HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/06/2007, PH1 - PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS REGARDING DOWNTOWN BUILDING HEIGHT AND RELATED MITIGATED NEGATIVE council 'd�-°�a
AGEnaa Repoizt �i
CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Direc�
Prepared By: Michael Codron, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS REGARDING
DOWNTOWN BUILDING HEIGHT AND RELATED MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION;DOWNTOWN CORE(GPA/ER 50-06).
CAO RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Planning Commission, adopt a resolution amending the General
Plan to clarify existing policies and provide for a moderate increase to downtown
building height and intensity limits, and approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental impact for the project.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The Planning Commission has recommended amendments to the Land Use Element of
the General Plan to clarify existing policies regarding downtown development. The
amendments would also moderately increase existing building height and intensity limits
within the downtown core area. If the amendments are approved, new buildings that
meet multiple policy objectives, including specific design amenities, housing and retail
land uses, could be developed to a height of 60 feet. The amendments would also clarify
how the City's existing policy to allow a few 75-foot tall buildings should be
implemented.
Input from the public, the City's advisory bodies, the Downtown Association, and the
Chamber of Commerce played an important role in helping staff and the Planning
Commission develop the recommendation that is ,now before the City Council.
Throughout the process, great efforts have been made to keep citizens informed and to
provide opportunities to participate in the deliberations.
This agenda report first provides background information, including a discussion of
General Plan goals and policies. This discussion is followed by an overview of key issues
and the input provided by city advisory bodies and the public. The report concludes with
a discussion of alternatives and the project's environmental review.
In summary, after several advisory body hearings with extensive public input,
recommendations are made to clarify existing policies and allow for a moderate increase
to downtown building height limits in a way that:
Downtown Building Height Intensity Limits Page 2
• is consistent with the direction originally provided by the City Council on
this issue;
• provides incentives for projects that preserve historic resources and insures
on-going protection for historic buildings;
• helps the City achieve its goals to increase housing in the downtown core
area;
• supports the City's economic goals;
• is based on principles of good urban design;
• protects solar access for southeast facing sidewalks in the downtown core;
• respects views of hillsides from public gathering places and several other
downtown locations; and
• will provide for a decision-making process that is consistent with past City practice
and that will benefit from new technologies.
DISCUSSION
Background and Prior Council Direction
On March 14, 2006, the City Council held a study session on the issue of Downtown
building heights and intensity limits and directed staff to:
1) Revise the City's floor area ratio (FAR) definition to exclude basements and
parking.
2) Confirm policy inconsistencies among General Plan policies and development
standards for the downtown.
3) 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 alternatives and recommendations with the Cultural Heritage Committee,
Architectural Review Commission, Planning Commission, and Downtown
Association before returning to the Council.
Attachment 1 includes the minutes from the Council's study session. Attachment 2
includes a complete project description with the proposed General Plan amendments in
legislative draft format, including a discussion of the basis for each proposed amendment.
Based on the Council's direction, two main objectives are identified in the project
description. The first objective is to clarify existing policy inconsistencies among
General Plan policies and development standards for the downtown. (Attachment 17
includes the resolution recommended by the Planning Commission to accomplish this
first objective.) The second objective is to bring back an ordinance that would
moderately increase downtown building height and intensity limits, thereby implementing
the revised policies. 1
Downtown Building Height a... Intensity Limits Page 3
Clear General Plan Policies Regarding Downtown Building Height Are Essential
The General Plan is the blueprint for physical development in the City. Clarity is needed
in the General Plan and the City's development regulations to insure that they implement
the community's vision for the future. The General Plan needs to be-applied consistently,
because the vision is achieved not by any single act, but through incremental development
decisions. If individual developments do not consistently contribute to the larger
objective, the cumulative result of new development could easily fail to achieve it.
As the City Council considers the various policies and recommendations regarding
Downtown building height, it should answer three questions. Doing so will help insure
that the vision for the Downtown is clear, and that the vision can be achieved.
1. Will the policies provide clear direction to property owners and architects on how to
design a building in the Downtown that can be approved if all the regulations and
impacts are addressed?
2. Do the policies provide the staff with sufficient direction to advise applicants and the
public on whether or not a proposed building is consistent with City policies and
regulations?
3. Will the proposed policies provide the Architectural Review Commission, Planning
Commission, and the Council, with a clear basis for making unambiguous findings
that a proposed building is consistent with the guiding policies and regulations?
Diverse General Plan Goals and Policies
The current General Plan includes a diverse set of goals. This diversity includes goals for
enjoyment of natural resources and sustainability, economic prosperity, preservation of
historic resources and a distinctive, compact built environment. The diversity of existing
goals means that multiple policies must be considered and balanced as part of a thorough
decision-making process. A sample of the diversity of General Plan goals and policies
that relate to downtown development is provided below. Attachments 3 through 6
include other relevant General Plan sections to supplement this small sample.
Community Goal#4: Protect public views of the surrounding hills and mountains.
Land Use Element Policy 4.7: Downtown should include many carefully located open
places where people can rest and enjoy.views of the surrounding hills...
Community Goal #12: Emphasize more productive use of existing commercial
buildings and land areas already committed to urban development.
Housing Element Policy 6.2.2: New commercial developments in the Downtown Core
(C-D Zone) shall include housing...
Land Use Element Policy 4.15: To keep the commercial core's sense of place and
appeal for walking, it should remain compact and be the city's most intensely developed
area.
13
Downtown Building Height a,.. Intensity Limits _ Page 4
Community Goal #32: Foster an awareness of past residents and ways of life, and
preserve our heritage of historic buildings and places.
Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) Policy 3.21.2: Historically or
architecturally significant buildings should not be demolished or substantially changed in
outward appearance unless doing so is necessary to remove a threat to health and safety
and other means to eliminate or reduce the threat to acceptable levels are infeasible.
An Evaluation of Existing Policies and Key Issues
The City's goal for taller buildings in the downtown core is no longer sufficiently clear.
The General Plan's description of"a few taller, landmark buildings (about five stories or
75 feet)," does not provide the direction needed to guide decisions buildings that exceed
50 feet in height. How many are a few? When should one request be approved and
another denied? Which views of the hills should be preserved? What defines a landmark
building? Despite the existing 75-foot height policy, the Zoning Regulations limits
building height in the downtown core area to 50 feet.
To address these ambiguities, five policy amendments are recommended (as well as new
implementation programs, planning application requirements and definitions) to clarify
General Plan policies regarding downtown building height. These amendments have
been crafted over the course of seven public hearings, based on the input provided by the
public and the City's advisory body members. The primary issues that were considered
include historic preservation practices, the economic benefits of taller buildings and the
need for housing in the downtown core, architectural compatibility, access to sunlight on
sidewalks, access to views from public places, the floor area ratio standard and the
decision-making process for tall buildings. Each of these key issue areas relates to
existing policies in the General Plan. The following numbered sections address these
issues as they have been discussed during previous public hearings and in written and oral
testimony provided by the public. A summary of recommendations are provided at the
end of each topic.
1. Historic Preservation Practices
Chapter 3 of the Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) includes specific goals,
policies and programs to promote historic preservation (Attachment 5). The City also
maintains Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, which require the Cultural Heritage
Committee to review all new development projects in the City's historic districts, such as
the Downtown Historic District and the Chinatown Historic District. These policy
documents provide clear direction for City decision makers: Projects that demolish or
substantially alter the appearance of historic buildings should not be approved, unless
doing so is necessary to remove a threat to health and safety and other means to
eliminate or reduce the threat to acceptable levels are infeasible.
When a project applicant does propose to demolish or substantially alter a historic
building, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) says that impacts are
considered substantial and unavoidable. Therefore, these projects will always result in
Class I environmental impacts. If the City Council were to choose to approve such a
project, CEQA would require the Council to adopt a statement of overriding
1
Downtown Building Height a...Intensity Limits Page 5
considerations, explaining why the project is being approved even though it involves
significant impacts to one or more historic resources. This process is lengthy and
expensive and therefore provides a further disincentive for proposals to demolish historic
resources. (Attachment 7 is a map showing the locations of all of the Master List and
Contributing historic properties in the downtown core area.)
The proposed policy amendments are intended to provide additional building height as an
incentive to promote adaptive reuse of historic buildings. Projects that are found to be
consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties would be eligible for increased building height. The changes would also
support a transfer of development credit program for historic properties. Existing policy
direction for this type of incentive is provided by COSE Policy 3.21.4 and COSE
Program 3.30.8.
Summary of Recommendations: Existing General Plan policies and programs and CEQA
requirements provide substantial protection for the City's historic resources. The
proposed General Plan amendments include incentives for projects that treat historic
buildings in a way that is consistent with these policies. The proposed amendments also
support the creation of a transfer of development credit program for historic properties.
2. Economic Benefits and the Need for Housing
The economic benefits of redevelopment in downtown areas and the effect of height
limits are evaluated in a memo written by the City's economic consultant, Allen D. Kotin
(Attachment 8). Allowing taller buildings could infuse the downtown core with
additional residents, adding to the vitality of the commercial district. As stated in the
Community Design Guidelines, "multi-story buildings can increase the numbers of
potential customers for ground floor retail uses and assist in maintaining their viability."
Kotin's study indicates that an important component for successful downtowns is large-
scale rental housing suitable for employees. The economic analysis indicates that
additional stories will make such housing projects more financially feasible and,
therefore, more attractive to developers. Increased floor area potential is also important
to property owners who need to generate additional income to support the cost of
construction. The prices of steel, concrete and lumber have risen dramatically in the past
few years, leading to property owner interest in increasing leasable square footage with
new construction projects, such as projects associated with unreinforced masonry
building retrofits.
Housing Element Policy 6.2.2 requires all new projects in the downtown core area to
include housing unless specific findings are made that dwellings would jeopardize the
public welfare or are infeasible due to physical constraints. Public testimony regarding
the need for housing downtown has indicated concerns that the type of housing
constructed won't be affordable and won't serve the needs of the workforce. Public
testimony also indicated that increasing the residential density limits downtown would be
one way to encourage smaller units, because the only way to build more dwellings on a
given site is to make them smaller.
Downtown Building Height a._.Intensity Limits Page 6
As a result of this discussion, the Planning Commission is recommending amending LUE
Policy 4.16.4 with policy language to encourage high density housing that is achieved by
a concentration of smaller units. Based on the City's density calculation methods a one-
acre site could include up to 36 two-bedroom units, 59 1-bedroom units or 72 studio
apartments. The language approved by the Planning Commission would encourage the
provision of more 1-bedroom and studio units as a feature of taller buildings. Projects
that don't meet minimum density and average unit size requirements are subject to
increased affordable housing requirements under the City's existing Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance and the provisions of Table 2a of the Housing Element.
Summary of Recommendations: The proposed amendments allow property owners to
develop additional floor area to support projects that provide housing and that retrofit
unreinforced masonry buildings. High-density housing that is achieved by a
concentration of studio and 1-bedroom units is particularly encouraged.
3. Architectural Compatibility
The question of acceptable building height is considered with respect to the perception of
the pedestrian on the sidewalk. In the book, Fundamentals of Urban Design, the ratio of
building height to street width plays a major role in the pedestrian experience. The City's
Community Design Guidelines say that a certain amount of building height is necessary
to contain a pedestrian's field of view and"enclose the street so that it provides a pleasant
space for pedestrians." When buildings are too tall,pedestrians cannot easily perceive the
tops of buildings and pedestrian scale is lost.
According to Fundamentals of Urban Design, strong special definition is achieved when
the ratio of building height to street width is approximately 1:1. City streets downtown
range in width from 50 to 70 feet. Therefore, a maximum height limit of 50-75 feet (with
setbacks incorporated above the second or third level) is consistent with good urban
design practices for creating a pleasant space for pedestrians.
In public hearings, the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) supported an increase in the
base building height to accommodate a four-story building. The Architectural Review
Commission (ARC) supported a building height limit between 55 and 60 feet. Both
advisory bodies recommended that the Community Design Guidelines be updated to
insure that standards are put in place for architectural transitions between taller buildings
and existing development. Because of the input of the CHC and the ARC, a Design
Guidelines Update is a requirement of the project's environmental review.
A sub-committee of ARC members has been established to work on this update with
staff, if the Council approves the recommended General Plan amendments. Public
testimony on this key issue has largely been in support of a moderate increase to existing
building height limitations. However, some members of the public have consistently
expressed concerns that increased building height will change the character of downtown
and eliminate its charm.
