HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/14/2006, SS1 - STUDY SESSION - BUILDING HEIGHT AND INTENSITY IN THE DOWNTOWN CORE council MM `D� 3-14-06
agenba aepont '..N�mbv
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: John Mandeville, Director of Community Development
Prepared By: Doug Davidson, Housing Programs Manager
SUBJECT: Study Session -Building Height and Intensity in the Downtown Core
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Review General Plan policies and the Zoning Regulations regarding downtown building height
and intensity, receive added information on design related considerations, and provide general
direction on existing building height and intensity policies and standards.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
Downtown San Luis Obispo is in the midst of a redevelopment boom triggered in large part by
compliance with the seismic retrofit Ordinance. Housing Element policies encouraging housing
in the downtown and market forces have also fostered an increased interest in mixed-use
development. While the convergence of these forces has created a spike in downtown
redevelopment pressure, future redevelopment potential is actually quite limited. When historic
properties, recently developed and retrofitted properties, and public buildings are taken out of the
picture, there are relatively few sites available for development. Based on that criteria, over two-
thirds of the sites downtown are unlikely to develop or redevelop. Nevertheless, the number
(nine) and size of the proposed projects currently being reviewed has created an opportune time
to seek direction from the Council on the vision and policies for future downtown development.
Recent developments have required exceptions from the City's height policies/standards and
most of the proposed projects will, as well. Clarifying the City policies on building height and
intensity can avoid a piecemeal approach to review of future applications.
DISCUSSION
Purpose of Study Session
Purpose: To clarify existing City policies for downtown development as it relates to building
height and intensity.
Ouestion for Council: Is there interest in changing the existing General Plan policy on building
height ("Generally, new buildings should not exceed two or three stories (about 35 to 50 feet")
and building intensity (a floor area ratio of 3.0)? The staff presentation will include a number of
visuals 0'assist in considering this question.
Objective: Receive direction from Council on existing policies and standards for downtown
development as they relate to building height and intensity.
i
Downtown Core Building Height and Intensity Page 2
Introduction
The Downtown
Downtown San Luis Obispo is the hub of the
City — shopping, entertainment, culture,
dining, government, and increasingly housing. o a
For purposes of this study, "downtown" is O P D
defined as the Downtown Core, Land Use �. .
Element Figure 4. Downtown building form is
predominantly one- and two-story buildings
with certain notable exceptions. The O
Anderson Hotel is 59 feet in height (5 stories),
919 Palm Street is 54 feet in height (4 stories) O
from the Palm Street frontage and 70 feet (and
5 stories) at its high point, and the new County O
Government Center is 65 feet in height (4
stories). The SBC building behind City Hall is .
64 to 80 feet in height (depending on the �a
location) and the Court Street project is 52 feet
in height and 3 stories. (Attachment I shows
existing downtown buildings by the number of Downtown Core (LUE Figure 4)
floors).
Historic.Context for Downtown's Building Height
By the early 1900s, San Luis Obispo's downtown was changing dramatically, reflecting the
town's expanding economic importance with the arrival and expansion of the Southern Pacific
Railroad Company and a new polytechnic school on the outskirts of town. One measure of the
City's emerging role was the increasing size, quality and height of buildings being built
downtown. One-story buildings consisting mainly of adobe and wood construction were giving
way to two- and three-story commercial and institutional buildings which emphasized stronger
architectural forms and ornamentation using brick, plaster and stone.. San Luis Obispo was
becoming a town of "towers", turrets and pediments, and for the first time, creating a vertical,
,'modern" urban look and feel for the young town.
In the past, San Luis Obispo has had height limits of up to 75 feet tall. Buildings; such as the
Tower Building, Commercial Bank, Carnegie Library, San Luis Obispo High School, San Luis
Obispo County Courthouse, San Luis Obispo City Hall, California Polytechnic School, Nipomo
Street School, Ramona Hotel, College of the Immaculate Heart, Presbyterian Church and others
were raising buildings to unprecedented heights — as much as 50 to 75 feet to the tops of the
tallest building elements. Built in 1922-23 and expanded in 1930, the new, luxurious Anderson
Hotel set a new precedent with the development of the town's first five-story building. Designed
by San Francisco architect G. A. Meuss-Dorffer, the Mediterraneanstyle building's bell tower
reaches over 80 feet at its top. The Anderson Hotel remained the tallest building until the
development of the Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Building at 872 Morro Street in 1948-1949.
Downtown Core Building Height and Intensity Page 3
Current Development Trends
Downtown San Luis Obispo is undergoing substantial redevelopment and some new
development. Several large new structures have recently been completed, or are under
construction, including the County Government Center, 919 Palm Street, and the Court Street
project. The shortened timeframe for seismic retrofit compliance has generated steady and
widespread construction activity throughout the downtown. In conjunction with the investment
associated with a seismic upgrade, some property owners are constructing a major remodel or
addition to generate more revenue to offset the costs of the retrofit. In most downtown areas,
including San Luis Obispo, that means adding leasable square footage and building "up".
Furthermore, requiring residences to be built as a part of new development in the downtown
suggests having at least two stories of residential use. With dwindling supplies of land available
for new construction, downtown infill projects present a new opportunity for business and
residential development. In a pattern being seen throughout California and the nation, developers
are responding to a new or at least rediscovered frontier for housing, as more people are drawn to
the amenities and lifestyle of downtown living.
Policy Questions
These factors have created a renewed interest in downtown development in San Luis Obispo.
Members of the City Council and citizens may be wondering how the new projects will affect the
character of downtown. The Tribune's article dated December 6, 2005 headlined "Downtown
SLO Shoots for the Sky" spurred interest among the community at large. With these pending
new projects, now is a good time to revisit the vision of downtown. What is the City's vision for
downtown character and how is it reflected in City policy? Are the City's standards and policies
on building height consistent? Do City policies allow for growth and fulfillment of the
downtown as the City's most intensely developed area? Just how much of the downtown really
is feasible for future development and, particularly, increases in height? These questions are the
focus of the staff report, presentation, and study session.
How Many Buildings Can Really "Go Taller"?
Attachment 2 shows the proposed projects and the downtown sites that are likely and unlikely to
develop, or redevelop. The sites considered unlikely to develop include historic-buildings,
public governmental buildings (City Hall, County Government Center), parking structures, and
recently constructed buildings (Downtown Center, Court Street). The sites unlikely to develop
also include those that have been retrofitted or are currently under retrofit construction with no
plans for increased development. Sites characterized as likely to develop (in addition to the
"proposed" projects shown separately) are the few where staff has been in discussion with the
owners about substantial redevelopment of their property. This exhibit confirms that we are
experiencing a spike in downtown development triggered by the retrofit process, and once this
process is complete, future downtown development potential is limited.. Of the approximately
145 sites in the downtown core, approximately 95 or two-thirds of them are unlikely to further
develop based on their land use characteristics and/or the substantial investment in the property
associated with a retrofit. Also, this does not mean that the other 50.sites in the downtown are
likely to develop. The uncolored sites on the exhibit may have some development potential, but
the likelihood of development is unknown at this time.
1 - 3
Downtown Core Building Height and Intensity Page 4
Proposed/Conceptual Projects in the Downtown Core
The following development proposals have been submitted as applications, or discussed as
possible submittals to the City, although none have development approvals. Each of the
proposed projects is briefly described below and shown on Attachment 2:
1. Bermant Homes (1221 Nipomo): 5,000 square feet commercial space.and 36 residential
units, (15 one-bedroom, 21 two-bedroom units). This project is located just outside the
downtown core, but with its proximity and profile is included for discussion.
2. Warden Building (748-770 Higuera): 11,000 square feet retail space, 2,400 square feet
restaurant/lounge and 31 Hotel rooms/suites
3. Hira Building(733 Higuera): 3,688 square feet retail, 3 one- bedroom apartments
4. Chinatown (most of block bounded by Palm, Morro, Monterey and Chorro):
34,000 square feet Retail
6,700 square feet restaurant
9,200 square feet office
9,000 square feet Live/Work Space
81,100 square feet Residential (9- one bed, 24- two bed, 20- three bed)
80,000 square feet covered parking (184 spaces)
5. Garden Street Terrace (parking Lot 2, 736 Marsh): 70 room Hotel. 50 condominium units,
25,000 square feet retail/restaurant space
6. Monterey Creekside (661 Monterey): 17,185 square feet commercial/office, 24 units
residential (22 two-bedroom, 1 one-bedroom, 1 three-bedroom)
7. Ah Louis Museum & Commercial Building (NE corner of Palm & Chorro): 7,000 square
feet retail, 14,000 square feet office
8. Naman Family Trust (NW corner Chorro & Higuera): 12,000 square feet office/retail, 4
units residential (3 two-bedroom, 1 one- bedroom)
9. Art Center Redevelopment(1010 Broad Street): 22,941 square feet
What is the City's Vision for the Downtown?
Existing Policies/Standards
Development proposals submitted to the City are evaluated according to how well they comply to
adopted General Plan Policy and development standards. Do these policies and standards
provide a clear vision?
Downtown Core Building Height and Intensity Page 5
Land Use/Intensity
The fundamental City policy on building height in the downtown is Land Use Element (LUE)
Policy 4.16.4:
"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."
The existing vertical scale has been changing. The County Government Center, 919 Palm Street,
and Court Street development have all exceeded the 50-feet height limit. The 919 Palm Street
parking garage required the "Landmark"building status to achieve its size and height.
Somewhat contradictory to the above policy is LUE Policy 4.15 on the sense of place in the
downtown: "To keep the commercial core's sense of place and appeal for walking, it should
remain compact and the City's most intensely developed area."
Attachment 3 shows four areas outside of the downtown where buildings have been (or will be)
constructed that are as tall or taller than buildings in the downtown. The areas of Prado
Road/South Higuera, Airport Area, and Madonna Road (Embassy Suites) have all seen
construction of buildings in the range of 50 feet. The Creekston project (part of Four Creeks,
along with Tumbling Waters) was approved in November 2005 with a height of 57 feet for one
building. The General Retail Land Use category allows a floor area ratio of 3.0 to support larger
commercial buildings of 34 stories. The alternative, of course, is to prohibit taller buildings
elsewhere.
