking situation and was surprised the Downtown Association had not provided input. He felt it difficult to determine this proposal's consistency with the land use with respect to the landmark buildings. He felt that aside from these concerns, the County has a good project. He supports the underground parking and energy conservation features. At the request of the Commission, Mr. Hopstetter commented that in relation to the Monterey Street facade, the building has been stepped and curved back to draw attention to the Fremont marquee. The building has been scaled down with the Board Chamber as a two-story element to create a massing bridge. Relative to a storefront, this is a government building not a retail outlet. He noted security issues related to government building architecture. Commr. Cooper felt strongly that the use of bicycle lockers, ridesharing programs and incentives, etc., should be encouraged to help address the serious parking shortage. Commr. Boswell concurred, adding that the County should consider parking demand management. Commr: Aiken expressed support for the stone facade and rooftop garden add-on features, but if the budget does not allow for both items, the rooftop garden is the preferred add-on.. Commr. Boswell felt strongly that special consideration be given to the landmark Fremont Theater. Chairwoman Loh concurred. After discussion of the motion, Commrs. Cooper and Aiken agreed amend the motion to include the statement that the Commission is concerned about the new government. building's relationship to the landmark Fremont Theater. AYES: Commrs. Cooper, Aiken, Osborne, Boswell, and Chairwoman Loh NOES: None ABSENT: Commr. Peterson REFRAIN: Commr. Caruso The motion carried 5-0-1. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 3. Staff: A. Agenda Forecast: August 8: The Creek Setback Ordinance and the Augusta Partners' condominium proposal. Draft Planning Commission h....,tes July 25, 2001 Page 7 August 22 — The Albertson's project at South Broad Street and Santa Barbara Avenue,. and courtesy review of a Cal Poly faculty housing project. September 12 —Tentative joint ARC/Planning Commission Meeting. Deputy Director Whisenand presented Leaha Magee with a certificate of appreciation from the Community Development Department. She had resigned after six years as the Commission's Recording Secretary for a position as the Local Agency Formation Commission Clerk. 4. Commission: Vice-Chairwoman Loh suggested that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council consider including the Historical Preservation Element in the General Plan.. Deputy Director Whisenand felt this request could be included in the Commission's work program and would be referred to staff for analysis/input. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 9:09 p.m. to the next regular meeting scheduled for August 8, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber of City Hall. Electronically submitted July 30, 2001, Leaha K. Magee Recording Secretary Karen Adler 1676 Fredericks Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 August 3, 2001 City Council City Hall 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: NEW COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING Dear Mayor Settle and Members of the City Council: As a property owner in the vicinity of the proposed County office building at the comer of Monterey and Santa Rosa Streets, I have a particular interest in how the parking demands will be handled for this new 97,000 square foot, multi-story building and its nearly 300 employees, not to mention the hundreds of citizens who will pass through its doors on a daily basis. Let me begin by stating that I am not interested in stopping this project. I believe it is a good thing that the county has decided to keep the bulk of its operations in downtown San Luis Obispo. But did it really have an alternative? Over the years the county has spent millions of dollars of the public's money to acquire land in the downtown for expansion. It seems unlikely it would abandon its sizable investment at this point in time. Having attended both the July 16 Architectural Review Commission(ARC) meeting and the July 25 meeting of the Planning Commission where this project was discussed, I do not believe that either body was provided with sufficient information about the project to provide quality input. Nor were the Cultural Heritage Committee and the Tree Committee. Planning Commissioner Allan Cooper expressed similar concerns on July 25 when he noted that the staff report referred only to portions of the land use element. As a matter of fact, the staff report omits at least one relevant section from the land use element, that having to do with building intensity. City policies allow a maximum of 1.5 for office uses. This project exceeds that level by a significant degree. In fact, the Council is looking at the proposed project today without the benefit of the environmental review documents. The Planning Commission was asked to review the project for conformity to the city's general plan, again,without the benefit of those analyses. page 2 What is the rush here?The environmental studies are scheduled to be made public on Monday, August 6, and just eight days later the Board of Supervisors will hear the matter. I am here today to reiterate my view that the proposed project does not come close to meeting city parking requirements,which I realize the county is exempt from due to its status as a superior agency. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the county has an obligation to be a good neighbor and to exhaust every reasonable effort to meet the parking demands that will be generated from its project,just as I think we all agree that Cal Poly should have been providing more on-campus housing over the years. Perhaps even more important, it is your duty, as leaders of our city, to work closely, now, not at some undetermined date in the future to respond to the parking problems that will surely arise from this project if it is allowed to move forward as planned. If you don't provide more parking than is now envisioned, the benefits of the county's continued presence in the downtown could well be negated. Any other developer of such a large complex would not get to first base without accommodating far more parking spaces. Moreover, the 137 spaces referred to in the staff report is a misleading figure because about half of those spaces will be reserved for the county motor pool. Another concern is that the project, despite being paid for by the taxpayers of this county will be off limits to them. At the very least, the County could show some recognition of the parking deficit in the downtown by allowing public parking after hours during the week and all day on weekends and holidays. I hope that you will step up to the plate and work with the county now to provide the number of parking spaces needed for a project of this size. The Memorandum of Understanding is nothing more than a.series of nice statements about how the city and county will work together in the future. I urge you to work together now. Sincerely, !T-a._C_t� UJJLZ_r�_ Karen Adler