Summary of Recommendations: Building height limits between 50 and 75 feet (with
setbacks incorporated above the second or third level) will provide a comfortable sense of
enclosure for pedestrians on the sidewalk. A sub-committee of ARC members has been _6/
Downtown Building Height.._.1 Intensity Limits Page 7
established to update the Community Design Guidelines with standards for architectural
transitions between new buildings and existing development.
4. Access to Sunlight on Sidewalks
As discussed in the Initial Study (Attachment 12), the orientation of downtown streets
and the resulting pattern of sunlight and shade on the sidewalks contributes greatly to the
downtown core area's sense of place. The intensity of the sun and the ambient
temperature will often determine what side of the street a person chooses to walk down.
Sidewalks facing southeast receive sunlight during most of the day and include the even
addressed sides of Monterey Street, Higuera Street and Marsh Street, which are also the
main pedestrian routes to and through downtown destinations. Later in the day
(particularly in the summer), the northwest facing sidewalks on these also receive some
direct sunlight.
City staff has prepared a computer shading model to illustrate the shadows created by
progressively taller buildings in the downtown core area (Attachment 9). Analysis of the
model indicates that it is possible to design 75-foot tall buildings so that they do not
shade sidewalks with southern exposure along the three main arterial streets. To
accomplish this imperative, building designers will need to follow existing General Plan
policies and Community Design Guidelines requirements to set back buildings above the
second or third story.
As a requirement of the project's environmental review, a new Planning Application
requirement would be implemented to insure that the shadowing effects of new
downtown buildings are known. The proposed amendment to Land Use Element Policy
4.5 (Walking Environment) would clarify the City's policies regarding sunlight on
sidewalks by saying that new building downtown should not obstruct sunlight from
reaching key sidewalks during noon on the winter solstice, when the sun is lowest in the
sky and sunlight is most desirable.
Summary of Recommendations: Southeast facing sidewalks along Monterey,Higuera and
Marsh receive sunlight most of the day and a policy amendment is recommended to
insure that new buildings do not shade these sidewalks. If the proposed amendments are
approved, planning applications for new downtown buildings would be required to
include a shadow analysis to show the shadowing effect and facilitate decision making.
5. Access to Views from Public Places
According to the Conservation and Open Space Element, which includes policies for
protection of views from public places and scenic roadways, there are no roads of scenic
value within the downtown core area (Attachment 7, COSE Figure 11).' However, there
are public places such as Mission Plaza, the Jack House Gardens, the LC YC Cheng Park,
the lawn in front of the Old County Courthouse building, and other locations where high-
quality views of important scenic resources are available. COSE Policy 9.22.1 says that
the City will preserve and improve views of important scenic resources from these and
other public places. Land Use Element policy 4.7 provides more specificity regarding the
vision for open places and views downtown.
/- 7
Downtown Building Height _J Intensity Limits Page 8
LUE Policy 4.7: Downtown should include many carefully located open places
where people can rest and enjoy views of the surrounding hills. Downtown
should include some outdoor spaces where people are completely separated from
vehicle traffic, in addition to Mission Plaza. Opportunities include extensions of
Mission Plaza, a few new plazas, and selected street closures.
The policy amendments that are proposed are intended to clarify conflicts created by
existing language that promotes view preservation at the sidewalk level within the
downtown core area. For instance, LUE Policy 4.13 says that new downtown
development should respect views of the hills, framing rather than obscuring them. LUE
Policy 4.16.4 says that new buildings should respect street-level views of the hills.
Amendments to these policies are proposed because the City advisory bodies could not
reconcile view protection from all sidewalks with the need for efficient use of existing
urban land and the preservation of development potential for housing and retail land uses,
as promoted by Land Use Element Goal #12 and Housing Element Policy 6.2.2.
Therefore, a strategy was recommended that would preserve important view corridors
from public places, including sidewalk-level views in the direction of street rights-of-way
within the downtown core, from sidewalks along the perimeter of the downtown core
area; and from public spaces established in the upper levels of new buildings. The
proposed amendments to LUE Policy 4.13 incorporate this strategy and are intended to
achieve view protection from public places such as Mission Plaza, while maintaining the
development potential of building sites within the downtown core area for design
amenities, housing and retail floor area.
Existing LUE Policy 4.7 envisions new public places with access to views of the
surrounding hills. In order to find the best locations for these new public places, the ARC
has recommended that the City undertake a study of important visual resources
downtown. As a result, the environmental document requires a new general plan program
that encourages the City to perform a study of important view corridors. The study will
insure that City actions to implement.LUE Policy 4.7 are focused in the most appropriate
locations.
Public testimony has indicated that the majority of speakers "do not go downtown for the
views." However, other speakers have expressed the point of view that views are an
important component of downtown's sense of place, consistent with City policies for
view protection. The recommendations before the City Council are intended to satisfy
both points of view by insuring efficient use of existing urban land, while maintaining
views that allow pedestrians to make a connection between the built environment and the
natural environment.
Summary of Recommendations: Views of the hillsides from public gathering places
downtown such as Mission Plaza and the Jack House Gardens are protected by existing
policy. The proposed policy amendments include additional policy support for view
protection from these locations. Some existing views from sidewalks downtown are not
protected to insure "efficient use of existing urban land" and that downtown remains the
City's "most intensely developed area." Views from public gathering places, in the
direction of street rights-of-way, from sidewalks along the perimeter of the downtown
/_
/ —S�
Downtown Building Height a._i'Intensity Limits Page 9
core, and"new views" from the upper levels of new buildings will insure on-going access
to hillside views downtown.
6. Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
One of the key directives provided to staff by the City Council during the 3-14-06 study
session was to revise the City's Floor Area Ratio definition to exclude basements and
parking garages. The new definition recommended by the Planning Commission follows:
New Land Use Element Definition - Floor Area Ratio (FAR): The floor area of
a building or buildings on a lot divided by the lot area. In calculating FAR, floor
area shall mean the conditioned floor area (as defined by Title 24 of the California
Code of Regulations) of the building, excluding parking garages and basements,
provided the finish floor elevation of the first floor is less than 30" above sidewalk
grade.
A higher FAR limit is also necessary to accommodate buildings with over three stories of
floor area. The current limit of 3.0 would be too restrictive in conjunction with the
proposed moderate increase to building height limits. As a result, the ARC has
recommended a FAR limit of 3.75. The City already allows FAR up to 4.0 for projects
that receive transfer of development credits for open space protection. If the proposed
General Plan amendments are approved, then tall buildings that meet multiple policy
objectives (per the proposed language of LUE policies 3.16 and 4.16.4) would be allowed
to have a FAR up to 3.75, or 4.0 in some cases.
Summary of Recommendations: An increased Floor Area Ratio (FAR) limit is necessary
to accommodate additional building height. The ARC and Planning Commission have
recommended a FAR of 3.75. A FAR of 4.0 may permitted in certain circumstances,
such as where there are transfer of development credits for open space protection or
historic preservation, or where there is a density bonus for affordable housing.
7. Decision Making on Tall Buildings
In an effort to improve decision making on this sensitive topic, policy and technological
enhancements are recommended.
Policy Enhancements for Decision Making
Based on the analysis of key issues provided above, the need to balance diverse General
Plan goals and policies requires taller buildings in the downtown core area to meet
multiple policy objectives. As directed by the City Council during their study session in
March, 2006, these multiple objectives can be summarized as design amenities, housing
and retail land uses. As further developed by the City's advisory bodies, with input from
the public, these policy objectives can be met by a wide range of project features
including:
• Publicly accessible, open viewing spaces at the upper levels
• Housing affordability in excess of the Inclusionary Housing Requirement
• Energy efficiency beyond State mandated requirements
/-9
X I
Downtown Building Heightr a..d Intensity Limits Page 10
• Adaptive reuse of a historical resource in a manner consistent with the Secretary
of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation
• High residential density (e.g. above 24 units per acre) achieved by a concentration
of smaller dwelling units
• Street level features such as a public plaza, public seating and/or public art
• A major pedestrian connection between Higuera Street and the Creekwalk,
Monterey Street and the Creekwalk, between Higuera Street and Marsh Street, or
at another acceptable mid-block location
• Increased retail floor area, including multi-story retail
• Implementation of specific and identifiable City objectives, as set forth in the
General Plan, the Conceptual Plan for the City's Center,the Downtown Strategic
Plan and other key policy documents
• Receiving Transfer of Development Credits for open space protection or historic
preservation
To insure that tall buildings proposed downtown include these features, a revised
ordinance for the Downtown Commercial Zone will be proposed as part of the second
phase of the project. Buildings proposed between 50 and 60 feet tall will be subject to
the requirements of the new ordinance. The CHC, ARC and Planning Commission have
further recommended a Planning Commission Use Permit requirement for buildings
proposed between 60 and 75 feet tall to provide for increased discretion and public input.
Technological Enhancements for Decision Making
Another component of decision making on taller buildings downtown is provided by
computer technology. City staff and the College of Architecture and Environmental
Design at Cal Poly have embarked on a joint project to develop a three-dimensional
computer model of the downtown core area (Attachment 10). The purpose of the model
is to allow decision makers to evaluate proposed buildings in a photo-realistic, three-
dimensional computer environment during the discretionary review process.
The City is currently in the process of acquiring new aerial photographs of the project
area, which will be detailed enough to derive building height data. This height data will
be provided to Cal Poly, which has begun building the model from the ground up.
Eventually, photographs will be taken of every building fagade for integration into the
model. The model will be capable of depicting the downtown area from any perspective,
during any time of day, any day of the year. Analysis of shading impacts and view-shed
impacts of new buildings will also be possible. A demonstration of the model will be
provided to the City Council at the earliest opportunity.
Summary of Recommendations: The proposed building height limits will be
implemented by a new ordinance during the second phase of the project. The ordinance
will provide a decision-making process that is similar to other City ordinances, such as
the Mixed-Use Ordinance and Retail Building Size Ordinance. A three-dimensional
computer model is also being prepared by Cal Poly to give decision makers the ability to
"see"proposed project in a photo-realistic environment before approval is granted.
/--/6
Downtown Building Height"a..,f Intensity Limits Page 11
Advisory Body Input and Public Participation
One of the main tasks assigned to staff during the Council's March 2006 study session
was to review its recommendations with the City's advisory bodies. The General Plan
amendments and environmental document that are now recommended to the City Council
have been developed through the course of seven public hearings, input from the
Chamber of Commerce and Downtown Association, and public comment. Attachment
13 includes the meeting updates from each of the public hearings leading up to the
Planning Commission's recommendation. These updates include a summary of public
testimony provided and the action of the advisory body.
City staff has also maintained a web page located at
www.slocity.org/communitydevelopment/downtown.asp as a clearinghouse for all of the
staff reports, meeting updates and environmental documents associated with the project.
Staff has also posted all of the written testimony provided by the public on the web page
and maintained a large e-mail list to keep decision makers, interested individuals,
members of the media and public interest groups up to date regarding the building height
discussion.
Public hearings on this topic have been well attended because the City has gone far
beyond minimum advertising requirements by publishing large display ads in the Tribune.
The decisions of the advisory bodies have been well covered by the local media, and on
October 1, 2006, the Tribune published a Viewpoint article written by CAO Ken
Hampian and Community Development Director John Mandeville encouraging public
involvement in the process (Attachment 14).
Summary of the Proposed Amendments
Attachment 2 is a detailed project description that includes the proposed General Plan
amendments in legislative draft format and a discussion of the basis for each change. In
keeping with the City Council's direction, the amendments before the Council are rooted
in the existing goals, policies, and programs of the General Plan. There are no new
policies recommended. However, the proposed General Plan amendments clarify
existing policies in a way that will allow them to be carried forward with a clearer vision
of downtown's role and the type of development the downtown core should support. The
following is a brief summary of the proposed amendments:
1. LUE Policy 4.5: Walking Environment
This proposed policy amendment includes a specific provision for maintaining sunlight
on the south facing sidewalks of Marsh Street, Higuera Street and Monterey Street at
noon on the winter solstice.
2. LUE Policy 4.13: New Buildings and Views
This policy amendment is proposed to clarify when, where and how view protection is
expected to be achieved with the downtown core area. The revised policy language says
that new downtown development nearby publicly-owned gathering places "shall" respect
Downtown Building Height a.._ Intensity Limits Page 12
views of the hills, framing rather than obscuring them. This is more specific than the
existing policy language, which says that new buildings "should" respect views of the
hills.