If the downtown is intended to be the most intensely developed area of the City, it may need to
respond to the other areas of the City that are beginning to rival it in terms of building height and
mass. A policy limiting building height to 2-3 stories could be seen as constraining downtown's .
ability to be the City's most intensely developed area, particularly when other areas of the City
have developed with large 3-4 story buildings.
Zoning Regulations
Chapter 17.42 contains the development standards for the Downtown Commercial (C-D) zone.
The maximum height in the C-D zone is 50 feet. Relating to building intensity is floor area ratio
(FAR); defined by the Zoning Ordinance as, "the gross floor area of a building or buildings on a
lot divided by the lot area." Gross floor area is the total area enclosed within a building measured
from the exterior face of the walls, including underground parking and basements. The
maximum floor area ratio in the C-D zone is 3.0 (except that a site which receives transfer of
I - 5
Downtown Core Building Height and Intensity Page 6
development credit for open space protection shall have a ratio not to exceed 4.0.) A FAR of 3.0
equates to a three-story building developed to 100% of the site, or a 6-story building developed
to 50% of the site. A FAR of 3.0 for a building with a courtyard or recessed upper floors allows
3-4 stories. Staff believes that the FAR definition should be revised to exclude basements (no
height or visual impact) and parking, both below-grade and above (not a land use intensity
factor). In fact, staff recommends revising the definition of FAR regardless of the direction given
on building height policy. Lastly, the maximum density in the Downtown Commercial zone is
36 units per acre marking it as the City's highest density area; 1/3 greater than that of the High
Density (R-4) zone at 24 units per acre. (Note: While the Uniform Building Code contains a
definition of "story", the term is typically used in a general, descriptive sense in planning
policies, such as the General Plan policy cited above.)
Building Height,FAR,and Density
Building height limits, FAR, and residential density standards are land use tools used to
determine building size, square footage, and number of residential dwellings.
In general, FAR determines the square footage of a building, but does not affect how that square
footage is distributed. For example, 3,000 square feet of area allowed by an FAR can be
contained in a one story building, a two story building, or a three story building. Density is a .
measure of how many residential dwelling units can be allowed on a given area of land. More
allowed density creates an incentive to create buildings
large enough to accommodate it. High density is Floor Area Ratio (FAR): FAR
achieved by dwellings that are closer together and taller controls the total square footage of
than low density. The height limit is a basic the building. It represents the
determinant of size, along with width and length, and relationship of the size of a
substantially affects the apparent mass and scale of the building to its site area; thus, it is
building. The height limit can determine the number of used to describe the intensity of use
stories possible. All three tools are used in conjunction on a given site. A building that
with building setbacks, story stepbacks, and other meets permitted FAR may be either
standards to ensure that new buildings respond to the tall and narrow, short or bulky, or
character of the community context. any range in between.
In sum, two themes emerge from the comparison of Building height limits: Building
height limits. control how tall
these three land use tools. First, there is no direct buildings can be certain areas.
correlation between height, FAR, and density. Building height limits are used to
Second, none of the three tools, individually or determine fire fighting limitations,
collectively,are a substitute for good design. achieve a desired skyline and
Housing preserve views and access to
sunlight. Building height not directly equate to the intensity limits do
The General Plan Housing Element contains several or mass of development.
policies and programs encouraging housing
development in the downtown. Density: Residential density
controls the maximum number of
Policy 6.2.2 states that: "new commercial dwellings in a given area of land.
developments in the Downtown Core (C-D Zone) --
f - (o
Downtown Core Building Height and Intensity Page 7
shall include housing, unless the City makes one of the following findings 1) Housing is
likely to jeopardize the health, safety, or welfare of residents or employees; 2) The
property's shape, size, topography or other physical factors make dwellings infeasible."
Program 6.3.3 "provides incentives to encourage additional housing in the Downtown
Core (C-D Zone), particularly in mixed-use developments. Incentives may include
flexible density, use, height, or parking provisions, fee reductions, and streamlined
development review and permit processing."
San Luis Obispo Downtown Housing Study
This study prepared in 1995 for the Housing Authority by a team of local architects intended to
identify specific opportunities and obstacles for developing housing in the heart of the City.
Demand for housing and the economics of construction in the downtown were the first parts of
the study. Five case studies, including the Blackstone and Granada Hotels, and their potential for
adding housing to the existing uses, were the heart of the study. The report concluded with a list
of recommendations and a "How To" manual. Although, the report could not have foreseen the
astronomical increases in real estate prices, the accelerated seismic retrofit schedule, or the jump
in the price of building materials, the findings and recommendations of the study are still very
relevant. For instance, one fundamental finding of the report is that there is a significant gap
between the returns a private developer can expect and the cost of producing that housing. Since
it is cheaper and easier to build in other areas of the city, developers have not embraced
downtown housing opportunities. Also, while there is interest in living downtown, many of
those who wish to live there are either not able or willing to pay the market rates needed to
support that new housing.
The recommendations of the study focus on the supply side of the equation by offering
suggestions on how the City can assist developers in making downtown housing more affordable
by reducing costs. One recommendation is to increase density from the allowed 36 units per acre
to the higher densities of the 1940s in San Luis Obispo. The largest example given is the
Anderson Hotel which at over 80 units an acre is an accepted part of the downtown character.
One recommendation.to encourage mixed-use development has been embraced by the City
policies, and as evidenced by the recent applications, the development community.
The Downtown Housing Study also identified how the.Housing Code, Fire Code and Americans
With Disabilities Act result in obstacles to building housing on typical downtown properties.
These laws establish requirements for stairways, elevators, hallways and access features that
come out of the total square footage of the building. The Land Use Element further requires the
street level of buildings in the downtown to be occupied by stores, restaurants, and other uses
benefiting from and contributing to pedestrian traffic.
Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center (Downtown Concept Plan)
The Downtown Concept Plan, prepared in 1995 by a team of volunteer design professionals, is a
"physical plan" to establish a "long range vision for downtown and a guide for both public and
private investment toward realization of the vision." The vision of the plan is to preserve,
protect, and enhance downtown San Luis Obispo as:
Downtown Core Building Height and Intensity Page 8
1. The major commercial and business center offering a wide variety of goods and services
2. The historic center of the City and the County
3. The seat of County government
4. The primary cultural and entertainment center of the County
5. A major destination for tourists
6. The major congregation center — an enjoyable place to meet others, to celebrate, and to
participate in festivities.
Among the primary goals of the Plan are to "provide a physical framework which retains and
strengthens the economic health and makes provision for reasonable future growth in the
downtown area" and to "preserve residential uses on the periphery of the downtown and
encourage more residential uses on the upper stories of commercial buildings in the core area."
Under the Key Concepts Expanded section for core area mixed uses, the Plan "promotes mixed
use in the core area; while the first floor in some locations should be reserved for commercial
uses, upper levels may have housing, offices, dining, galleries, and open spaces" and
"encourages the addition of more housing downtown on upper 'stories over commercial and
parking structures." The Plan breaks the downtown core into 15 sub-areas and describes public
projects with guidelines and standards for private development.
What are other cities doing?
San Luis Obispo is far from alone. Attachment 4 (Newspaper Article) is just one example of
these sameissues being discussed throughout the country. Although, the cities in this article are
larger than San Luis Obispo, cities closer to home and in size (Ventura, Santa Cruz, and Santa
Barbara) are going through this same community exercise — how to protect their downtown
character while encouraging mixed-use development and increased 24-hour vitality. The staffs'
visual presentation during the Council meeting will show some good examples of downtown
mixed-use developments.
All of the cities surveyed and researched are embracing the demand for downtown housing, but
not without ensuring the continual enhancement of their quality of life. As Trevor Boddy of the
Vancouver Sun says in the newspaper article, "we trade density for amenities." Amenities in
exchange for higher buildings include, dedication of open/public space, public art, schools,
transit, housing, and special design features. In cities ranging from Santa Barbara to Boston, by
far the most common trade-off requirement for allowing a taller buildings in the downtown is
provision of housing. Most cities also require a certain percentage of affordable housing as a
condition of "going higher" (a higher percentage of affordable housing than would normally be
required).
Economic Considerations Associated With the Height of Buildings
Attached (Attachment 5) is a memorandum prepared by the City's economic consultant, Allan
Kotin. While there are obviously many factors to consider with respect to the height and density
of buildings, economic "drivers" are among them. These"drivers" are not only associated with
questions of feasibility and private sector profit, but they hold very practical importance relative
to public policy goals, such as downtown housing development. For these reasons, such
I= 8
Downtown Core Building Height and Intensity Page 9
economic factors must be understood and included among the Council's considerations when
weighing appropriate building height standards. Mr. Kotin's memorandum is helpful in this
regard, and he will be present at the study session to discuss these issues further and answer any
questions.
Good Design
While building height and intensity are important for shaping community form and character,
good design is the most important factor. Good design can make a tall, massive building
attractive, but height and FAR standards alone can not make up for an unattractive building with
few interesting architectural elements. While, what constitutes good design is subjective, the
City of San Luis Obispo has Downtown Design Guidelines (contained in the Community Design
Guidelines) to "preserve and enhance its attractiveness to residents and visitors as a place
where:people prefer to walk, rather than drive; and where the pleasant sidewalks, shading trees,
and variety of shops, restaurants and other activities encourage people to spend time, slow their
pace, and engage one another. The design of buildings and their setting, circulation, and public
spaces in the downtown have, and will continue to play a crucial role in maintaining this
character and vitality."
Several General Plan policies encourage recessed building entries, courtyards, and mid-block
walk-ways. Several design guidelines call for complementing the height and vertical scale of
existing adjacent buildings. Other downtown design guidelines emphasize building facades,
storefronts, materials, architectural details, and upper story stepbacks. The Architectural Review
Commission (ARC) uses the guidelines as a basis for evaluating individual projects and their
compatibility within the larger San Luis Obispo context.