3. LUE Policy 4.16.4: Building Height
This proposed policy amendment is intended to provide a moderate increase in building
height limits from the current limit of 50 feet to a proposed limit of 60 feet. The
proposed changes also clarify where, when and how buildings up to 75 feet tall may be
developed in the downtown core area. The proposed policy language requires all
buildings between 50 and 75 feet tall to meet multiple policy objectives so that decision
makers can balance the diverse goals and policy objectives of the City's General Plan
when making decisions on these projects.
4. LUE Policy 4.18: Commercial Buildings Outside the Core
This proposed policy amendment addresses an inconsistency between the General Plan
and Zoning Regulations, by clarifying that buildings in General Retail areas adjacent to
the downtown core area are currently allowed to be up to 45 feet tall.
5. LUE Policy 3.1.6: Building Intensity
The policy amendment proposed reflects the a recommended increase in the Floor Area
Ratio limit to correspond to the increased height limit that is also proposed. As proposed,
buildings in the downtown core area may be developed with a FAR of 3.75. FAR may be
approved up to 4.0 for sites in the downtown core area that receive transfer of
development credits for open space protection or historic preservation, or that receive
density bonuses for affordable housing.
Implementation programs are also recommended to include a study of visual resources,
an update to the Community Design Guidelines, a revision to the City's Downtown
Access and Parking Management Plan and a new definition for Floor Area Ratio that
excludes basements and parking garages from the calculation of floor area. Attachment
17 includes the resolution recommended by the Planning Commission for adoption by the
City Council.
Alternatives
The proposed General Plan amendments represent the recommended alternative for
implementing the Council's direction on downtown building height and intensity limits.
However, there are other alternatives that have been considered in leading up to this
recommendation (Attachment 11). The proposed amendments will produce policy-based
standards in a new ordinance. This is the model that the City has historically used to
insure that new development projects further General Plan objectives and help the City
reach its stated goals. A review of policies and standards for building height limits used
by other jurisdictions is also included in Attachment 11.
Downtown Building Height a..�Intensity Limits Page 13
Environmental Review
In addition to the amendments proposed as part of the project, new Land Use Element
programs and Planning Application requirements are recommended in the Initial Study
and Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (Attachment 12, Initial
Study). Mitigation measures are recommended in the areas of aesthetics, public services,
traffic and utilities. Aesthetics issues are related to views and solar access. Public
services impacts relate to emergency access and security of public places within private
projects. Transportation impacts are related to residential parking in the downtown core
area. Utilities impacts relate to required water pressure for domestic and fire flows and
potential capacity issues within the wastewater collection system. Mitigation measures
are recommended to reduce these impacts to less than significant levels and include
General Plan programs and Planning Application requirements reflected in the project
description (Attachment 2). A complete evaluation of these and other environmental
issues is included in the Initial Study under each related issue heading.
CONCURRENCES
The Planning Commission's recommendation has been developed as part of a public
process that has included recommendations from the CHC and ARC, public input and
environmental review. City staff has made presentations to the Downtown Association
and the Chamber of Commerce. The Downtown Association Board has approved a
position paper regarding downtown building heights and intensity limits (Attachment
15). The Chamber of Commerce has recently published their point of view on this issue
in their newsletter, slo-business.com (Attachment 16).
The recommended General Plan amendments and the project's environmental review
have been reviewed by all City departments involved in the development review process.
Comments and issues raised by other City departments have been incorporated into the
analysis and the project description.
FISCAL IMPACT
When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis,
which found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. The proposed changes
to the General Plan land use designations are not expected to change the economic use of
the underlying land. The proposed General Plan amendments will have a neutral fiscal
impact because they are minor and are intended to reinforce existing policy structure.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Council can continue the project if additional information is needed or if
more time is needed to fully evaluate the proposal. The Council may also direct
changes to the project description or environmental document and have staff
return with a revised recommendation at a later date.
2. The Council can deny the proposed project, if the recommended General Plan
amendments are not supported by a majority of the Council.
//3
Downtown Building Height ..d Intensity Limits Page 14
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Council Minutes, March 14, 2006
Attachment 2: Detailed Project Description and Legislative Draft of Amendments
Attachment 3: Land Use Element Preamble and Vision Statement
Attachment 4: Land Use Element Chapter 4, Downtown
Attachment 5: COSE Chapter 3,Historic Preservation
Attachment 6: COSE Chapter 9, View Protection and Circulation Element App. B
Attachment 7: Map of Historic Properties located in the downtown core
Attachment 8: Economic Impacts of Height Limitations (Kotin, 2006)
Attachment 9: Solar Shading Analysis
Attachment 10: 3-D Computer Model of Downtown SLO—Project Description
Attachment 11: Building Height and Intensity Limits, Alternatives
Attachment 12: Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration w/out attachments
Attachment 13: Advisory Body Meeting Updates
Attachment 14: Tribune Viewpoint article by Ken Hampian, published 10-1-06
Attachment 15: Downtown Association Position Paper
Attachment 16: Chamber of Commerce Position Paper
Attachment 17: Resolution approving the Planning Commission's recommendation
AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFICE
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration with all attachments
All written public testimony submitted to the City to date
Planning Commission Agenda Report and meeting updates (12-13-06)
Architectural Review Commission Agenda Report and meeting update (10-2-06)
Cultural Heritage Committee Agenda Report and meeting updates (8-28-06)
All of the documents listed above may also be downloaded from the following website:
http://www.slocity.org/communitvdeveloi)ment/downtown.asn
G.SCD-PLAMMCODROMDHOknr3(GPA50-06).DOC
Attachment 1
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
TUESDAY,MARCH 14,2008.7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBER,990 PALM STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
ROLL CALL:
Council Members
Present: Council Members John Ewan;Christine Mulholland,Vice Mayor Allen
Settle and Mayor Dave Romero were present at Roll Call. Council
Member Brown was seated at approximately 7:05.p.m.
City Staff:
Present: Ken Hamptan,City Administrative Officer,Jonathan Lowell,City
Attorney;Audrey Hooper,City Clerk;Shelly Stanwyck,Assistant City
Administrative Officer,John Mandeville,Community Development
Director,Deborah linden,Police Chief;John Moss,Utilities Director,
Mike Draze,Deputy Community Development Director,Doug
Davidson,Housing Programs Manager;Claire Clark,Economic
Development Manager;Pam Ricci,Senior Planner;Warren
Stephenson, Battalion Chief
CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney Lowel!announced the following Closed Session topic:
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to Government Code g 54958.9
Christina Brown v.City of San Luis Obispo,San Luis Obispo Police Department,at at.
United States District Court,Central District of California,Case No. DCV06-0048 MMM
City Attorney Lowell reported that Council met with the City Attorney and discussed the
above-referenced case. There was no further reportable action.'
PUBLIC COMMENT
Dane Senser,San Luis Obispo,congratulated the qty and SLO Film Festival for an
extraordinary event He announced that a special event,"Dancing with the Hometown Cetebs,
Red Hot Ballroom,"will be held at the Alex Madonna Expo Center on September 16,2006.
Funds from.this event will be offered to children's charities.
Sara Horne,representing the League of Women Voters,discussed the League's activities and
invited the community to participate In"Sunshine Week,"March 12-18. She said the purpose
Of"Sunshine Week"is to stimulate public discussion about open government..
STUDY SESSION
' 1. BUILDING HEIGHT AND INTENSITY IN THE DOWNTOWN CORE
/S
- Attachment 1
City Council Meeting Page 2
Tuesday,March 14,2006-7:00 P.M.
Community Development Director Mandeville. Housing Programs Manager Rgyldson and
Economic Consul ant Allen Kotin presented the staff report and responded to Council's ,
questions.
Public comments
Mark Rawson.San Luis Obispo resident and architect,discussed his concepts for making
the downtown pedestrian friendly and encouraged Council to embrace the concept of taller
buildings in the downtown.
John Goodell,San Luis Obispo,opposed Increasing the density in the downtown because
of potentially adverse Impacts on the character of the City(blocking views,creating
canyons'between tall buildings,Increased traffic).
Andrew Carter,San Luis Obispo,suggested the focus should be on height rather than
density and floor area ratios(FARs). He thought°height"should be considered at the
strest/sidewaik level,and that there should be different height standards based on the
width of streets. He also thought that there should be a standard limiting the use to
housing after a certain height
Hamish Marshall.downtown property owner,displayed a photograph depicting and
discussed the height of existing buildings and historical buildings in the downtown. He
suggested that height In feat,not In stories,is what should be considered. He also.
suggested that the FAR should not be changed and that each development should be
considered on a case-by-case basis.
Mb.orah Cash.Downtown Association,discussed the Importance of promoting balance in
the downtown and encouraged a diverse mix of uses. She expressed concern that
adopting strict policies may be counter-productive to the City's goals. .
Lynn Landwher.San Luis Obispo,urged Council to take Into consideration the scale of the
valley in which the City sits. She expressed concern that the sense of setting might be lost
with too much height,mass and density In the downtown.
Mlehael Suli(yan.San Luis Obispo,reviewed the recommendations contained In his letter to
Council(on Me in the City Clerk's office)and discussed the need for affordable housing.in
the downtown.
Tom Jones Dean of Cal Poly College of Architecture and Environmental Design,supported
Increased height and discussed principles he thought should be considered..
Dane Sense&San Luis Obispo,spoke in support of the staff recommendation,of permitting
an extra story based on the design,and of making decisions on a case-by-case basis.
-Chuck Crotser.San Luis Obispo,discussed his letter to Council(on file in the City Clerk's
office). He said there Is a need to continue considering acquiring and preserving open
space,and to provide alternatives for moderately Increasing heights.
Chen Schwartz,San Luis Obispo,referenced his letter to Council(on Me in the City Clerk's
office)and said he Is In favor of modifying the height limitations to accommodate needs for
the downtown. He explained that while there has been discussion regarding profitability for
the private sector,consideration must also be given to the public sector. He said there is a '
need for a careful balance between the permitted land use and revenues generated.
Attachment 1
City Council Meeting Pap S
Tuesday,March 14,2006-7:00 p.m.
Pierre Rademaker.San Luls Obispo,pointed out that in the past,the City had a much more
urban downtown than today and sold that this is an opportunity to replace some of the
building mass lost He also said he thinks the FAR needs to be adjusted to encourage more
creative solutions to upper level designs.
--end of public comments—
CAO Hamoian explained why he believes there Is a need to balance or clarify existing
policies.
Council discussion ensued,during which staff responded to questions.
Vice Mayor Softie supported flexibility In height,a FAR of 4:0,flexibility related to and an
underground component for parking,residential componerrts and mixed use downtown,
and pursuing stories Instead of feet. He also supported staffs recommendation.
.Council Member Brower concurred with Vkre Mayor Settle's comments.
Council Member Ewan also concurred with Vice Mayor Settle's comments. He added that
there is a need to discuss what percent of a building should be housing. He also concurred
with prior comments that It will be important to consider the perceptual framework of
buildings and to keep In mind the need to obtain public amenities as a trade off. He
suggested that there Is a need to move forward within the 5-story,70-foot range and that
more workable policies need to be put Into place. .
Council Member Mulholland discussed her opposition to the proposal. Her concerns
Included,in part,that housing that has been developed in the downtown is not affordable;
that there should be a modal shift In transportation and that the downtown,should not be
auto-dependent,but auto free;that urban life should be redefined to meet the challenge of
the growing energy scarcity;that as increased housing is discussed;how to discourage the
use of automobiles in the downtown and how not to add the costs of parking them onto the
housing must also be discussed;that residents of the City have expressed their opposition
to a taller downtown;that taller buildings are likely to create dark alleys;and that what.
draws tourists Is that the City Is pedestrian-scaled old,small downtown. She also
expressed concern about the projects referenced in the staff report.
Mayor Romero said he thinks parking on some basis will need to be provided and that the
FAR is too restrictive. He favored a FAR of 4:0,eliminating basements and parking from the
FAR,and permitting buildings to exceed two or three stores. He said he would like to
consider building heights at 70 to 75 feet and pointed out that this would impact only a few
selected sites. He said he didn't object to transfer development credits(Me)and that
there should be a very careful review of each project greater than three or four stories in
height He supported staff's recommendations.
In response to Qounoll Member Mulholland.a brief discussion ensued regarding how the
City will maintain equilibrium between the higher and lower buildings(i.e.,maintaining light
and the view shed)while stili Incorporating more housing in the downtown.
Staff will include the concept of utilizing transfer development credits in the follow up.
ACTION: Moved by I9rowr&wan to: 1. Revise the City's floor area ratio(FAR)
definition to exclude basements and parking. 2. Confirm policy Inconsistencies
among General Plan policies and development standards for the downtown. 3.
Direct staff to bring back alternatives for moderately increasing the downtown
1117
Attachment 1
City Council Meeting Page 4
Tuesday,March 14,2006-7:00 p.m.
building height and Intensity limits,in order to achieve other General Plan goals and
objectives,Including design amenities,housing,and retall land uses. 4. Review ,
recommendations:with the Cultural Heritage Committee,Architecture[Review
Commission,Planning Commission,and Downtown Association before returning to
the Council; motion passed 4:1 (Mulholland opposed).
VIg2 Mayor Settle Inquired whether Council would support asking for a report from staff on
the future of the Dalldio project and Its impact on the City's land use policies. There was no
consensus give staff this direction at this time.
There being no further business to come before the City Council,Mawr Romero adjourned
the meeting at 9:40 p.mh to a special meeting on Wednesday,March 15,200%in the Council
Hearing Room,990 Palm Street,San Luis Obispo.
L/,f I JL 99 A4
. I 1� ',I',j -
I Audrey Hoo or/
City Clerk
APPROVED BY COUNCIL: 04104/06
Attachment 2
K�oS�LU/g���
,sss_ � t mos
,nom
City of San Luis Obispo
Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limits
Proposed General Plan Amendments and Detailed Project Description
Project Description
On March 14, 2006, the City Council held a study session on the issue of Downtown
building heights and intensity limits and directed staff to:
1) Revise the City's floor area ratio (FAR) definition to exclude basements
and parking.
2) Confirm policy inconsistencies among General Plan policies and
• development standards for the downtown.
3) 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 alternatives and recommendations with the Cultural Heritage
Committee, Architectural Review Commission, Planning Commission,
and Downtown Association before returning to the Council.
In order to fulfill this Council direction, the project is divided into two phases. In the first
phase, existing policies relative to building height and intensity limits in the City's
downtown core will be reviewed, and, General Plan amendments will be recommended to
clarify the policies. Second, specific ordinance revisions will be proposed to implement
the revised policies.
The following General Plan amendments are recommended to carry out the first phase of
the project.
Recommended General Plan Amendments - Legislative Draft
The following amendments to the Land Use Element of the General Plan would revise
the policies that guide development of tall buildings in the City's downtown core area
(the Downtown Commercial, or C-D, Zone),consistent with the direction provided by the
City Council on March 14, 2006. The policy changes would establish the basis for an
ordinance amendment to the Zoning Regulations, which will be pursued if these revised
policies are approved, based on the final language of the policies.
Attachment 2
Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limits - Project Overview
Page 2
Abbreviations:
LU or LUE–Land Use Element
COSE–Conservation and Open Space Element
LU 4.5 Walking Environment
Downtown should provide safe, exciting places for walking and pleasant places for
sitting. To invite exploration, mid-block walkways, courtyards, and interior malls should
be integrated with new and remodeled buildings, while preserving continuous building
faces on most blocks. Downtown streets should provide adequate space for pedestrians.
There should be a nearly continuous tree canopy along sidewalks, and planters should
provide additional foliage and flowers near public gathering areas. To maintain the
downtown's appeal for pedestrians, new buildings should not obstruct sunlight from
reaching sidewalks on the northwest side of Marsh Street, Higuera Street and Monterey
Street at noon on the winter solstice.
Basis for Amendment: The proposed amendment is necessary to insure that sidewalks
with southern exposure along the main pedestrian arteries through the downtown core
area retain access to sunlight with the development of additional tall buildings. The
environmental review for the project identifies access to sunlight as a major aspect of the
downtown core area's pedestrian orientation and its sense of place, therefore, maintaining
sunlight along these sidewalk areas is necessary to preserve the area's character.
LU 4.13: New Buildings and Views
New downtown development nearby publicly-ownedag_thering_places such as Mission
Plaza, the Jack House Gardens, LC YC Cheng Park and similar gathering_spaces shet4d
shall respect views of the hills, framing rather than obscuring them. Adjacent buildings
shall be designed to allow sunlight to reach these open spaces and when planting new
trees the potential canopy. shall be considered subordinate to maintaining views of
hillsides. In other locations downtown, views will be provided parallel to the street right-
of-way, at intersections where building separation naturally makes more views available
and at upper-level viewing decks.
Basis for Amendment: The amendment listed above is intended to clarify where, when
and how view protection is expected to be achieved within the downtown core area.
Specifically, the policy clarifies that views will be available from publicly-owned open
places, but not necessarily from all of the sidewalk locations where views currently exist.
The revised language is consistent with LUE Policy 4.7, which says that "downtown
should include many carefully located open places where people can rest and enjoy views
of the surrounding hills." It is also consistent with other important General Plan goals
and policies. For example, LUE Goal 12 says that the City should "emphasize more
productive use of existing commercial buildings and land areas already committed to
urban development." LUE Goal 31 says that the City should maintain a "compact urban
form." LUE Policy 4.15 says "to keep the commercial core's sense of place and appeal
for walking, it should remain compact and be the City's most intensely developed area."
The proposed policy revision is also consistent with COSE Policy 9.22.1, which says that
the City will preserve and improve views of important scenic resources from public
places.
1/23/2007 /—Z 0
Z0
Attachment 2
Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limits - Project Overview
Page 3
LU 4.16.4: Building Height
New buildings sheuld shall fit within the eristin x, context and vertical scale of existing
development, shall not obstruct views from, or sunlight to, publicly-owned gathetng
places such as Mission Plaza, and should be set back above the second or third level to
maintain a street facade that is consistent with the historic pattern.of develovment..Iiey
,
and defer- to a few tall, " Generally, new buildings should not
exceed 60 feet in height. . Tall buildings (50-75 .
feet) shall be designed to achieve multiple policy objectives, including design amenities,
housing and retail land uses.Whefe ^e to protest siofieaflt views,. sunlight, &ad
Stfeet ehafaeter-, now buildings Should be ;ova to ty,e s.,,weser-..beat 25 to 35 foet tall,.
buildingsA few taller-, 1—ant—dm—RA buildings (about five- Steries Aff 74 feet) may be develeped where
they will net abstmet views eF sunlight fer- publie spaees. These taller-
buildings
such as:
• Publicly accessible, open viewing spaces at the upper levels
• Housing affordability in excess of the Inclusionary Housing Requirement
• Energy efficiency beyond State mandated requirements
• Adaptive reuse of a historical resource in a manner consistent with the Secretary
of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation
• High residential density (e.g. above 24 units per acre) achieved by a concentration
of smaller dwelling units
• Street level features such as a public plaza, public seating and/or public art
• A maior pedestrian connection between Higuera Street and the Creekwalk,
Monterey Street and the Creekwalk, between Higuera StreetandMarsh Street, or
at another acceptable mid-block location
• Increased retail floor area, including multi-story retail
• Directly imvlements specific and identifiable City objectives, as set forth in the
General Plan, the Conceptual Plan for the City's Center, the Downtown Strategic.
Plan and other key policy documents
• Receiving Transfer of Development Credits for open svace protection or historic
preservation
Basis for Amendment: The proposed amendment to LUE Policy 4.16.4 is intended to'
achieve a moderate increase in the allowable building height of new buildings in the
downtown core area, as directed by the City Council. This change is intended to
implement General Plan requirements for design amenities, housing and retail land uses.
The changes proposed eliminate reference to building stories and eliminate reference to
"landmark" buildings, per input from the City's Cultural Heritage Committee and
Architectural Review Commission. The revised policy language also reinforces LUE
Policy 4.7 and reinforces the revisions proposed for LUE Policy 4.13. Finally, the policy
outlines broad criteria for features that should be included in buildings that receive
1/23/2007
Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limits - Project Overview AttaCflrlleilt 2
Page 4
entitlements for increased height and intensity. The ordinance that implements the
revised policy will establish more specific standards for tall buildings to insure that these
project achieve multiple policy objectives, as directed by the City Council.
LU 4.18: Commercial Buildings Outside the Core
In General (Retail areas beyead-adiacent to the commercial core, the pattern of buildings
in relation to the street should become more like the core, with few-shared driveways and
parking lots sefving ' , and no street or side-yard setbacks (except
for recessed entries and courtyards). Hewe*er,4Buildings should not exceed 45 feet in
height. 4we steries (about 35 feet in height�.
Basis forAmendment: The purpose of this amendment is to clarify the fact that the City's
Zoning Regulations currently allows buildings up to 45 feet tall in the C-R (Retail
Commercial) zone, which is the zoning that applies to the commercial buildings adjacent
to the core, along Monterey Street, Marsh Street and Higuera Street. The City Council
directed staff to confirm and clarify inconsistencies between existing General Plan
policies and development standards. The proposed General Plan amendment would
accomplish this direction and make the General Plan and Zoning Regulations consistent.
LU 3.1.6: Building Intensity
The ratio of building floor area to site area FAR shall not exceed 3.0. Additional floor
area, up to a FAR of 3.75, may be approved for projects in the downtown core. FAR may
be approved up to 4.0 for sites in the downtown core that receive transfer of development
credit for either open space protection or historic preservation, or that receive density
bonuses for affordable housing:, ept gi... Elewn«,....n sites ..,hieh _ e ...., s f m „F
deyel...,. ent ,-edits for epen spaee ,.,.teetiea ..hall of e ,,,,a 4.0. The Zoning
Regulations will establish maximum building height and lot coverage, and minimum
setbacks from streets and other property lines, as well as procedures for exceptions to
such standards in special circumstances. Architectural review will determine a project's
realized building intensity, to reflect existing or desired architectural character in a
neighborhood. When dwellings are provided in General Retail districts, they shall not
exceed 36 units per acre. So long as the floor area ratio is not exceeded, the maximum
residential density may be developed in addition to nonresidential development on a site.
Basis for Amendment: The amendment to LUE Policy 3.1.6 is intended to allow for
alternatives to achieve a moderate increase to current building height and intensity limits,
as directed by the City Council on March 14, 2006. On October 2, 2006, the ARC
reviewed various FAR standards and recommended a limit of 3.75. If the City Council
approves the recommendation, then the Zoning Regulations will be updated to reflect the
revised policy during the second step of the project (ordinance implementation).
New Land Use Element Definition
Floor Area Ratio (FAR): The floor area of a building or buildings on a lot divided by
the lot area. In calculating FAR, floor area shall mean the conditioned floor area (as
defined by Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations) of the building, excluding
1/23/2007 ` ��
Downtown Building Heightand Intensity Limits- Project Overview Attachment 2
Page 5
parking garages and basements, provided the finish floor elevation of the first floor is less
than 30" above sidewalk grade.
Basis for Amendment: On March 14, 2006, the City Council directed staff to revise the
City's Floor Area Ratio definition to exclude basements and parking garages. The
proposed definition accomplishes Council's direction.
New Land Use Element Programs Proposed as Mitigation Measures
Staff analysis of the proposed General Plan amendments indicates that the following
programs are necessary to insure that the environmental impacts of the project are
mitigated. If the proposed General Plan amendments are approved, the following
programs must also be added to the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Analysis of
these programs is included in the Initial Study of Environmental Impact for the project.
Mitigation Measure Aesthetics-1: The City will undertake a study of visual resources
within the Downtown core area to identify potential locations for new public-owned open
places with access to views of important scenic resources. The City will consider
acquisition of one or more of these open places as resources permit. A range of options
for property acquisition, including development agreements, will be considered,
consistent with the City's fiscal policies and objectives.
Mitigation Measure Aesthetics-2: The Community Design Guidelines shall be updated
to include guidelines for tall buildings within the downtown core area, with a particular
focus on guidelines for architectural transitions between new development and existing
buildings within the Downtown Historic District.
Mitigation Measure Transportation-1: The City should revise the Access and Parking
Management Plan (2002) to include a Downtown access program for residents in the
Downtown core area. The revision should evaluate various strategies and long-term
parking solutions and include implementation recommendations. Strategies and solutions
that may be considered include, but are not limited to:
1. A fee based program to allow limited residential parking in downtown parking
structures owned and operated by the City.