Clarifying the Vision—Policy Issues
The experience we are having with the consistency of the policies, plans, and other
considerations described above suggests that they may not be reinforcing one another as well as
they could, depending on the vision for the downtown. The General Plan policy of "not to
exceed two or three stories" is consistent with a FAR of 3.0. The maximum lot coverage in the
Downtown Core is 100%, so a 3-story building covering the entire site allows the maximum
floor area to be achieved. However, General Plan policies and architectural guidelines also
encourage recessed building entries, courtyards, mid-block walk-ways, and upper story
stepbacks. While not necessarily in conflict, these policies and standards may inhibit full
realization of the intended net effect. In other words, shorter buildings may inadvertently
encourage "boxy", unattractive buildings. It could be difficult to achieve the maximum
allowable floor area and provide the "sense-of-place amenities". Providing the amenities at the
cost of allowable square footage is a disincentive for property owners to provide those amenities.
The 36 units per acre standard also points to the downtown as the highest density area in the City.
Furthermore, the Zoning Ordinance height limit of 50 feet, limits the mixed-use and housing
potential of the downtown. The Housing Element has updated land use policy by requiring
housing ("shall" statement) and providing incentives, such as height, parking and density
flexibility for housing.
l9
i
Downtown Core Building Height and Intensity Page 10
While the City encourages and requires including housing in new downtown developments, the
profit for the land owner for each unit is marginal, limited square footage must be used for
requirements that produce no income (elevators, hallways, etc.), and it must be built on the upper
floors. Increasing the allowable density, square footage, height, and number of stories will
improve the feasibility of developing housing in the downtown.
A maximum of three story buildings limits development potential to one floor of commercial and
two floors of housing, or one floor of housing and two floors of commercial use. A land owner
will likely choose to maximize the income a building can generate in order to pay the
construction or rehabilitation costs. That typically results in a second story of commercial uses.
The current application of all of our policies and standards in the downtown creates an incentive
for the land owner to seek a high return on residential uses, in order to replace the income a
commercial land use would produce.
The existing limits on height and the number of stories seem to constrain the fulfillment of the
Land Use and Housing Element policies and the return on investment to the owner, especially
considering the costs of the seismic retrofit. Although, none of the proposed projects have been
thoroughly reviewed for compliance with City standards, the next section shows that most of
them conflict with the 50-foot height limit and/or the "two or three story"policy.
Proposed Projects and Existing Policies
Chinatown and Garden Street Terrace are the tallest of the proposed projects, both in height and
the number of stories. Both are five stories and range from 62-78 feet in height depending on
where the measurement is taken from. Ah Louis, Monterey Creekside, Bermant Homes, and the
Warden building are all proposed at four stories with at least two of them at over 50 feet (height
is unknown for two projects at this time). Thus, most of the proposed projects will be seeking
height exceptions/variances, and "Landmark" status in the review process. If these proposed
buildings are what the City would like to see to implement its goals for the downtown, then
related policies and standards may be in need of clarification.
The FAR has not been calculated for all the proposed projects (several are in the conceptual
stage). Many of the proposals vary the floor area by stepping back the upper floors of the
building. General Plan policies and architectural guidelines direct that,the proposed builidings
provide recessed entries, courtyards, and mid-block walk-ways as well. If the FAR is revised to
exclude below-grade and parking levels, consistency with the 3.0 floor area ratio will probably
not be a problem.
Alternative Policy Clarifications
Mixed-use development with housing above the lower levels of commercial use embodies many
of the SMART growth or new urbanist principles. Mixed-use and taller buildings avert pressure
on sprawling outward into open space and agricultural lands. Infill development takes advantage
of existing transportation and infrastructure capacity. Mixed use and increased housing
downtown increases the human presence, particularly at night, and fosters a pedestrian
environment. These goals support taller buildings.
� 1
Downtown Core Building Height and Intensity Page 11
It is not feasible, practical or appropriate for downtown San Luis Obispo to become developed
with significantly taller buildings (six stories or more). A limited increase in building height and
intensity could allow for growth in the downtown and respect, and even promote, the character of
existing development. If the Council so directs, there are numerous alternatives for increasing
building height and intensity in downtown San Luis Obispo.
One alternative - that as a practical matter will apply to only a limited number of properties - is to
amend the General Plan and Zoning Regulations to allow for four to five-story buildings along
with a FAR of 4.0 and raised height limit of 75 feet. This would not only allow one level of
retail with 3 floors of housing, but also one level of ground floor retail, one level of office space,
and two floors of housing. This would reduce the difficulty in providing the desired amenities
that consume leasable square footage while allowing the maximum allowable floor area to be
achieved. This would also insure that the downtown remains the City's most intensely developed
area.
Another option is to keep the existing policies, but allow increased building height and intensity
in conjunction with provision of certain amenities, such as affordable housing, courtyards,
plazas, recessed entries, and outdoor dining. For instance, raising the FAR to 4.0 and the height
to 75 feet could be a good incentive for a project to designate 25% of its residential units as
affordable.
The Downtown Concept Plan team also contributed some thoughts to the discussion. As
contained in Attachment 6, Ken Schwartz suggests that the downtown height limit of 50 feet be
devoted to commercial retail and some supportive office space and that height exceptions for
housing, if desired, be allowed above that height. This would help protect and maximize the
income producing commercial property downtown. Andrew Merriam suggests that by just
raising the height limit from 50 to 60 feet, one additional floor of housing could be
accommodated for a four-story building with three levels of housing or one level of retail, one
level of office space and two stories of housing. Chuck Crotser believes that "an important
objective would be to encourage higher densities in the downtown core particularly with an eye
towards a mix of uses including a strong residential component." His thoughts on revisiting the
City's development standards are contained in Attachment 7.
A Note About Infrastructure Capacity
City staff has been conducting a parallel and related study on downtown infrastructure in
conjunction with the building height analysis. In addition to analyzing capacity of City utilities
the study will also provide building data to the private utility companies. According to the
Utilities Department there is sufficient water for fire flow and most of the mains have been
replaced recently. Building height could be an issue in certain downtown locations and would be
addressed during project review and be the responsibility of the developer. Likewise for sewer
service, many of the sewer lines have been replaced. On Nipomo Street there is a relief sewer
that provides additional wet weather capacity, and has the ability to handle flows from additional
downtown development. Adequacy of sewer mains to convey wastewater from any new
development to the relief sewer would be evaluated with each development proposal. However,
some projects, such as Chinatown, will need to provide flow information for the City to
i - 11
Downtown Core Building Height and Intensity Page 12
determine the capacity. In the event that inadequate capacity exists, the developer would be
responsible for providing the solution.
Next Steps and Suggested Direction
If Council agrees that the potential inconsistencies in City policies could be inhibiting the vision
for downtown development, Council should direct staff as follows:
1. Revise the City's floor area ratio (FAR) definition to exclude basements and parking.
2. Confirm policy inconsistencies among General Plan policies and development standards for
the downtown. -
3. Direct staff to bring back alternatives for moderately increasing the downtown building
height and intensity limits, in order to achieve other General Plan goals and objectives,
including design amenities, housing, and retail land uses.
4. Review recommendations with the Cultural Heritage Committee, Architectural Review
Commission, Planning Commission, and Downtown Association before 'returning to the
Council.
The schedule anticipates returning to Council in approximately six months.
Public Outreach
Planning staff attended two sessions with stakeholder groups — the Economic Development
Committees of the Chamber of Commerce (February 2"d) and Downtown Association (February
10h). In addition, individual public notices were sent to members of the Downtown Association,
CHC, ARC and Planning Commission.
FISCAL IMPACT
None. The study session is intended to clarify existing City policies on building height and
intensity. Fiscal impacts of increasing building height in the downtown will be addressed if that
is the Council's desired direction.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Maintain existing policies and case-by-case flexibility: Clarify that the existing policies and
standards relating to building height and intensity in the downtown are appropriate for review
of future projects. This would continue the project-by-project review and requests for
"landmark" status.
2. Clarify and.tighten policy to absolutely limit to "two or three stories": Direct staff to revise
existing policy language for clarification and policy consistency only, not to allow for
increases in building height and intensity. This alternative would maintain the General Plan
language of "not to exceed two or three stories" and eliminate the "Landmark" building
designation. This alternative includes revising the FAR definition to exclude basements and
parking (both below-grade and above).
C - l2
Downtown Core Building Height and Intensity Page 13
3. Provide more information: Continue the matter and request additional information from staff
before making a decision.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 - Downtown Core - Existing Buildings by Number of Floors
Attachment 2 - Downtown Core Development Potential
Attachment 3 - City-wide Context for Building Height
Attachment 4 - Newspaper Article "Cities Face Their High-Rise Futures"
Attachment 5 - Memorandum on Economic Impacts of Height Limitations (Kotin)
Attachment 6 - Letter from Ken Schwartz, dated May 20, 2005
Attachment 7 - Letter from Chuck Crotser dated February 24, 2006
dd/J:/HousingProgratns/CCRptDownB IdHt2
1 _ 13
•u �� •'•�
♦ I � . ,.� , II� . , �,♦ i
WPM
' � �i� tom♦ �
��•,� �� .�
���`♦ ♦� , •� ♦'� � . sem, `.� .�
OIr
,, , his, !�, �� •. •� ,�' ♦ ''�► ,♦ � ♦`
►�� ♦♦'�i �� ��': .,tMAN
IW O
NO
. ski ♦`�' � ��
:Ili- i 1�►" ♦�'•���♦:�'���`�`,�`' N �����
gopt
1 , '
ILIWIN
♦ ♦��,�� � Imo` ♦ ��
IMP a
RAP
IWO
MOVES
� �,� ♦♦ . ♦�IMIN V
�� .y ���� ��♦ I� ♦ice �► -♦
Isom x
L All
Legend
M Unlikely to Developj=Downtown
20 PrOPOSed
nQ,P•�w�oe ,��� j, p I/,/ WQ
• ��/ .. �'11N/1�' ■'■VIII■/,•`
- ... ;■IT_.'r_= IILi ill=;i'1,
WIN
1•i �.. 'Ip��,
• 1:iii. I�]:un: X111- �ryi�..