2. Criteria for on-site parking (requirements and prohibitions) based on project size,
project location, site access criteria, housing type, and feasible alternative
transportation options.
3. Determination if any Downtown core streets should have driveway access
restricted.
4. Vehicle parking and storage areas located outside the downtown core area, such
as Park and Ride style lots,that can be used by downtown core residents.
5. The development of additional transit programs to increase options for downtown
residents.
1/23/2007 `
Attachment 2
Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limits- Project Overview
Page 6
6. Credit towards parking requirements for projects that implement shared vehicle
programs.
New Planning Application Requirements Proposed as Mitigation
Measures
Staff analysis of the proposed General Plan amendments indicates that the following
Planning Application requirements are necessary to insure that the environmental impacts
of the project are mitigated. If the proposed General Plan amendments are approved, the
following requirements must also be implemented. Planning Application requirements
are adopted by ordinance and would be put into effect during the second phase of the
project, after the final language of proposed General Plan amendments is determined.
Analysis of these requirements is included in the Initial Study of Environmental Impact
for the'project.
Mitigation Measure Aesthetics-3: Planning applications submitted for Architectural
Review of new tall buildings (50 to 75 feet tall) shall include a solar shading analysis to
illustrate shading caused by proposed buildings between the hours of 11:00 AM and 3:00
PM during the winter solstice.
Mitigation Measure Public Services-1: Planning applications submitted for new tall
buildings (50 to 75 feet tall) within the downtown core area shall include a fire and life
safety access plan, which will show how access to upper floors will be provided,
consistent with the Uniform Fire Code and the requirements of SLOFD. Applicants are
encouraged to review proposed emergency access plans with the City's Fire Marshal
prior to finalizing their building design and submitting their planning applications..
Mitigation Measure Public Services-2: Planning applications for buildings between 50
to 75 feet tall shall include a security plan for proposed parking areas, courtyard areas,
public stairways and elevators. The security plan will establish rules and regulations for
public use of courtyard areas, and establish timeframes for private security patrols to be
in place. The plan shall be reviewed with the Police Department prior to submittal.
Mitigation Measure Utilities-1: Planning Applications submitted to the City of San
Luis Obispo for buildings between 50 and 75 feet tall shall include an engineer's
evaluation of existing utilities infrastructure to ensure that the project will have adequate
water pressure for domestic use and fire flows and that the collection system in the area
surrounding the project is sufficient to meet the project's impact. Where deficiencies are
identified, the project developer shall work with the Utilities Department to identify
needed improvements and shall be required as a condition of approval to perform those
improvements as part of the future project.
1/23/2007 /��
Aftachment 2
Downtown Building Height-and Intensity Limits- Project Overview
Page 7
Phase II: Ordinance Implementation and Design Guidelines Update
If the recommended General Plan amendments are approved by the City Council, then
the project will move into its second phase, which is ordinance implementation. The
components of the project's second phase are anticipated to include:
1) A revision to Chapter 17.42 of the Zoning Regulations to establish new
standards for the Downtown Commercial (C-D) Zone. The revisions
would establish a Planning Commission Use Permit process for buildings
between 60 and 75 feet tall. Use permits for these tall buildings could be
approved if the proposed project is determined to be consistent with the
General Plan. To insure General Plan consistency, the ordinance would
include planning application requirements, required findings for approval,
required project features and performance standards.
2) An update to the Design Guidelines will be pursued to include guidelines
for tall buildings within the downtown core area, with a particular focus
on architectural transitions between new development and existing
buildings within the Downtown Historic District. The update would be
prepared by a subcommittee of the Architectural Review Commission
with the assistance of City staff. The amendment would be reviewed by
the Cultural Heritage Committee, Architectural Review Commission and
Planning Commission before a recommendation is forwarded to the City
Council.
3) Environmental Review consistent with the California Environmental
Quality Act.
1/23/2007 /
t _ ' Attachment 3
SLO General Plan Land Use Element
PREAMBLE TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT
Wethe people of San Luis Obispo hold that we have the right to determine our
community's destiny based on our community's values; that the future livability of our
community will be driven by historical choices made from day to day, and not by
inevitable forces beyond our control; that in an age when the livability of large, urban
communities to our north, south, and east is being destroyed by incrementally
accelerating environmental degradation and the breakdown of civility, we assert our
desire to seek a different sort of future for our community; that, therefore, we direct our
elected representatives and civic employees to preserve our community's natural
environment and control excessive growth detrimental to the long-term sustainability of
the community.
SAN LUIS OBISPO'S VISION
Our vision is of a sustainable community, within a diverse natural and agrarian
setting, which is part of a larger ecosystem upon which its existence depends. San Luis
Obispo will maintain its healthy and attractive natural environment valued by residents,
its prosperity, and its sense of safety and community, within a compact urban form. Our
community will have a comprehensible scale, where people know each other and where
their participation in government is welcome and effective. The general plan outlines
basic features of the city needed to sustain our livelihoods, our natural and historical
heritage, and our needs for interaction and expression. The general plan is a
benchmark in the continuing planning process, reflecting the desires of citizens with
different backgrounds to sustain the community's qualities for themselves and for future
generations.
The City should provide a setting for comfortable living, including work and
recreation. The City should live within its resources,.preserve the relatively high levels of
service, environmental quality and clean air valued by its residents, and strive to provide
additional resources as needed.
5 � oL�
Attachment 4
Attachment.
Land Use Element
C) Develop aggressive tourism marketing programs;
D) Develop concepts such as rail tours, sea cruises,historical tours,
and bicycle tours;
E) Encourage development of appropriate recreational facilities
for golf, tennis, equestrian activities, soccer, swimming, fishing,
and eco-tourism.
DOWNTOWN
LU 4.1: Downtown's Role
Downtown.is the cultural, social and political center of the City for its residents, as well
as home for those who live in its historic neighborhoods. The City wants its commercial
core to be economically healthy, and realizes that private and public investments in the
downtown support each other. Downtown should provide a wide variety of professional
and government services, serving the region as well as the city. The commercial core is
a prefierred location for retail uses that are suitable for pedestrian access, off-site parking,
and compact building spaces. Civic, cultural and commercial portions of downtown
should be a major tourist destination. Downtown's visitor'appeal should be based on
natural, historical, and cultural features, retail services, and numerous and varied visitor
accomdations.
LU 4.2: Downtown Residential
LU 4.2.L• Existing and New Dwellings
Downtown residential uses contribute to the character of the area, allow a 24-hour
presence which enhances security, and help the balance between jobs and housing in
the community. Existing residential uses within,and around the commercial core should
be protected, and new ones should be developed. Dwellings should be provided for a
variety of households,.including singles, couples, and groups. Dwellings should be
interspersed with commercial uses. All new, large commercial projects should include
dwellings. Commercial core properties may serve as receiver sites for transfer of
development credits, thereby having higher residential densities than otherwise allowed.
city of san Luis owspo-ceneml,plan Oiliest-6ecetn1361Z 2004 / LU-51
- � Attachment 4
Land Use Element
LU 4.2.2: Dwellings and Offices
Residential uses within some downtown areas designated Office prior to this element's
1994 update should be maintained, or replaced as new offices are developed. The City
should amend the Downtown Housing Conversion Permit process to preserve the
number of dwellings iii the Downtown Core (C-D zone) and the Downtown Planning
Area by adopting a "no net housing loss" program by amending the Downtown Housing
Conversion ordinance. The amendment shall ensure that within each area, the number
of dwellings removed shall not exceed the number of,dwellings added.
LU 4.3:. Entertainment and Cultural Facilities
Cultural facilities, such as museums, galleries, and public theaters should be downtown.
Entertainment facilities, such as nightclubs and private theaters should be in the .
downtown, too. Locations outside downtown may be more appropriate for facilities
that would be out of character or too big for downtown to accommodate comfortably,
such as the major performing arts center planned for the Cal Poly campus.
LU 4.4: Public Gatherings
Downtown should have spaces to accommodate public meetings, seminars, classes, and
similar activities in conjunction with other uses. Downtown should provide a setting
which is festive, and comfortable for public gatherings.
l )
LU 4.S: Walking Environment
Downtown should provide safe,exciting places for walking and pleasant places for sitting.
To invite exploration, mid-block walkways, courtyards, and interior malls should be
integrated with new and remodelled buildings, while preserving continuous building
faces on most blocks. Downtown streets should provide adequate space for pedestrians.
'There should be a nearly continuous tree canopy along sidewalks, and planters should
provide additional foliage and flowers near public gathering areas.
LU 4.6: Public Safety
Indoor and outdoor public spaces should be observable from frequently occupied or
travelled places, to enhance public safety.
LU-52 beCE1TIt3ER 2004 -geneRal plan OIWSt- city of San Luis OBISpo
oLQ
�. .. Attachmen4
Land Use Element
�.. 1
l
. 4
LU 4.7: _Open Places and Views
Downtown should include many carefully located open places where people can rest
and enjoy views of the surrounding hills. Downtown should include some outdoor
�.� spaces where people are completely separated from vehicle nraff'ic, in addition to Mission
Plaza. Opportunities include extensions of Mission Plaza, a few new plazas, and selected
street.closures.
LU 4.8: Traffic in Residential Areas
Downtown residential areas should be protected from through traffic.
LU 4.9: Street Changes
Street widening and realignment should be avoided.
LU 4.10: Parking
There should be a diversity of parking opportunities. Any major increments in parking
supply should take the form of structures, located at the edges of the commercial core,
so people will walk rather than drive between points within the core. Retail uses outside H 6.3.2
the core, and professional office developments, may have on-site parking for customers
and clients.
crty of san lues oAispo-Geneml.plan 61Qest-OeC6n1Bett 2004 LU-53
a�
Attachment 4
Land Use Element l
66/-i LU 4.11: The Creek
San Luis Obispo Creek should be protected and restored, provided this can be done in
W 6.5.4 a manner that minimizes human impact on creek life. Walking paths along the creek in
the downtown core should be provided as links in an urban trail system, provided this
will not further degrade wildlife habitat value of the riparian ecosystem. As properties
that have encroaching buildings are redeveloped, the City should enforce a reasonable
building setback from the riparian zone. Opportunities to open covered sections of the
creek should be pursued.
LU 4.12: Building Conservation and Compatibility
Architecturally and historically significant buildings should be preserved and restored.
H 3.2.5 New buildings should be compatible with architecturally and historically significant
buildings, but not necessarily the same style.
LU 4.13: New Buildings and Views
New downtown development should respect views of the hills, framing rather than
obscuring them.
LU 4.14: Noise j ll
Obtrusive sounds,including traffic noises and loud music, should be minimized. Desired()
J
activities which are noisy should be timed to avoid conflict with other desired activities
which need a quiet setting. .
LU 4.15: Sense of Place
To keep the commercial core's sense of place and appeal for walking, it should remain
compact and be the City's most intensely developed area.
LU 4.16: Design Principles
The following principles should guide construction and changes of use within the
commercial core.
LU 4.16.L• 'Street Level Activities
The street level should be occupied by stores, restaurants, and other uses benefiting
from and contributing to pedestrian traffic, such as offices with frequent client visits.
Stores and restaurants may occupy upper levels. Offices not having frequent client visits
should be located above street level.
� 1
LU-54 06CeMBeR 2004 -gen6ual plan digest-city of san lues oatspo
-Attach
r en-t 4
Land Use Element
lLU 4.16.2: Upper Floor Dwellings
Existing residential uses shall be preserved and new ones encouraged above the street
level. H 5.2.3
LU 4:16.3: Continuous Storefront
There should be a continuous storefront along sidewalks, at the back of the sidewalk,
except for the Courthouse and City Hall blocks, plazas, recessed building entries, and
sidewalk cafes.
LU 4.16.4: Building Height
New buildings should.fit within the existing vertical.scale.. They should respect street-
level views of the hills, allow sunlight to reach public open spaces,and defer to.a few tall,
"landmark" buildings. Generally, new buildings should not exceed two or three 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 comers, 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.
OLU 4.165: Building Width
New buildings should maintain the historic pattern of storefront widths.
LU 4.16.6: Sidewalk Appeal
Street facades, particularly at the street level, should include windows, signs, and
architectural details which can be appreciated by people on the sidewalks.
city of san Luis oBispo-geneuat plan Digest!-0ecemUR 2004 LU-55
Attachment 4
Land Use Element 44
� 1
LU 4.17: Government Offices
City Hall and the County Goverment Center should remain at their present locations l
Additional administrative office space which cannot be accommodated within the Count} J
Government Center should be developed nearby within the downtown.