• I�p4nnu:•n�
:e e==IIIIII Illiil Iliiii u�:17" .i�Illllli
• •_ I I m=�lu•= w •�liii�l I�irii it
• �%, al =__=Bila.e MIT• �■1��
. �,,�,:__�_c\''•Py Guy^, �—Liman
11111.1 ..
• \\ < .nnn tum. ���
.111■ ■■ I;�� o• nmi�,: ':;;-••.•'_�-� •��
= il ���.`�� � �. . abs „\• �
.�./�I I �� O �•.... I ice. ,,� ,A; ..
p . A K ,� ��< � \� ••4 Iii ,,. .�i
/,p�� , m unn/� ���O•=/i•!41111\
v�i1iJ: � -?�."'.i�.u= Jam• '::�/:i/
�- 'i:•i�i'. / ' �iii:,'1p•�i�•\/
" iii/. \� � uunO�i P\•\�.\
KnowledgePlex: Article: Cities Face Their High-Rise Futures Page 1 of 4
Attachment y
Cities Face Their High-Rise Futures
Shonda Novak Copyright 2005 The Austin American Statesman
Austin American-Statesman(Texas)
October 9,2005 LeXIsNexis`
Plans for a condo high-rise at the edge of downtown stirred up some residents of one city,who complain that it will be
monolithic and block their views of the water.
In another city,the talk is of"Manhattanization"of the skyline if high-rises are approved.
To anyone following the debate about residential high-rises in downtown Austin,the phrases will sound familiar.
But the first city is Seattle and the second is Tempe,Ariz. --just two of the multitude of American cities that are trying to
figure out how to get more residential density in their downtowns without filling their skylines with big,blocky buildings.
From Austin to Boston, Tampa to Portland,cities want to make their downtowns lively 24-hour districts that will enhance
their image and tax base.Austin and some other cities also are hoping that more downtown housing options will reduce
sprawl as their populations grow.
The trigger for the debate in Austin is a proposal for a 36-story condominium tower, called Spring, near the western edge
of downtown,where current limits cap buildings at about 10 stories.
The Zoning and Planning Commission is considering whether to allow a zoning change for Spring and has appointed a
subcommittee to make recommendations by Nov. 1.The committee's proposals could influence the location and height
of other downtown high-rises.
Separately,the city has launched a broader, monthslong effort to develop a comprehensive plan to guide development
downtown,where more than a dozen other residential projects have been proposed. Most are 18 stories or higher; not
all would require zoning changes.
Austin can learn something from other cities that have found ways to manage density with measures such as design
restrictions or requirements that developers pay into funds for parks or community facilities.
Boston is encouraging more housing downtown by granting developers of larger projects--about a half-acre or more--
a"height bonus"that lets them buildup to 400 feet, if half or more of the project is residential.
The bonus also requires developers to set aside some units for moderate-income people, a key provision in one of the
country's priciest real estate markets.
Boston officials also encourage developers to make residential buildings slimmer as they go higher, "so on the skyline
they add slender towers between the larger office high-rises,which tend to be more bulky in their massing,"said Prataap
Patrose, deputy director of urban design for the Boston Redevelopment Authority, the city's economic development and
planning agency.
More housing and mixed-use projects create a more vibrant downtown while reducing sprawl and pollution, Patrose
said.
"With today's energy prices,we have to come up with other land use models that are more efficient in the use of scarce
land in our downtowns," Patrose said.
Seattle is still trying to figure out the right strategy.
More than 22.000 people live in its downtown, but 165,000 people work there.To reduce sprawl and traffic, the city
wants to close the gap.
http://www.knowledgeplex.org/news/120265.htm1?p=1 1/10/2006
KnowledgePlex: Article: Cities Face Their High-Rise Futures Page 2 of 4
Attachment y
Mayor Greg Nickels is promoting a plan that would allow residential towers as high as 400 feet in some parts of
downtown,with much shorter limits ih areas such,as near the century-old Pike Place Market.
But developers of such projects would have to pay into a kitty for affordable housing, preserve historic landmarks or
create parks or other public amenities.
Residential developers also would have to build slender towers, with plenty of light and space between them,to
preserve the stunning waterfront views that can be seen from many parts of the hilly city.
Considerable controversy
No one disputes the goals of Nickels'plan, but there has been considerable controversy about the specifics, including a
provision that would allow office towers as high as 700 feet. Residential developers aren't crazy about the proposed
fees, which would be about$10 a square foot, although commercial developers already pay a similar type of fee that is
twice as high.
The Seattle City Council is expected to vote on the plan early next year.
Vancouver, British Columbia,often is held up as the paragon of desirable density.There are more than 200 high-rises in
the central part of the city,with dozens more under construction,the result of zoning changes made years ago to allow
huge swaths of old industrial waterfront land to be developed.
More than 80,000 people live in and near downtown. Vancouver has a simple formula to make sure the towers do not
obliterate the skyline and that downtown remains an attractive place to live.
"We trade density for amenities,"said Trevor Boddy, author and architecture critic for The Vancouver Sun. "Developers
have to come to the table with a public amenity—cultural facilities, parks,schools, social housing,arts and recreation
facilities--and(city)planners have to approve it."
Sometimes developers donate space for the amenity, such as an art gallery. In other cases,they pay fees that go into
funds for parks and community centers,said Mike Harcourt,who was Vancouver's mayor from 1980 to 1986, when the
high-.rise phenomenon boomed.
Developers fought the plan but now realize that having parks, schools and other community facilities nearby makes their
projects more valuable, both Boddy and Harcourt say.
Vancouver also has design guidelines that specify certain types of glass and other building materials that must be used
for high-rises, along with requirements for setbacks, access to views and requirements for open spaces.
Tempe considers height limits
Like Austin,Tempe,Ariz., is a college town,the home of Arizona State University. With At 160,000 people, it's far
smaller than Austin, but just-the same,the density debate is near the top of the public agenda.
Developer Avenue Communities wants to build four residential-retail towers in the heart of downtown, one with 22 stories
and three with potentially 30 stories.
That is higher than anything else in Tempe,where the tallest building downtown is eight stories.
Tempe has no height limits now but is considering creating them, with limits dropping off toward downtown's edges.
City officials also are going high tech to see exactly how the new high-rises downtown, and eventually citywide,would
look.Tempe is working with computer scientists at Arizona State to create"state of the art,three-dimensional computer
graphics programs so we can get a perspective as a council and show the public what any additional height might look
like in relationship to existing buildings,"City Council Member Leonard Copple said.
The computer modeling will allow the city"to start projecting into the future and make decisions, not only on how our city
will look, but also on what city services we're going to need to make it operate," Copple said.
I — I
http://www.knowledgeplex.org/news/120265.html?p=l 1/10/2006
KnowledgePlex: Article: Cities Face Their High-Rise Futures Page 3 of 4
Attachment +�
"Certainly the new developments coming to Tempe's urban core will change our city,"said Copple,adding that
developers"should be prepared to provide for some of the services that will be required for these new residents and also
for the impacts to the existing community. Nothing is off the table at this point."
Austin leaders are mindful of the changes coming their way, as well. With the region's population expected to swell by
about 1 million within the next 15 to 20 years,city planners say it is crucial to make sure that downtown has room for a
healthy number of the new residents.
"You are facing large rapid growth going forward,"said John Mcllwain,senior fellow at the Urban Land Institute,an
urban planning think tank in Washington, D.C."You want to capture as much of that growth downtown as you can. It's a
much more sustainable housing pattern than pushing the new housing out into the far suburbs."
Like Seattle,Austin also aims to tum more downtown workers into downtown dwellers.
More than 4,500 people live downtown.About 90,000 people work within a mile of Sixth Street and Congress Avenue,
including about 50,000 in the downtown core.
For Robert Bamstone, one of Spring's developers,the debate is over.
Not only is.the small site, at Third and Bowie streets, "a warehouse area that has never been considered anything but
passed-over land," he said, new realities dictate that building up, not out, is the way to go because it involves a more
efficient use of land and less energy consumption.
"One day we will say, 'What were we thinking that we made it so hard to build downtown and so easy to build out in the
suburbs?"'
Betty Baker,chairwoman of the zoning commission, says that she does not oppose density but questions whether very
tall buildings--Spring would rise 400 feet--should be allowed close to traditional.neighborhoods.
Spring would be just two blocks from the Old West Austin neighborhood,where some residents say the project would be
too tall and would add much more traffic to an already congested area.
Baker already has an idea about what kind of trade-off she would like to see developers make to get the extra height
they seek.
"I'm going to be looking very,very, very strongly"at recommending that Spring's developers donate land or money for
parks or park-related improvements, Baker said.
That is something that the city requires of residential developers generally, except for projects in the central business
district,the heart of downtown,or on certain tracts abutting it.
Under the city's formula, Spring's developers would have to pay more than$2 million, Baker said.
With the developers asking for a height variance that"no one else is asking for. . . I'm going to say; 'This is a condition,'
"she said.
Cid Galindo, a member of the separate City Planning Commission, lives downtown with his wife and baby daughter.
"Beautiful skylines are one of the main attractions of some of the most vibrant cities in the world, and those are skylines
filed with tall buildings," he said. "Tall is beautiful,and there are examples of that in all of the leading metropolitan
centers of the world, and Austin should take her place among them."
As Austin plans its high-rise future,he said, it does not necessarily have to emulate other cities.
"Even if there's not a model to copy, we have to make it work for ourselves.Austin is a leading city, and we are
innovators in urban planning, and there's no reason we can't also be innovators and leaders in showing how to make this
happen."
snovak@statesman.com;445-3856
1- ► q
http://www.knowledgeplex.org/news/120265.html?p=1 1/10/2006
Attachment 5
RDK&lk- - 310.820.0900
213.623.3841
Fax 213.623.4231
Allan D. Kotin &Associates
Real Estate Consulting for Public Private Joint Ventures
949 S. Hope Street,Suite 200, Los Angeles,CA 90015 akotin@adkotin.com
Memorandum
TO: Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer, City of San Luis DATE: January 13,2006
Obispo
CC: Shelly Stanwyck,Assistant City Administrative Officer
FROM: Allan D. Kotin
RE: ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF HEIGHT LIMITATIONS IN DOWNTOWN SAN Luis OBISPO
At your request, I have prepared this memo outlining what I perceive to be some of the economic
issues associated with the limitation of building height in downtown San Luis Obispo. Although I
am not an urban planner, I have given considerable thought to those ingredients that make for
successful downtowns, mixed-use and effective revitalization where revitalization is needed. In that
capacity I have studied in some detail the revitalization of Pasadena, Santa Monica, Santa Barbara
and, not at all irrelevantly, San Luis Obispo. In addition, I teach at the graduate School of Policy,
Planning, and Development at the University of Southern California. The two classes I teach are the
Development Approval Process and Public Private Joint Ventures. In both classes, I deal with the
issue of successful downtown revitalization and the interaction of developmental economics and
land use regulation.
I think there are three critical aspects of height limitations and their possible relaxation as they apply
to downtown San Luis Obispo. The three items are:
1. The land use impacts of height limitation;
2. Examples of articulated downtowns and their use of different height buildings;
3. The likely impacts of a relaxation of height limitations in downtown San Luis Obispo.
Before going into great detail and elaborating on the three thoughts; it is useful to talk about the
whole issue of height limitation. Many successful downtowns have buildings of five to seven stories
in height without having skyscrapers, and I will be discussing, in this brief memo, primarily
situations in which heights of perhaps 75 to 80 feet are tolerated, accommodating, depending on the
type of building, anywhere from six to eight stories at a maximum.
Impacts of Height Limitation on Land Use
One of the most interesting things about successful downtowns, whether they are continuously
successful or successful in revitalization, is that to survive you must grow. All the downtown
patterns that I have studied have to be seasoned with some level of new development. The new
development can, as it is in both San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara, be very heavily regulated, but
Attachment 5
ADK&R
Memorandum
RE: ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF HEIGHT LIMITATIONS IN DOWNTOWN SAN LUIS OBISPO
Working Draft Subject to Change
new development is needed for the stimulation and sense of change. Most frequently this is
redevelopment.
The institution of a height limitation that keeps buildings at three stories or less has several generally
unfortunate implications for the kind of redevelopment and repositioning and new development that
are so critical to the long term success of a downtown.
Let us begin with the concept that retail, even in a situation where parking is heavily subsidized, is a
difficult land use not supporting terribly high land values. Retail tenants have a wide variety of
options and often are unwilling to pay ever escalating rents. Retail generally only works at one
level. Only in rare situations and with particular design excellence and entrepreneurial zeal do you
get multiple storey retail that is effective and survives.
One interesting consequence of the limited value of retail land is that as improved properties occur,
it becomes harder and harder to redevelop in a purely retail use. Hence the push in many areas for
mixed-use. Historically mixed-use represented either retail and office or retail and housing. With
the advent of technology and the changing economics of most California cities, office is not a
primary use and mixed-use primarily means retail and housing.
It is difficult, albeit not impossible, to make a cost effective project in which there is one level of
retail and only two levels of housing. This product works much better at three .or four levels of
housing. The reasons for this are the fact that more housing reduces the land cost, and also more
housing allows you to approach critical mass. Projects of five, ten or even 20 units are inherently
uneconomical to operate. Projects of 50 or 100 units are much more economical. It is difficult to
get such large projects if housing is restricted to only one or two floors above retail.
The other problem or impact of height limitation on land use is inadvertently to discourage rental
housing. The economics of rental housing do not work very well with small projects.
On the other hand, high cost condominium housing can be done with small projects. There is a
strong argument to be made, particularly in downtown areas, for the incorporation of significant
amounts of rental housing so as to accommodate people who work in downtown. Condominiums
are typically much more expensive and typically out of the reach of many of the more modestly paid
employees of a downtown area. They are the natural tenants for renting and successful downtown
development almost requires that much of the housing built accommodate some of these employees.
Finally and perhaps most critically, is the fact that without being able to go fairly high, that is to say
four, five or more stories, it is very difficult to justify the entitlement risk, the construction risk and
the operational risk associated with successful mixed-use development. Elevators, air shafts and
other vertical penetrations are required for even a two or three story building and they do not
changed materially for a much higher building. This means that the building efficiency increases
with height.
Allan D.Kotin&Associates Page 2 2/21/2006
I - 'at
RDKJr Attachment S
Memorandum
RE: ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF HEIGHT LIMITATIONS IN DOWNTOWN SAN LUIS OBISPO
Working Draft Subject to Change
Finally and perhaps most significantly, is the fact that without there being an economic benefit,
some sense of leverage of value added, redevelopment is much less likely to occur. In an
environment, particularly found in San Luis Obispo and other "successful' urban areas, land prices
are very high and the only way to achieve the surplus value needed to warrant redevelopment or new
development is in fact to allow increasing density.
In conclusion, the land use impacts of severe height limitations are primarily to reduce significantly
redevelopment and growth. This means that the goal of mixed-use development of downtowns,
which ecologically is most attractive and mitigates the otherwise omnipresent traffic problems,
cannot be achieved. It also means, in a very significant sense, that the concept that downtowns must
grow or die cannot be honored with the potential bad future consequences.
Examples of Articulated Downtowns
The cities of Pasadena, Santa Monica and Santa Barbara all have a sprinkling of four, five, and in
some cases six or seven story buildings in their prime downtown area. What is significant is that
none of these cities have become dominated by such structures. In the case of Pasadena, there was a.
tradition of mid to high rise office buildings, surrounding but not in Old Pasadena, that has actually
been halted but many of the new mixed-use buildings are 70 to 90 feet high accommodating four,
five or more stories. In Santa Barbara, there is relatively little new construction at height but there
are a fair number of older office buildings, some still used for office and some subject to adaptive
re-use that exceed significantly two and three storey height limitations.
California is replete with visual examples of situations where individual higher buildings have not
only not hurt downtowns but have in fact enriched them. There is a premium that attaches to a taller
building in an area which has relatively few tall buildings. The opportunity for view and the
opportunity for status create economic value. This does not require that there be a lot of high
buildings and in fact it works better where there are fewer.
This later observation leads directly to the third and concluding observation of this analysis:
Relaxing Height Limitations in Downtown San Luis Obispo will Apply to Few Properties
Relaxing height limitations is clearly not going to cause a paroxysm of new high rise construction.
Recently constructed projects, freshly remodeled properties, small lot size (and an inability to
assemble more lots into one large lot), various regulations and the pure economics of construction all
guarantee that this will not occur. What in fact will occur is that at selected locations, many of
which can be defined in advance, there will be construction that is potentially up to seven stories.
The reason I chose seven stories is the fact that under current building codes, it is possible to build
five stories of frame and stucco. It is further possible to build those over a two story concrete and
steel "podium" of parking. This parking can be faced in front with retail. A very common format
for a mixed-use project with retail at the ground level and residential above is to provide retail at
Allan D. Kotin&Associates Page 3 2/21/2006
i — jl�
RDK&01- - Attachment S
Memorandum
RE: ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF HEIGHT LIMITATIONS IN DOWNTOWN SAN LUIS OBISPO
Working Draft Subject to Change
ground level, parking both below and at the second level, and then to build frame and stucco above
that.
My personal view is that it is most unlikely that a large number of projects involving a mixture of
retail, hotel and residential uses will be constructed. Such construction requires sites of a minimum
of 30,000 square feet and preferably 50,000 or more. The number of places where such size can be
assembled and effectively developed is very small. The combination of seismic limitation, recent
rehabilitation, and lot configuration all virtually guarantee that the number of locations at which
higher density mixed-use development is likely or possible to occur in downtown, probably numbers
is single digits and certainly not more than a dozen or so.
I would hope you find this memo useful. If you would like further detail or formal example
calculations,please let me know.
C:\DOCUME-1\slouser\LOCALS-I\Temp\HEIGHT-1.130C
Allan D. Kotin&Associates Page 4 2/21/2006
[ - o.3
Attachmern b
10,
MEMO
May 20, 2005 i"' ..c, c�•.o.,,( ' fit' `r"'''� �/—
To: Mayor Dave R ro and ilmemb ul Brown,John Ewan,Christine u'
.Mulholland len
From: Ken Schwartz
Copies: Ken Hampian d Jo Mandeville an chitecturaI Review Commission s
Re: Copeland Chinatown Proposal
I have had the opportunity to study each of the 18 sheets that comprise the package of
drawings prepared by Mark Rawson,AIA,et at in support of the so-called Chinatown
project. I have two observations/critiques I would like you to consider in your review of
this project.
1. The use of Morro Street for parking ingress and egress:
When the Physical Concept Plan for the City's Center(better known simply as the
Downtown Plan)was developed and adopted as a guide by the City Council back in
1994,considerable time was spent by the Design Team,the Consultative Review
Team and the City Council itself on the question of vehicular circulation in the
downtown. No one wanted to make malls out of any of the principal streets and most
felt that"some"auto traffic would even be beneficial. Consequently,Santa Rosa,
Palm,Nipomo and Marsh Streets were identified as"interceptor"streets to
discourage traffic cutting through downtown and carrying that traffic`around'the
periphery of downtown. Those of you that remember this process will mall that our
base maps always had a heavy blue line on these streets as a reminder of their critical
importance as"interceptor/circumferential"routes in order that other downtown
streets could become more traffic-free and pedestrian friendly.
For the most part,the City has followed these principles in approving subsequent
development proposals in the downtown.
With respect to the Chinatown proposal,please note that on Sheet S, Overall Site
Plan,and again on Sheet 4,Birdseye View from Anderson Hotel,that Morro Street is
shown full width suggesting an open two-way street between Monterey and Palm.
This is not what is visualized in the Downtown Plan. If you refer to the Downtown
Plan you will note that Morro Street is rendered to indicate that it become a
pedestrian ingress and egress which was to run from Monterey Street to the
underground garage(which at that time was visualized to run under Morro Street).
This is reinforced by Charles Crotser's Perspective Sketch#10 on the reverse side of
the Downtown Plan.
I recognize that given current development plans for the Morro,Monterey,Chorro,
Palm block that access to parking behind the KinkosBello building must remain
t
� -ay
. f -
Attachment 6 •.