LU 4.18: Commercial Buildings Outside the Core
In retail areas beyond the commercial core, the pattern of buildings in relation to the
street should become more like the core, with few driveways and parking lots serving
individual developments, and no street or side-yard setbacks (except for recessed entries
and courtyards). However, buildings should not exceed two stories (about 35 feet in
height).
LU 4.19: Implementing the Downtown Concept Plan
The City will consider including features of "A Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's
Center," as appropriate, in its Zoning Regulations, architectural review guidelines,
engineering standards, and capital improvement program.
LU-56 0ecem66u 2004 -ceneRal plan Oiliest-city of ssan lois o5ispo
a
Attachment 5
�A city of san Ltus ostspo conseavatton anb open Space Element, aputl2006
3.0 CULTURAL HERITAGE
3.10 Background
San Luis Obispo is blessed with a rich
heritage, as evidenced by many noteworthy
archaeological sites and historical
buildings. . These cultural resources
constitute a precious, yet fragile, legacy Y
which contributes to San Luis Obispo's
unique"sense of place."
Before Europeans arrived on the central
coast, native Chumash and Salinan people
had lived in the area for centuries. While
most reminders of these peoples are now
gone, evidence of their-presence remains in
San Luis Obispo, circa 1890
various archaeological, historical and spiritual sites throughout the City. These sites should be
respectfully protected, preserved and studied. The Town of San Luis Obispo began with the
founding of Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa in 1772. Since then, the community has
experienced many changes. The older buildings, historic sites and landscape features that remain
help us understand the changes and maintain a sense of continuity. The City wants to preserve
these cultural resources —tangible reminders of earlier days in San Luis Obispo.
Starting in the early 1980s, the City of San Luis Obispo inaugurated a program formalizing and
adopting policies to address historic and prehistoric cultural resources. The first of the City's
historic districts was formed, and the City Council created the Cultural .Heritage Committee
(CHC). The City subsequently adopted numerous policies in its General Plan that addressed the
preservation and protection of historic and prehistoric resources. About 700 historic residential
and commercial buildings continue to give the community its "historic" character and charm,
while adapting to ownerschanging uses and needs.
After two decades, the City has made important strides with its historic preservation efforts. It
has purchased and rehabilitated several historic structures, including the Jack Hs
e, the
Southern Pacific Railroad Water Tower and the Southern Pacific Railroad Depot, and begun
'( rehabilitation of several other historic railroad or adobe structures. Through the Mills Act
t , program, the City and County of San Luis Obispo have helped owners of historic buildings
maintain and improve their properties through property tax benefits.
iJ Nevertheless, many cultural resources are under increasinLr threats
due development pressures,
benign neglect and lack of funding for maintenance or ehabilitation.o Throughout California,
i older established neighborhoods are feeling the effects of growth and intensification due to
contemporary development which often dwarfs or lacks the grace of older homes it replaces.
Commercial areas are also feeling the impact of a changing economy with new uses,
Attachment 5
i
q_ws� ctty of sah Lias OBtspo conseuvation anb open space element,aput12000
development patterns and economic realities. Underutilized sites with historic resourcesare
often prime targets for redevelopmentprojects, with the resulting loss of those resources.
Moreover, some cultural resources have been lost due to unclear or conflicting public policies,
incomplete information and the lack of funding. The loss of significant historic, cultural and
archaeological resources can reduce the community's uniqueness and make it a.less desirable
place in which to live, work or visit.
i'
As San Luis Obispo enters the 21st century, it is prudent to look into the future to anticipate
problems which may lie ahead. We have already experienced some of these same pressures, and
it is reasonable to expect that we will continue to face similar challenges in the near future.
Through its. General Plan policies and related
implementation.measures, the City intends to help
balance cultural resource preservation with other
i community goals.
a
i
3.20 Goals and Policies
I
Goal 3.21. Historical and architectural resources.
The City will expand community understanding,
appreciation and support for historic and architectural
!I resource preservation to ensure long-term protection of
cultural resources.
Policies The historic Carnegie Library in Mission A
was rehabilitated in 2001
3.21.1. Historic preservation. Significant historic
_and architectural resources should be identified,
preserved and rehabilitated.
i!
3.21.2. Demolitions. Historically or. architecturally significant buildings should not be
demolished or substantially changed in outward appearance, unless doing so is necessary to
remove a threat to health and safety and other means to eliminate or reduce the threat to
acceptable levels are infeasible.
3.21.3. Historical documentation. Buildings and other cultural features that are not
historically significant but which have historical or architectural value should be preserved or
relocated where feasible. Where preservation or relocation is not feasible, the resource shall be
documented and the information retained in a secure but publicly accessible location. An
acknowledgment of the resource should be incorporated within the site through historic signage
and the reuse or display of historic materials and artifacts.
3.21.4. Changes to historic buildings. Changes or additions to historically or architecturally
significant buildings should be consistent with the original structure and follow the Secretary of
the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Buildings. New buildings in historical
i
10
i
i
A°fachment 5
city of san 1ws oBtspo conseuvation and open space element, apu112006
districts, or on historically significant sites, should reflect the form, spacing and materials of
nearby historic structures. The street appearance of buildings which contribute to a
neighborhood's architectural character should be maintained.
3.21.5. Historic districts and neighborhoods. In evaluating new public or private
development, the City should identify and protect neighborhoods or districts having historical _
character due to the collective effect of Contributing or Master List historic properties.
Goal 3.22. Archaeological resources. The City will expand community understanding
appreciation and support for archaeological resource preservation.
Policies
3.22.1. Archaeological resource protection. The City shall provide for the protection of both
Down and potential archaeological resources. To avoid significant damage to important
archaeological sites, all available measures, including purchase of the property in fee 'or
easement, shall be explored at the time of a development proposal. Where such measures are not
feasible and development would adversely affect identified archaeological or paleontological
resources, mitigation shall be required pursuant to the Archaeological Resource Preservation
Program Guidelines.
3.22.2. Native American sites. All Native American
cultural and archaeological sites shall be protected as open
space wherever possible. ~ t
�N
3.22.3. Non-development activities. Activities other than
development which could damage or destroy archaeological
sites, including off-road vehicle use on or adjacent to known S. -
sites, or unauthorized collection of artifacts, shall be
prohibited.
3.22.4. Archaeologically sensitive areas. Development
within an archaeologically sensitive area shall require a
preliminary site survey by a qualified archaeologist
knowledgeable in Native American cultures, prior to a
determination of the potential environmental impacts of the
project. Rehabilitation of the historic
Michael Righetti House
3.22.5. Archaeological resources present. Where a
preliminary site survey finds substantial archaeological resources, before permitting
construction, the City shall require a mitigation plan to protect the resources. Possible mitigation
measures include: presence of a qualified professional during initial grading or trenching;
project redesign; covering with a layer of fill; excavation, removal and curation in an appropriate
facility under the direction of a qualified professional.
1-3S-
2�
,
11 —J1�,
_rnent 5
a city of san Luis ompo conseuvation anb open space element, ap&k
3.22.6. Qualified 'archaeologist present. Where substantial archaeological resources are
discovered during construction or grading activities, all such activities in the immediate area of
the find shall cease until a qualified archaeologist knowledgeable in Native American cultures
can determine the significance of the resource and recommend alternative mitigation measures.
3.22.7. Native American participation. Native American participation shall be included in the
City's guidelines for resource assessment and impact mitigation. Native American
representatives should be present during archaeological excavation and during construction in an
area likely to contain cultural resources. The Native American community shall be consulted as
knowledge of cultural resources expands and as the City considers updates or significant changes
to its General Plan.
3.22.8. Protection of Native American cultural sites. The City will ensure the protection of
archaeological sites that may be culturally significant to Native Americans, even if they have lost
their scientific. or archaeological integrity through previous disturbance; sites that may have
religious value, even though no artifacts are present; and sites that contain artifacts which may
have intrinsic value, even though their archaeological context has been disturbed.
3.22.9. Archaeological site records. The City shall establish and maintain archaeological site
records about known sites. Specific archaeological site information will be kept confidential to
protect the resources. The City will maintain, for public use, generalized maps showing known
areas of archaeological sensitivity.
3.22.10. Sunny Acres. Sufficient acreage should be provided around Sunny Acres to enable use
of the property for a community center, urban garden, natural history museum and adjoining
botanical garden,or similar uses.
3.22.11. Southern Pacific Water Tower. The historic Southern Pacific Water Tower and
adjoining City-owned land should be maintained as open space or parkland.
3.22.12. Cultural resources and open space. Within the city limits the City should require,
and outside the city limits should encourage the County to require,public or private development
to do the following where archaeological or historical resources are protected as open space or
parkland:
A. Preserve such resources through easements or dedications. Subdivision parcel lines or
easements shall be located to optimize resource protection. Easements as a condition of
development approval shall be required only for structural additions or new structures,
not for accessory structures or tree removal permits. If a historic or archaeological
resource is located within an open space parcel or easement, allowed uses and
maintenance responsibilities within that parcel or easement shall be clearly defined and
conditioned prior to map or project approval.
B. Designate such easements or dedication areas as open space or parkland as appropriate.
, ' 12 /��
Attachment 5
crty of san lois owspo conservation ana open space eiemerrt, apM12006
C. Maintain such resources by prohibiting activities that may significantly degrade the
1 resource.
J 3.30 Programs. The City will do the following to protect cultural resources, and will encourage
Jothers to do so, as appropriate.
3.30.1. Cultural Heritage Committee.The City's Cultural Heritage Committee will:
1 A. Help identify, and advise on suitable treatment for archaeological and historical
resources.
B. Develop,information on historic resources.
C. Foster public awareness and appreciation of cultural resources through means such as
tours,a web site, identification plaques and awards.
D. Provide recognition for preservation and restoration efforts.
E. Communicate with other City bodies and staff concerning cultural resource issues.
F. Provide guidance to owners to help preservation and restoration efforts.
J G. Review new development to determine consistency with cultural resource preservation
guidelines or standards.
3.30.2. Financial assistance.and incentives. The City will participate in financial assistance
programs, such as low-interest loans and property tax reduction programs that encourage
maintenance and restoration of historic properties.
3.30.3. Construction within historic districts. The Cultural Heritage Committee and
Architectural Review Commission will provide specific guidance on the construction of new
buildings within historic districts.
3.30.4. Post-disaster Historic Preservation. The City will be prepared to assess the condition
of historic buildings that may be damaged by disasters and to foster their restoration whenever
feasible.
3.30.5. Archaeological resource preservation standards.. The City will maintain standards
concerning when and how to conduct archaeological surveys, and the preferred methods of
preserving artifacts.
3.30.6. Educational programs. The City will foster public awareness and appreciation of
J cultural resources by sponsoring educational programs, by helping to display artifacts that
illuminate past cultures and by encouraging private development to include historical and
archaeological displays where feasible and appropriate.
3.30.7. Partnering for preservation. The City will partner with agencies, non-profit
organizations and citizens groups to help identify, preserve, rehabilitate and maintain cultural
13
Attachment 5
f__iWS� crty of San wis"oBispo conseuvation and open spacd elemdnt, apWI2ooe
resources.
3.30.8. Promote adaptive reuse of historic buildings. The City will, consistent with health,
safety and basic land-use policies, apply building and zoning standards within allowed ranges of
flexibility,to foster continued use and adaptive reuse of historic buildings.
3.30.9. City-owned adobes and historic structures. The,City will preserve and, as resources
permit, rehabilitate City-owned historic adobes and other historic structures by aggressively.'
seeldng grants, donations, private-sector participation or other techniques that help fimd
rehabilitation and adaptive reuse.
3.30.10. Cultural Heritage Committee Wldtepaper. The City will implement the
recommendations of the Cultural Heritage Committee's "Whitepaper", including the adoption of
an historic preservation ordinance.
i
is
14 /��
Attachment 6
a crty ofsan hits oi..,po consenvatton ana open space eminent, aputt 2006
9.0 Views
9.10 Background
San Luis Obispo has been favored with a beautiful
natural setting. Also, the community has strived
for attractive urban development. Protection of
these assets enhances the community's quality of
life and economic vitality. Protection involves
both the integrity of the resource being viewed,
and lines of sight to the resource.