Page 2 of 3
open. I believe,however,that ingress and egress to that parking can and should be
made from Palm Street as should ingress and egress to/from the parking proposed for
the Chinatown complex. The distance between these driveways and the Morro/Palm
corner provides a long and adequate queuing length for cars exiting onto Palm
whether they come from the KinkoBellos parking lot,the Chinatown parking
structure or the bottom floor of the City's new parking structure.
My first request,then,is that the ARC and City Council bring the proposed
Chinatown plan into conformance with the Downtown Plan by directing that Morro
Street be these parking access driveways and Monterey Street be redesigned to
allow for a centered one-way access for emergency vehicles only with widened
sidewalks on both sides to permit more spacious landscaped pedestrian ways. The
emergency access should have bollards at each end to prevent through traffic.
2. A New Retail-Commercial/Housina Paraditnn for Downtown:
The victory of the Marketplace referendum calls for the City Council to take a radical
new approach to the use of.land in the downtown.
Historically,downtowns have grown concentrically as the need for additional
commercial-retail space expanded and the deterioration of the surrounding residential
areas permitted easy acquisition of the needed land. Proposition 13 put an end to that
pattern. Prop 13 gave the surrounding residential areas new economic life.It became
cheaper for residents to fix up these older homes than it was to go out into the
hinterlands and buy new homes and pay the higher property taxes. This is very
apparent in SLO. Our downtown is now ringed with very choice residences and
downtown is left with little other choice than to grow higher on the limited area of
downtown land if it expects to compete with surrounding cities for SLO's fair share
of the retail shopping dollar and sales tax revenue.
The housing component of this Chinatown project was conceived at a time when the
then City Council majority thought that the Marketplace would provide the needed
new land for commercial-retail development and downtown land parcels would
become more free to consider residential components. No doubt some people would
enjoy living in our pleasant downtown environment. An inspection of the Chinatown
proposal suggests that commercial retail space is only minimally developed in favor
of a large component of residential units.
Given the defeat of the Marketplace and the loss by the City of that potential sales tax
revenue stream,the question now is: is it proper to use land zoned commercial-retail
for housing? Should we not be husbanding our now limited commercial-retail
downtown land for future commercial-retail uses? Should the City now require the
Chinatown project to enlarge its retail components appreciably?
i -a5
Attachment 6
Page 3 of 3
This doesn't have to come down to a yes or no answer,but it does raise the question
of how much of downtown's potential retail land should be allowed to go into
housing? After all,housing does not produce sales tax or TOT. This Chinatown
project just happens to come at a critical time when the Council needs to grope with -
that question.
If I recall correctly,the height limit downtown is 60 feet. Would it not be proper to
require that the cubic footage contained on downtown parcels be utilized for.
commercial-retail(and possibly supporting office-service uses)for that full 60 feet,
and that height exceptions for housing,if desired,be permitted above 60 feet to,say,
a height of 80 feet?.
The point of this proposal is that a way must be found to maximize the retail-
commercial potential of our now limited retail-commercial downtown land mass.
Perhaps we can no longer afford the luxury of allowing mixed housing uses—or if we
allow them,to allow them only with a height limit exceptions.
There could be subsets to this proposal. Maybe the City should insist that only the
cubic footage contained in a 50 That height be retail-commercial with housing
permitted in another 20 foot height allocation. Or maybe it is 40 feet Etc.,etc.
My second request,then,is that staff,Planning Commission and Architectural
Review Commission be charged with conducting a detailed analysis of the retail-
commercial potential of our downtown given the constrains of our present zoning
requirements and the impact that using this valuable income producing land resource
for housing(which by casual inspection,we know is not going to be work-force
affordable)will have. I think that the charge to staff PC and ARC needs to include
exploration of innovative ways to manipulate current zoning requirements that will
produce spatial variations and height variations that will produce not just the volumes
of space required within a constrained downtown,but forms and visual character that
will be fimctional and attractive as well.
Thank you for your attention to these issues.
I
Attachment
CHARLES CROTSER AmMixk AIA
P.O. Box 12528 . ..San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
Phone/Fax/Messages: (805) 546-8484;e-mail :ccrotser@calpoly.edu
March 12,2005
City Council
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
Council members,
As the City of SLO continues to envision how it will grow,one of the key decisions will be whether to grow
outward,or upward, or not at all. History has shown that few cities are successful that completely rely on the
notion of no-growth.Yet thoughtful,well-designed,controlled growth can produce living environments,which
enhance the overall quality-of-life characteristic that we all desire.
In thinking about the way that SLO should grow, I believe that an important objective would be to encourage
higher densities in the downtown core particularly with an eye towards a mix of uses including a strong residential
component When we look to the to the relatively short-term future of 50-75 years for our downtown, I believe that
it would be wise to re-visit our development standards. Several of the elements,which should be adjusted,would
include:
• An increase in our density allowances for residential development with an eye towards providing a wide
variety of housing opportunities.The current density limit is 36 units per acre; I could see a density limit in
certain circumstances of perhaps twice that number depending on the size and type of dwelling unit.
• Increase height limits to at least 5-6 stories,or 75-80 feet. Strategies for proper sling and location of taller
buildings, including massing and articulation,should be addressed concurrently with height increases.
• Increase floor area ratio thresholds with particular incentives for the residential component.The current FAR
is 3.0 with an increase to 4.0 with transfer development credits. 1 feel that SLO could increase the allowable
FAR to a range of 5.0—6.0.
It may be difficult to envision the notion of larger buildings and higher densities because there are so many
examples of poorly designed urban environments. However, at whatever scale we choose to grow,we must be
very careful that the total urban environment including the buildings, streetscape and amenities,and our unique
open spaces,be extremely well.designed.We must pay particular attention to our existing historic,cultural and
natural resources,and be sensitive to the context when proposing new higher intensity strategies. If designed
properly,newer,more intense development can certainly be complementary to our current built environment and
setting.Many cities,which are much older than ours,have evolved from relatively agrarian roots such as SLO into
vibrant,lively urban environments,while maintaining the"chane"and"character", but just at a different scale.
If we can implement creative and perhaps bold strategies for increasing the densities within existing improved
areas, it should discourage the need to sprawl and allow SLO to preserve a City"edge'which will strengthen our
City identity.As we continue to implement the objectives outlined in the Downtown Concept Plan,and portions of
the recently revised General Plan Housing Element,our continued short-tens growth should look to more
compact, higher densification of portions of our downtown,and ultimately other potential areas within our existing
urban reserve boundaries.
There are many other critically connected issues surrounding this topic,which must,and will be addressed,yet, I
believe that the time is upon us to make some bold decisions about the future of downtown SLO. If the concept of
higher density and compact urban strategy is implemented properly,our actions could provide a vibrant future for
SLO and inspiration for other communities,which are struggling with the same fundamental questions of growth
that we face.
Respectfully,
Charles Crotser.AIA
Page 1 of 2
SLO Citycouncil - On growing bigger downtown
From: - Dale Sutliff <dsutliff@calpoly.edu>
FRECEIVED
To: <slocitycouncil@slocity.org> 006
Date: 3/11/2006 9:59 PM LERK
Subject On growing bigger downtown
From: dsutliff@calpoly.edu
Subject: On growing bigger downtown
Date: March 11,.2006 5:55:59 PM PST
To: dromero@slocity.org;jewan@slocity.org; RED FILE
cmulholland@slocity.org; pbrown@slocity.org; asettle@slocity.org
MEETING AGENDA
Dear Mayor and City Council members: DATE.3 /y/D�e IT EM
�—
I read the story in today's Tribune on proposed height changes to the
SLO downtown with great interest. I walked around downtown today,
as I often do, with a special eye for what is becoming, and might L,a,4y _. rnA11_
become of the area.
$2 COUNCIL a CuD DIR
I have been a member of this community since 1973. Unfortunatley, I ® CAO :c FIN DIR
will not be able to come on Tuesdayto our meeting. lid ATTO 9 PIKE CHIEF
Y 9• � ATTORNEY to +J DIR
JE CLERK/ORIG ;i POLICE CHF
A few points I want to share with you: ❑ DEPT HEADS 1E ?EC DIR
P/B UTIL DIR
1. SLO is a great city -especially downtown, and it can be even HR DIR
greater- but, not by allowing height(and don't forget mass) CA-d
changes that would permit it growing to the equivalent of 5-7 stories.
2. Effective height and mass must account for volumetric impacts of
buildings on sloping sites, e.g., the down-slope side of a property
must be considerably lower in height than the building at the top of
the site. This is necessary to respect the sense of the terrain,
sunlight
and shading aspects, and impacts on the street corridors to maintain
views from downtown outward (as we now have at street level in many
places),
and to protect the human scale and qualities of these street corridors.
3. While I have always supported in-fill development, and have felt
the downtown could accept additional height and mass, I do not believe
a few of the
project proposals currently "on the drawing boards", or those that
would be sure to follow, meet the standards suggested in item 2, above.
I do not see any
difficulty in increasing building height to equivalent 2-4 stories in
most cases, and maybe even an occasional 5 stories in the right
location (very limited).
However, what I see happening is a push/trend?to convert the downtown
to much greater height and mass in most places over time. To be
successful,
the city must protect its physical, environmental, social, and economic
vitality for its residents and visitors alike. To do so requires that
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\slouserU,ocal%20Settings\Temp\GW}00001.HTM 3/13/2006
Page 2 of 2
C
all projects built
in the downtown area add substantially more than they detract from the
urban quality of our city. Misplaced, and too much, height and mass
increases
will destroy these qualities.
4. Building more, and bigger, downtown, will not decrease demands for
growth outside the downtown. Both will occur. Success will depend on
the employment of multiple use projects in all areas of the city over
the long run. This will, in itself, help to curtail sprawl.
S. Major projects downtown must contribute to urban private/public
open space. As increased development occurs, useful open space must go
hand-in-hand with it. If it does not San Luis Obispo will be faced
with the "deadly" realities that other cities have permitted (and tried
to overcome after-the-fact) in the loss of
the qualities that make downtowns vibrant attractions. Mission Plaza
and the SLO Creek-walk, along with the few plazas and quasi-public
spaces that exist
downtown now, are already overtaxed with regard to user intensity.
With increased growth these spaces cannot be counted on to continue to
carry the load for needed public space downtown in the future.
Finally, I have spent over thirty years traveling and studying cities
and towns in North America and Europe,and most recently in South
America. I will be in Australia and New Zealand during the spring
doing the same. San Luis Obispo is still one the best places in
California. Please be careful in your decision-making or our city's
standing in the mix of great towns and places could be greatly
diminished.
Best regards,
Dale Sutliff, ASLA
Professor Emeritus
Landscape Architecture Department.
Cal Poly University
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
ph (805) 544-4034, 756-5161
LA Dept. Office: 756-1319
ph (805) 544-4034, 756-5161
LA Dept. Office: 756-1319
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\slouser\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}OOOOI.HTM 3/13/2006
- I
Page 1 of 1
SLO Citycouncil- Five Story.Buildings
FMAR
ED
From: "Bev Praver" <bevjerry@gmail.com>
To: <slocitycouncil@slocity.org> 1106
Date: 3/12/2006 7:39 PMSubject: Five Story Buildings LERK
Dear members of the City Council,
Although we are residents of Cambria,not residents of San Luis Obispo, we do most of our shopping in
San Luis Obispo and that provides your city with tax revenue. We enjoy the present scale of the city and
are regulars at many of the downtown businesses. We appreciate the fact that parking is not too difficult
to find and don't mind having to pay for it. We like being able to see the sky and usually park in one spot
for the afternoon, have lunch and walk through downtown completing our shopping errands. The latest
building development (the Court Street Project)provided some interesting shops but eliminated an entire
parking lot. If you continue to build that way and allow five story buildings as well, parking will become
such a hassle that we will be forced to take our consumer dollars to a friendlier community such as Paso
Robles.
Sincerely,
Bev and Jerry Praver CACACOUNCIL &I-CDD DIR
RED FILE ;AO LT FIN DIR
I�iMEETI G AGENDA PAT 0RNEY 0 FIRE CHIEF
4 ® CLERK/ORIG PW DIR
DATE-3 ITEM # SS / DEPT HEADS 2 POLICE CHF
I&REC DIR
8- P UTIL DIR
fig
HR DIR
file//C:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\slouser\Local%2OSettings\Temp\GW}000O1.HTM 3/13/2006
RECEIVED
MAR 0 9 2006
SLO CITY CLERK
01 San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce
1039 Chorro Street• San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3278
March 9,2006 (805) 781-2777• FAX (805) 543-1255 •TDD (805) 541-8416
David E. Garth, President/CEO
Mayor Dave Romero and Members of the City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm St.
San Luis Obispo,CA
Re: Study Session,March 14,Building Height and Intensity in the Downtown Core
Dear Mayor Romero and Council Members,
Our Economic Development Committee recently reviewed the issue of General Plan Policies and the
Zoning Regulations regarding downtown building height and intensity. Based on that discussion and our
Chamber's longstanding support for compact urban form,our Board of Directors encourages you to
open the issue of increasing height limits in the downtown core.
This is a timely and important discussion as many buildings in the downtown are undergoing seismic
retrofit. It is appropriate to consider that in the process of development or redevelopment,we have the
opportunity to diversify and increase the type and variety of uses in the downtown. Height in the
downtown helps us maintain the sense of a downtown core that is the centerpiece of our community.
More intense development in the center of town rather than at its edges is good urban planning and
enhances the unique flavor of downtown.
We also consider this a value proposition. Increasing the height limit may allow for another level of
housing,for example,and a more creative use of indoor space. Our members who are architects and city
planners have indicated that 58-60 ft.would give better.technical perimeters for projects as they come
forward. A change in policy would provide a more comprehensive way to review projects and would
reduce the need for exceptions.
The opportunity for redevelopment and increased height furthers the goals of protecting and enhancing
the downtown as a multi use restaurant,entertainment,and shopping area as well as a civic and cultural
center.We can look forward to seeing some exciting and innovative downtown projects with a creative
use of height and stories.
Thank you for considering our input on this matter.
Sincerely, rz0 o L
CEiIATTCRNEY
COUNCIL 1 CDD DIP
/#ary
CAO R. FIN DIR
RED FILE CAO 12 FIRE CHIEF
erto PW DIR
arperson of the Board MEETING AGENDA LERK/ORIG El POLICE&
DATE- y ITEM #-SS DEPT HEADS Z REC DIR
frB Q UTIL DIR
®7�rBcwc E2 HR DIR
® CAo
email: slochamber@slochamber.org • websites: www.slochamber.org www:visitslo.com
Richard Schmidt 11r 5444247 M8/27/56 m 10:46 PM D 1/3
i l
R _
ARD SC Architect
MAR 1 Nob 112 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 544-4247
S 0 CITY CLERK e-mail: rschmidtQrain.org
EAO
Re: IncreasingDowntown Building Height Limit – Agenda 3.1coo DIR
9 9 9 � FIN DIR
AFIRE CHIEF
City Council RED FILE �'PO DIRPOLICE CHFCity of San Luis Obispo MEETING AGENDA lFe REC DIR
Dear Council Members:
SS
DATE '3/ ITEM #_ Ib�@�R
� eco
LuMe you to hold the limit on downtown buildingJ]eights at the current three stories.
There are many, many reasons for doing this, and few to raise the limit.
Our downtown is a very special place -- recognized as such both by locals and perhaps even
more by those who don't live here (those, for example, who give national Main Street awards,
and those like my college friend from New Jersey who I encountered out of the blue one day
while walking on Chorro Street who says he always visits downtown SLO when he comes to
California because it's so wonderful). Please protect it.
If the downtown were totally built out at three stories, we would find it quite oppressive. There
is no need to make it even more oppressive by going to five, six, or seven stories. Don't
Manhattanize downtown San Luis Obispo!.
Here are a number of points for your consideration:
1. Our current prosperous downtown is noteworthy because of its extensive and wonderful
historic building stock, its small town scale, and the sunlight and air and foliage that make it
enjoyable at street level for pedestrians. All of these would become things only of memory if
the prevalent height goes up as is being considered.
Citizens were polled when the current general plan was developed specifically on the issue of
downtown heights, and they said they did NOT want downtown to be taller. Please respect
the opinon of the vast mai2*-02* your constituents.
2. Raising heights will threaten every historic building downtown. We held onto our historic
buildings long enough to appreciate them precisely because there wasn't a lot of massive
redevelopment in the core of downtown. However, just the mere speculation that heights
might be raised has already threatened a number of notable historic buildings: the Burriss
Saddlery and the charming building at the corner of Marsh and Garden occupied by
Traditions, to name but two. This insensitivity by developers foretells what will come if the city
induces massive redevelopment by raising heights. The charm of our downtown will
disappear. Been to Santa Cruz lately? Its "new" downtown is unappealing Anyplace USA --
-Page 1
Richard Schmidt 4 544-4247 1&8/27/56 010:46 PM p 2/3
rkt a place I want to spend my time, let alone my dollars. The reason is the texture and
charm of the old pre-Loma Prieta historic buildings and streetscapes has been replaced my
massive new fashionable generic buildings. Don't promote this sort of transition from the
special to the ordinary in our downtown. Once historic downtown is gone, it's gone forever--
you cannot bring it back if you later regret the change.
3. SA flight and fresh air at street levelrop mote pedestrian life, which, in turn. promotes aid
business. It boggles my mind that the Council would even consider something like the five
story proposal on its own Broad Street parking lot clear over to Garden Street, which would
cast Garden Street into cold and windy shadow much of the day. Garden
Street is a gem of a people place, and is ripe for encouragement of more people acitivity.
There has even been discussion of closing it and making a people plaza mid-town. Putting it
into the shadow of a msassive building will kill street life more surely than a perpetual swarm
of hornets. That narrow little street will go from a lively place to a dark alley. All our downtown
streets will be shaded and windy and cold if heights go up - that is what tall buildings do to
narrow streets. Downtown's very prosperity will be threatened.
4. Views of the surrounding mountains will be cut off -- from street level and even from the
upper stories of buildings, as one blocks the next one's view. The city's insensitivity to this is
demonstrated graphically by its new parking garage at Palm and Morro, which by projecting is
ugly overheight mass to the corner cuts off views of Cuesta Ridge when looking east on
Palm, views of the Irish Hills when looking west, and views of the Edna Valley hills when
looking south on Morro. Citizens are furious about this monster building, and the city's
sponsorship of its view blockage while professing to be environmentally sensitive is
hypocritical at best. The city couldn't have created worse PR for growing UP. I am also
shocked and offended -- both as a citizen and as an architect -- by the monstrous thing
pictured in the Trib recently depicting the future Chinatown, and also by the the massive
confection proposed to engulf the charming historic gem of the Ah Louis store. These faller
buildings will block what citizens have said they like so much about our city-- the openness
of the sky and the views of surrounding hills that place us so uniquely in our unique and
lovely geography.
5. San Luis Obispo is a tourist town. But what, exactly, is our tourist draw? Mainly our
pedestrian-scaled old timey downtown. Destroy that and SLO once again just becomes a
waystation on 101 between LA and SF. This is very serious, and you should consider it. We
do not have much tourist appeal beyond our quaint and prosperous downtown. If people want
to be at the beach, they're better off elsewhere; if they're in the area for wine, this is not the
place to stay. Downtown is our tourist draw. You will destroy that with tall redevelopment.
6. Certain persons in my profession keep repeating the mantra "the solution is good design."
This is hogwash: there are many despicable acts for which no level of_"good" design can
compensate, and destroyiga the historic fabric of our downtown is one of them. We have a
wonderful thing downtown. There is no sense destroying it so a few developers can reap
huge profits that leave the larger community impoverished.