9.20 Goals and Policies
Goal 911. Viewsheds, Maintain and create
attractive rural landscapes and cityscapes. City Limits form a well-defined urban edge,
with open space beyond .
Policies
921.1. Preserve natural and agricultural landscapes. The City will implement the following
policies and will encourage other agencies with jurisdiction to do likewisea
A. Natural and agricultural landscapes that the City has not designated for urban use shall be
maintained in their current patterns of use.
B. Any development that is permitted in natural or agricultural landscapes shall be visually .
subordinate to and compatible with the landscape features. Development includes,but is
not limited to buildings, signs (including billboard signs), roads, utility and
telecommunication lines and structures. Such development shall:
1) Avoid visually L prominent locations such as ridgelines, and slopes exceeding 20
percent.
2) Avoid unnecessary grading,vegetation removal, and site lighting.
3) Incorporate building forms, architectural materials, and landscaping, that respect the
setting, including the historical pattern of development in similar settings, and avoid
stark contrasts with their setting.
4) Preserve scenic or unique landforms, significant trees in terms of size, age, species or
rarity, and rock outcroppings.
C. The City's non-emergency repair, maintenance, and small construction projects in highly
visible locations, such as hillsides and downtown creeks, where scenic resources could be
affected, shall be subject to at least "minor or incidental" architectural review.
9.21.2. Urban development, The City will implement the following principle and will
encourage other agencies mith jurisdiction to do likewise: urban development should reflect its
architectural context. This does not necessarily prescribe a specific style, but requires deliberate
design choices that acknowledge human scale, natural site features; and neighboring urban
60
1-39
Attachment -6
Wag crty of Un Luis owsp. zonseuvation anb open space etemwit, aputl 2006.
development. New development shall be compatible with historical and architectural resources.
Plans for sub-areas of the City may require certain architectural styles.
9.21.3. Utilities and signs. In and near public streets, plazas, and parks, features that clutter,
degrade, intrude on, or obstruct views should be avoided. Necessary features, such as utility and
communication equipment, and traffic equipment and signs should be designed and placed so as
to not impinge upon or degrade scenic views of the Morros or surrounding hillsides, or farmland,
consistent with the primary objective of safety. New billboard signs shall not be allowed, and
existing billboard signs shall be removed as soon as practicable, as provided in the Sign
Regulations.
9.21.4. Streetscapes and major roadways. In thea acquisition, design,gn, construction or
significant modification of major roadways (highways/regional routes and arterial streets), the
City will promote the creation of "streetscapes" and linear scenic parkways or corridors that
promote the City's visual quality and character, enhance adjacent uses, and integrate roadways
with surrounding districts. To accomplish this, the City will:
A. Establish streetscape design standards for major roadways. .
B. Encourage the creation and maintenance median planters and widened parkway plantings.
C. Retain mature trees in the public right-of-way.
D. Emphasize the planting and maintenance of California Native tree species of sufficient
height, spread, form and horticultural characteristics to'create the desired streetscape
canopy,shade,buffering from adjacent uses, and other desired streetscape characteristics,
consistent with the Tree Ordinance or as recommended by the Tree Committee or as
approved by the Architectural Review Commission.
E. Encourage the use of water-conserving landscaping, street furniture, decorative lighting
and paving, arcaded walkways, public art, and other pedestrian-oriented features to
enhance the streetscape appearance, comfort and safety.
F. Encourage and where possible, require undergrounding of overhead utility lines and
structures.
9.21.5. View protection in new development. The City will include in all environmental .
review and carefully consider effects of new development, streets and road construction on
views and visual quality by applying the Community. Design Guidelines, height restrictions,
hillside standards, Historical Preservation Program Guidelines and the California Environmental
Quality Act and Guidelines.
D9.21.6. Night-Sky preservation. City will adopt a "night sky" ordinance to preserve nighttime
views, prevent light pollution, and to protect public safety by establishing street and public area
p lighting standards.
" Goal 9.22. Viewing opportunities. Provide ample opportunities for viewing attractive features.
65
I /-fid
- Ata_ghrnertt 6-
MY of san Luis o$tsp% _,,anseRvation anb open space elem....b.aptai 2006
Policies 1.
9.22.1. Views to and from public places, including scenic roadways. The City will preserve r
and improve views of important scenic resources from public places, and encourage other L
agencies with jurisdiction to do so. Public places include parks, plazas, the grounds of civic
buildings, streets and roads, and publicly accessible open space. In particular,the route segments r
shown in Figure 11 are designated as scenic roadways. 1.
A. Development projects shall not wall off scenic roadways and block views. r
B. Utilities; traffic signals, and public and private signs and lights shall not intrude on or L
clutter views,.consistent with safety needs.
C. Where important vistas of distant landscape features occur along streets, street trees shall C
be clustered to facilitate viewing of the distant features.
D. Development projects, including signs, in the viewshed of a scenic roadway shall be r
considered"sensitive" and require architectural review. I•
9.22.2. Views to and from private development. Projects should incorporate as amenities (-
views from and within private
development sites. Private
development designs should cause the r
least view blockage for neighboring �+
property that allows project objectives
to be met.
Islay Hill.
922.3. Outdoor lighting. Outdoor lighting shall avoid: operating at unnecessary locations,
levels, and times; spillage to areas not needing or wanting illumination; glare(intense line-of-site
contrast); and frequencies(colors) that interfere with astronomical viewing.
930 Programs
The City shall do the following to protect and enhance views, and will encourage others to do so,.
as appropriate:
9.30.1. Public facilities. Locate and design public facilities and utilities consistent with General
Plan goals and policies.
9.30.2. Update Community Design Guidelines. Update and maintain Community Design
Guidelines to address views from scenic roadways and include theni in design standards in plans
for sub-areas of the City.
LR
66
T!
E - Attachment 6 -
crty of san Luis osi_,r i consenvation and open space ett...ent, apish 2006
9.30.3. Sign Reg*dons. Maintain and apply Sign Regulations consistent with General Plan
goals and policies. When possible, signs in the public right-of-way should be consolidated on a
single low-profile standard.
9.30.4. Environmental and architectural review. Conduct environmental review and
architectural review consistent-with General Plan goals and policies regarding visual impacts and
quality.
9.30.5. Visual assessments. Require evaluations (accurate visual simulations) .for projects
affecting important scenic resources and views from public places.
9.30.6. View blockage along scenic highways. Determine that view blockage along scenic
roadways is a significant impact.
9.30.7. Development proposals in unincorporated County. Review County-proposed general
j plan amendments and development proposals within the City's Planning Area for consistency
with City General Plan goals and policies.
1 9.30.8. Scenic highway designation. Advocate State and County scenic highway designations
and protective programs for scenic routes connecting San Luis Obispo with other communities.
9.30.9. Undergrounding utilities. Place existing overhead utilities underground,with highest
priority for scenic roadways, entries to the city, and historical districts.
9.30.10. Prohibit billboards. Not allow additional billboards.
9.30.11. Billboard removal. Remove existing billboards through amortization, conditions of
development approval, and grants for enhancing open-space and transportation corridors, with
highest.priority for scenic roadways, entries to the city, and historical districts.
9.30.12. Preserve the Morros. In cooperation with the County of San Luis Obispo, .other
government agencies,non-profit agencies and property owners, the City will seek to preserve the
I Morros as open space through preservation incentives, easements, land acquisition, .or other
measures to preserve their visual qualities.
I9.30:13. Monitor viewsheds. The City will establish and maintain a program of describing and
monitoring viewsheds within and adjacent to City limits to establish a photographic baseline of
visual setting and conditions.
I .
f
67
1
i
+'�41 Ire.' r 1 (1 al. M• c- - —
I
s —
` f
I I.
t o 1IT
' .�
Or.
i� r 1 �..`� ' '� / ,�\ { f � y pr r r \ f,� .' H • l Y
', � � , a +* i -. ' t� � � i 4\ ,� r ° J < 1 \` `y't 3 11 �\'♦Q 1.-
k.r'� 1 .r" f ,It ` t s t !� r ) (i E .� t, t�'�.;\ �,�,•, tR 2 ~I 1�'[� � � 1
Wr- '�srl..II
i ,/ ,1+ K �1 f till
< R y'!'f I' II �•sr` r �
lt
si It
n t � i Ia - Cl /l x."lc 'fY� k ti: <r ._wR-ll'.. —
.. -.r IIcw: fi^�
Il,zY�" t�ir 1-rrt ^1 ' Yi '� r ` �.iCr / I it 11t'�t ��ert" tJti t t.
�I�p\'- X75 \ ` t •4 '`� ) `�} r i ,,<M r� �J+'.F.� ty''..: 1 tj �' �y� �1
r~,+ ��'(��i'4 t, \'-.J 1 in �t cv..�'.'v. +'♦ ',K 1 /�.i( I_i r +Ita,s`'~ !i. � 1� \��
L � }\19d'...c 1ar.\ l t \ , :) r c I 1..:�r I ✓rI f 1 1-;
/ _t. t`�4 r r ,,, c A 5` �:`> f � � � \ �� , � I LII.I .p�lt tl♦ - ,i, _l.� �'.
15
{, —i. ti} -� r t r t )b i s �:�5♦•�l l�f , � r/ �i1a _
`,,.
rn
�� �'7[ fh.'G t E r• 1,' AI f faj '. ff� SJt"\ l/ n 1 Y ��1:.C.�•�, �L �yq a r �l � .
'f- lr qN'r i'' ,r �� l / ♦ .: IJ >� a �' t t t< ,t �/ ! -, ��\ f
, � `�'.�' 1 vt } l,h 1�1 \,t t t ils.�r It.+=+}.s• ��{s>� c } -.`
z.l� ♦ ::S �t I y�.w \- `� r r 2 �p w t t `�
rf c
Trf '��j� t o ,,-.0 s • A'\ r/ < i.
It
[[fir 1
o f t rt 5 t b' /� � y a•/�°t� r1 ! o � f C
lie
tl
' rl, If ) �� .� ':�' r \ tf I dN � r t i ,- as•
r
.� i. 1111 =r � � _- ♦♦♦ ♦ � �
.O �� -111. _ � ♦ -111.► ♦♦`� 0��� ��
��<I CII i��� ���� ♦i: ' �♦v�`►`.- ������ � �p� •�
PR
NNW
Mp
MW
�` 1. I ,♦�`i_����V� ��{,♦♦ �� ��j♦♦� ��.�♦,,� �NDowntown Core Historic Resources
� �
MW
51T, MIN
0410
'05 PAP
III
SLIM k,
OWN
n
• Attachment $
310.824.0900
RDKd1 213.623.384.1
Fax 213.623.4231
Allan D. Kahn &Associates
Real Estate Consufting for Rib&Private joint Ventures
949 S. Hope Street,Suite 200, Los Angeles,CA 90015 akotin@adkotin.com
Memorandum
TO: Ken Ham
pian,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.SLO and Santa Barbara, be very heavily regulated, but new
M
RD-K&O _ Attachment 8
Memorandum
RE: ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF HEIGHT LIMITATIONS IN DowwowN SAN Luis OBISPO
Working Draft Subject to Change.
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 much less suited to many of the non premium employees in
a downtown. area. These 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 / /2/9//2006
ADK&R * " -. Attachment 8
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.
The Likely Results of Relaxing Height Limitations in Downtown San Luis Obispo
Relaxing height limitations is clearly not going to cause a paroxysm of new high rise construction.
Lot sizes, other fors of regulation 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 of 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 ground level, parking both below and at the
second level, and then to build frame and stucco above that.
Allan D.Kohn&Associates Page 3 , 219/`1006
7
ADK&A - Attachment 8
Memorandum
RE:ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF HEIGHT LIMITATIONS IN DOWNTOWN SAN LuiS.OBISPo
Working Draft Subject to Change
My personal view is that it is most unlikely that there will a large number of such construction
involving a mixture of retail, hotel and residential uses. Such construction requires sites of a
minimum of 30,000 square feet and preferably 50,000 or more. The number of places where 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.
Q\Documents and SettinizAt.keelawUY Documents\ADK\ADKMemo.dot
Allan D.Kotin&Associates Page 4 V 220006
A Lachmant 9
city of San tins OBISpo - c,Is division
Downtown Shading Model
The following graphic is a plan view representation of shading effects caused by
buildings of progressively greater height. The model shows that buildings above 50 feet
tall will begin to shade the sidewalk on the opposite side of the street, if General Plan
policies and Community Design Guidelines requirements are not met. Specifically, the
Community Design Guidelines says that buildings should be set back above the second or
third story to maintain a lower street fagade. The proposed General Plan amendments say
that buildings should be set back above the second or third story to maintain a street
fagade that is consistent with the historic pattern of development.