7. We are told that going up is necessary to avoid going outward. This too is hogwash --
there's absolutely no nexus between the two. Development transfer programs don't work (as
- Page 2 -
Richard Schmidt 19r 544-4247 M08/27/56 (D10:48 PM D 3/3
i)the city had a bunch of surplus land to retire anyway!). The cry of "new urbanism" is
bandied about, but new urbanism is a largely discredited concept within the profession. It's
mainly become a brand name by which certain architects/planners/developers promote their
regressive projects with a fashionable greenwash of progressive respectability. The promises
of Duany and Platter-Zyberk that their compact communities would provide reasonably cost
housing and reduce environmental impacts.have.resulted in a very different reality: highly
impactful havens for the rich where everyone who isn't rich is priced out (look at real estate
prices in Seaside, FL, and Cheshire Village, NC if you don't believe me). In California, Peter
Calthorpe's transit-oriented new towns are utter greenwash fraud: Laguna West is a freeway-
oriented greenfield development miles from the job centers of Sacramento -- nothing more
than suburban sprawl. Locally, we're told we must go up to provide affordable housing
downtown. Nonsense. Do you really believe any of this will result in affordable downtown
housing? Look at what's happening already:a single affordable apartment above Michael's
Optical chopped up into two offices and a studio apartment which alone rents for nearly
double the previous apartment. Affordable? No way. "Affordable by design?" Forget it -- that's
nothing but a meaningless feel-.good slogan. And the time share condos proposed for
Garden Street aren't even housing: they're an investment for people who have money to
throw around. (Will these fare any better as investments than the time shares at Avila which
fill columns of legal ads every time the county auctions tax default properties?)
Concepts and fashions, like new urbanism, seem to arrive late in San Luis Obispo, and are
taken seriously here long after they've lost their gloss in more sensible and progressive
places. (Our history is rife with examples: we got our art deco movie theater a decade after
they went out of style elsewhere -- it's reputed to be the last one built anywhere; and we are
now gearing up to cover downtown with parking palaces long after sensible places have
turned their attention to transit rather than parking. Are you aware, for example, that San
Francisco added 100,000 jobs to its downtown core in the late 1980s without adding a single
commuter parking space? They did this thorough planned modal shift. Of course, they, unlike
us, had a mode to shift to, which is prerequesite to making modal shift work. Without viable
alternatives, modal shift is just planners' hot air.)
The net effect of adopting standards which permit taller buildings than about 3 stories
downtown will be to destroy downtown as the beloved place if is for locals; and as the
engine of our tourist economy. Is that really something the city ought to do?
Don't.Manhattanize downtown SLO.
Sincerely,
Richard Schmidt
- Page 3 -
To: City of SLO(Council heat„ig of 14 March 2006-Building height and intenb:ry in downto ) R EC E IVED
From: Michael Sullivan Pa Ye l f I
MAN i 4 Mb
14 March 2006 SLO CITY CLERK
To: City of San Luis Obispo (City Council) - for hearing of 14 March 2006
From: Michael Sullivan, 1127 Seaward St., San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 545-9614
RE: Study session. 1. Building height and intensity in the downtown core.
I recommend the following planning and design principles for the downtown core:
1. Revise the Floor Area Ratio(FAR)to 4.0(excluding underground parking)and maximum height to 60
feet to enable structures up to 5 stories, but require a conditional use permit and architectural review for
structures taller than 2 stories. For the use permit, in a public hearing consider factors such as solar access,
amount of parking required for residential uses, potential blockage of distant views, impacts on traffic and
pedestrian safety,consistency with Land Use policies of General Plan, etc.
2. Provide the local amenities that residents need, within walking distance. Examples: practical shopping
(groceries,clothing,drug stores,department stores, laundries, banks,ATMs,etc. --e.g. Target, Whole
Foods, etc.); sufficient open space including mini-parks, plazas, enclosed courtyards, small recreation uses
(open air chess, lawn bowling,gardening, creekside parks,etc.),outdoor amphitheaters,theaters,etc.
Perhaps some of these types of facilities can be gained through density bonus incentives to developers.
3. For residential parking: Do not over-park residential uses. Provide incentives to lower parking demand,
e.g. parking spaces are fee-based(rentals)based on number and size of parking space(s)utilized by residents.
Residential parking can be shared with commercial parking during non-peak hours(nights,weekends).
4. Provide incentives for developers in the form of Transfer of Development Credits to gain density bonuses
downtown in return for permanent protection of open space within and outside the city.
5. Ensure good public transit facilities, links, and routes. Implement a major downtown multi-modal transit
center with mixed use.
6. To provide more pleasant experiences for pedestrians and residents downtown: convert certain parts of
streets to pedestrian zones,perhaps including trolleys—e.g. Higuera Street(Santa Rosa St.to Nipomo St?),
Monterey St. (Santa Rosa St.to Chorro St.?). Provide non-peak access to delivery and utility vehicles(e.g.
early morning; and/or after 5 pm?).
Advantages of pedestrian zones:
(a) Safer, less traffic, less noise-more pleasant for residential uses and families with children and elderly
persons.
(b) Inviting as a shoppers'haven,a place to stroll and congregate and shop and visit entertainment places.
(c) City could enhance public transit e.g. through an electric trolley system.
7. Create enhanced bicycle paths, especially class I (separated from street)paths,e.g.along creeks. Provide
parking for bikes at various places in the downtown. Provide additional Class II bike lanes from outlying
areas of the city to the downtown core.
8. Make attractive, comfortable affordable housing(rentals and owner-occupied)a major priority in all
mixed use projects.
�-QPY�Ud:Q
_ COUNCIL CDD DIR
'CAO $FIN DIR.
CACAO ;-FIRE CHIEF
Michael Sulli TerATTORNEY 2 PW DIR
'ISD FILE B'CLERK/08 a LVPW ICE CHF
MEETING AGENDA fi HEAga $"REE DIR
hATE� ITEM # L uTll DIR
.__. DJB
'` Will U�eA�
CHARLES CROTSER Ar&KeM A.I.A.
P.O. Box 12528 . . .San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
Phone/Fax/Messages : (805) 546-8484;e-mail : ccrotser@calpoly.edu IA j t
March 12,2005 Retain this document for
future 2 uracil meeting.
CityCouncil 4/D
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Datle,J1 a endized
Council members, -
As the City of SLO continues to envision how it will grow,one of the key decisions will be whether to grow
outward, or upward, or not at all. History has shown that few cities are successful that completely rely on the
notion of no-growth. Yet thoughtful,well-designed,controlled growth can produce living environments,which
enhance the overall quality-of-life characteristic that we all desire.
In thinking about the way that SLO should grow, I believe that an important objective would be to encourage
higher densities in the downtown core particularly with an eye towards a mix of uses including a strong residential
component.When we look to the to the relatively short-term future of 50-75 years for our downtown, I believe that
it would be wise to re-visit our development.standards. Several of the elements,which should be adjusted,would
include:
• An increase in our density allowances for residential development with an eye towards providing a wide
Variety of housing opportunities.The current density limit is 36 units per acre; I could see a density limit in
certain circumstances of perhaps twice that number depending on the size and type of dwelling unit.
• Increase height limits to at least 5-6 stories, or 75-80 feet. Strategies for proper siting and location of taller
buildings, including massing and articulation, should be addressed concurrently with height increases.
• Increase floor area ratio thresholds with particular incentives for the residential component.The current FAR
is 3.0 with an increase.to 4.0 with transfer development credits. I feel that SLO could increase the allowable
FAR to a range of 5.0—6.0.
It may be difficult to envision the notion of larger buildings and higher densities because there are so many
examples of poorly designed urban environments. However,at whatever scale we choose to grow,we must be
very careful that the total urban environment including the buildings, streetscape and amenities,and our unique
open spaces, be extremely well.designed.We must pay particular attention to our existing historic, cultural and
natural resources,and be sensitive to the context when.proposing new higher intensity strategies, If designed
properly, newer,more intense development can certainly be complementary to our current built environment and
setting.Many cities,which are much older than ours, have'evolved from relatively agrarian roots such as SLO into
vibrant, lively urban environments,while maintaining the"charm"and"character", but just at a different scale.
'v
If we can implement creative and perhaps bold strategies for.increasing the densities within existing improved
areas, it should discourage the need to sprawl and allow SLO to preserve a City"edge"which will strengthen our
City identity.As we continue to implement the objectives outlined in the Downtown Concept Plan, and portions of
the recently revised General Plan Housing Element, our continued short-term growth should look to more
compact, higher densification of portions of our downtown, and ultimately other potential areas within our existing
urban reserve boundaries..
There are many other critically connected issues surrounding this topic,which must,and will be addressed,yet, I
believe that the time is upon us to make some bold decisions about the future of downtown SLO. If the concept of
higher density and compact urban strategy is implemented property,our actions could provide a vibrant future for
SLO and inspiration for other communities,which are struggling with the same fundamental questions of growth
that we face.
Respectfully,
Charles Crotser.AIA
Page 1 of 1
SLO Citycouncil-city height re&wictions -J
From: "Ann Toynbee <sloannie@charter.net>
To: <slocitycouncil@slocity.org>
Date: 3/15/2006 9:55 PM
Subject: city height restrictions
I would like to voice my concerns over building heights in the downtown area. I agree that tall buildings will negatively impact
the view of the mountains and block sunlight. I think the height will make pedestrians feel closed in and claustrophoic. It may
also increase the wind as it whips around the corners oftaller structures.On the other hand, I agree that increasing residential
area downtown is a positive step.
I recommend a compromise.
1. 1 feel that we should limit new structures to three stories on Marsh and Higuera streets.That allows floors for retail,
commercial and residential.
2.We can allow five story buildings on all other streets.That maintains the ambiance of the downtown area and gives
developers plenty of space to make more money on the taller, more cost-effective structures.
3. Further,the five-story buildings that are the most asthetically pleasing are those that are set away from the sidewalks and/or
have a staggered design, rather than rising straight up, i.e.,Court Street shops and the new county government building on
Monterey Street.
Of course,the facade of new buildings should bear architectural design that blends and enhances the historical presence we
can now find in SLO.
Thank you for considering the input of citizens such as myself.
Ann Toynbee RECEIVED
960 Pismo Street
SLO
468-3410 MAR 1 "12006
sloannie@charter.net
SLO CITY CLERK
,C.e.z
ke
oLre� - C LES/�
dyz of �G�ti — —Tprz
tY1 a..-+..oc.Gu �—
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\slouser\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}00001.HTM 3/16/2006