The graphic below illustrates that, in the worst case scenario (12:00 PM on the winter
solstice), shading effects caused by tall buildings downtown will not result in shading of
sidewalks with southern exposure provided setbacks are incorporated into the building
design and FAR limits are not exceeded. The graphic is not indicative of a preferred or
likely architectural style or design, it is simply a block representation of potential
building mass. Planning applications submitted for new tall buildings would be required
to include an analysis of shading effects caused by the proposal.
75 ft
3.75 F
75 ft
65 ft 5.0 FA
4.0 FA
55 ft
3.0 F C2
75 ft
45 ft 5.0 FA
65 ft 75ft
35 ft 0 FA 55 ft 4.0 FA 3.75 FA
25 ft 2.0 FA 3.0 FA
15 l0 FA
0 FAR 45 ft
3.0 FA
35 ft
25 ft 2.0 FA
LO FA
�'ft 12:00 PM
0 FAR December 21st
N
TF
i
Attachment 9
city of san Luis osispo — cis division
Downtown Shading Model
The graphic below represents shading effects that occur later in the day (4:00 PM on the
winter solstice), when the sun is lower in the sky and longer shadows are cast. Because
of the orientation of the City's street grid in the downtown core area, shadows are cast up
the street, as opposed to across the street onto sidewalks.
75 ft
3.75
75 ft
65 ft 5.0 FA
4.0 FA
55 ft
3.0 FA
75 ft
45 ft 5.0 FA
65 ft 75 ft
35 ft .0 FA� 55 ft 4.0 FA 3.75 FA
25 ft 2.0 FA � 3.0 FA
15 L0 FA ed
0 FAR h 45 ft
3.0 FA
35 ft
25 ft 2,0 FA
1D F
�`ft 4:00 PM
0 FAR December 21 N
Attachment 9
city of san tuts osispo - cis owision
Downtown Shading Model
The .graphic below represents a perspective view of the solar shading model, during
winter solstice at 12:00 PM, noon. The model will show any time of day, during any day
of the year. These stills are intended to represent the worst case scenario, with some
buildings that are more intense than would be allowed by the proposed General Plan
amendments. The building in the foreground represents 75-foot building height and a
Floor Area Ratio of 3.75. The graphic is not indicative of a preferred or likely
architectural style or design, it is simply a block representation of potential building
mass.
00
4
Perspective View.
Looklrlg SolMlefly down
Nbrderey,F6guera or Marsh
12:00 PM
December 21st
r
Attachment 10
11/29/2006
. MEMORANDUM
Mr. Michael Codron
Associate Planner, Community Development Department
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Michael,
We are pleased to inform you that we are ready to initiate the project "Three-Dimensional Model of
Downtown San Luis Obispo'. Cal Poly team from the College of Architecture and Environmental Design
(CAED)will encompass Dr. Umut Toker, Dr.Vicente del Rio, and student assistants.
As you will see in the attached project description, we have defined the project in three phases, estimated
to start by the provision of the aerial photos and GIS data to the. Cal Poly team, and to end in
approximately 7 months.
Please note that the project will be provided at no cost to the City of San Luis Obispo. The total cost.of
the project, $30,028.88, including 30% CAED administrative support and overhead, will be funded in full
by the College of Architecture and Environmental Design. The College of Architecture and Environmental
Design team will make a good-faith effort to complete the project as described in the attached project
description.
Also please note that the College of Architecture and Environmental Design will not purchase new three-
dimensional aerial photographs for purposes of achieving accurate building data, however, per our
previous communications, the City of San Luis Obispo will be purchasing this data.
Attached, please find the project description that provides information on project phasing, basic
expenses, and the tasks to be completed. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to
contact us.We are looking forward to working with you.
Sincerely,
Umut Toker, PhD. Vicente del Rio, PhD.
Assistant Professor Professor
Department of City and Regional Planning Department of City and Regional Planning
College of Architecture and Environmental Design College of Architecture and Environmental Design
California Polytechnic State University California Polytechnic State University
One Grand Avenue One Grand Avenue
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
Phone: (805)756-1592; Fax: (805)756-1340 Phone: (805)756-2572; Fax: (805)756-1340
utoker@calpoly.edu vdelrion@calpoly.edu
http://www.plannin.g.calpoly.edu/ http://www.i)lanning.calpoly.edu/
Attachment 10
vrN 9 � lgk
® p® V ® ® Yf ® p ® • • yl "` tpp#y's
ID
IMM
Computer-based three-dimensional modeling of Downtown San Luis Obispo. The area to be modeled
covers 20 blocks, defined by Palm, Pacific, Nipomo, and Osos. For three-dimensional modeling,
SketchUp. software will be used. The modeling process may be supported by AutoCAD as needed. ESRI
ArcGIS will be used for GIS operations.The project includes the following team members and phases.
Umut Toker, Assistant Professor, CRP[Project.Director]: Supervision, 3D modeling, GIS
Vicente del Rio, Professor, CRP: Supervision
Student Assistant 1: 3D modeling, GIS
Student Assistant 2: 3D modeling, GIS
Student Assistant 3: Acquisition of information on building
facades through digital photography,
image clean-up with Adobe Photoshop
2.1. ACQUISITION OF BUILDING HEIGHT AND MASSING INFORMATION IN DOWNTOWN SAN LUIS
OBISPO
This project requires that Cal Poly team has access to up-to-date data on building heights,
building footprints and massing. This data will be provided to Cal Poly team;through new-three-
dimensional aerial photographs for purposes of achieving accurate building data [Downtown San
Luis Obispo Building Profiles], by the City of San Luis Obispo. The City of San Luis Obispo will
contact the appropriate service provider, and purchase this service before Phase 1 of this project..
This data will then be provided to the Cal Poly team in the form of accurate vectoral building
height and massing information, prior to the start of Phase 1 of the project.
2.2. PROVISION.OF OTHER GIS DATA
The city of San Luis Obispo will provide the Cal Poly team with other required, up-to-date GIS data
for the project before the start of Phase 1 of this project. w
The project will be composed of three phases. It is estimated that the project can be completed within
three quarters, the project thus beginning with the provision of aerial photos and GIS data to the Cal Poly
Attachment 10
team, and ending in approximately 7 months. The College of Architecture and Environmental Design
team is willing to meet with the City of San Luis Obispo staff once every month, to exchange ideas about
the progress of the project, to assess the details of the work performed, and to review project details.
3.1. PHASE 1: DATA ASSEMBLY AND DEMONSTRATION [ESTIMATED FOUR WEEKS AFTER
PROVISION OF NECESSARY DATA TO THE CAL POLY TEAM]
This phase will involve [i] acquisition of information on building facades by the Cal Poly team, and [i]
partial three-dimensional modeling of a small portion of the project area for demonstration purposes.
3.1.a. STEP 1. ACQUISITION OF INFORMATION ON BUILDING FACADES
Cal Poly team will acquire information on the building facades in downtown area through the work
of Student Assistant 3. This process will involve systematic digital photographical documentation of
building facades, to be followed by clean-up of digital photographs[i.e. clean-up of cars and similar
visual obstacles to make building facades visible or easy to visualize, to the highest extent
possible] using Adobe Photoshop software.
3.1.b.STEP 2. THREE-DIMENSIONAL MODELING FOR DEMONSTRATION
Cal Poly team will prepare a three-dimensional model of Higuera Street, three blocks between
Broad and Morro for demonstration. This model will contain building mass composition and rough
facade information.
3.1.c. PHASE 1 DELIVERABLES [ESTIMATED DELIVERY WITHIN FOUR WEEKS AFTER
PROVISION OF NECESSARY DATA TO THE CAL POLY TEAM]
One SketchUp format file [extension: .skp] that contains the three-dimensional model of Higuera
Street, three blocks between Broad and Morro.
3.2. PHASE 2: THREE-DIMENSIONAL MODELING OF DOWNTOWN TOPOGRAPHY AND BUILDING
MASSING[ESTIMATED WITHIN FOURTEEN WEEKS FROM THE END OF PHASE 1]
3.2.a.STEP 1. THREE-DIMENSIONAL MODELING OF DOWNTOWN TOPOGRAPHY
Using GIS data and SketchUp software, Cal Poly team will model the topographical features of the
defined downtown area [3D model base], which will include the street surfaces, sidewalk surfaces,
parcel surfaces and their slopes.
3.2.b.STEP 2. THREE-DIMENSIONAL MODELING OF BUILDING MASSING
Using the provided GIS data and SketchUp software, Cal Poly team will model the buildings in the
defined downtown area. This three-dimensional model will not include facade details, but will
provide mass composition of buildings in the area defined.
Attachment 10
3.2.c. STEP 3. BUILDING FACADE FEATURES INTO THE THREE-DIMENSIONAL MODEL
Cal Poly team will build fagade features into the three-dimensional model built in phases 1 and 2.
This information will be limited to basic fagade featuressuch as the location, shape and rough
details of fenestration. The window and door frames and details will NOT be modeled for every
single building.
3.2.d. PHASE 2 DELIVERABLES [ESTIMATED DELIVERY WITHIN FOURTEEN WEEKS FROM
THE END OF PHASE 1]
One SketchUp format file [extension: .skp] that contains a model of the buildings in the defined
downtown area, which will provide mass composition of buildings and fagade features as described
in Section 3.2.c.
3.3. PHASE 3: DETAILING THE THREE-DIMENSIONAL MODEL [ESTIMATED WITHIN EIGHT
WEEKS FROM THE END OF PHASE 21
3.3.a. STEP 2. PROVIDING FURTHER DETAILS
Cal Poly team will build street furniture, landscaping and similar details into the model. The
detailing of this step will be limited to using predefined SketchUp components so that the model
provides better scale and land use information. Specific street furniture and similar details will NOT
be three-dimensionally modeled for every single object.
3.3.b. STEP 3. PROVIDING THE SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT
Cal Poly team will use the GIS data provided and SketchUp software, and build the topographical
features and building masses surrounding the downtown area within the City of San Luis Obispo
limits. This step will be limited to building masses as extruded from building footprints using
building height data provided, rather than specific mass composition information for every single
building. Similarly, the topographical features will simply be extruded using the GIS data, no
additional details will be provided. The intent is to provide some contextual information to the
viewer of the model.
3.3.c. PHASE 3 DELIVERABLES [ESTIMATED DELIVERY WITHIN EIGHT WEEKS FROM THE
END OF PHASE 2]
One SketchUp format file [extension: .skp] that contains the topographical features and building
masses surrounding the downtown area within the City of San Luis Obispo limits [building masses
as extruded from building footprints using building height data, not specific mass composition
information for every building; topographical features simply extruded using the GIS data, no
additional details].
Attachment 10
• • - . • - . •
The completed three-dimensional model will be submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo in digital format,
in SketchUp format[extension: .skp]. This will not include stills or animations, which can be generated by
the City of San Luis Obispo staff using the model submitted.
PROJECT
EXPENSE AMOUNT
CAL POLY TEAM MAN-HOURS [two faculty, three student assistants, total 650 hours] $19,278.70
EXPENSES [misc. supplies] $200.00
EQUIPMENT[desktop computers, 2@$1810.221 $3,620.44
SUBTOTAL $22,118.70
COLLEGE OF ARCHITECTURE AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN ADMINISTRATIVE $6,929.74
SUPPORT AND OVERHEAD [30%]
GRAND TOTAL $3x,028 88'
OWNERSHIP OF
The Three-Dimensional Model of Downtown San Luis Obispo produced as the result of this project will be
turned over to the City of San Luis Obispo, and will be fully operational for the future use and enjoyment
of the city. Additionally, the Three-Dimensional Model of Downtown San Luis Obispo produced as the_
result of this project shall also remain the property of the College of Architecture and Environmental
Design, California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo for its future use for educational
purposes.
In exchange for providing this model to the City of San Luis Obispo at no cost, it is the intention of the
College of Architecture and Environmental Design to use the model for research, education and
publications, to add enhanced features, and to utilize in public educational venues. Furthermore, as a
public service, the CAED may allow access to and use of the model by members of the public and
property owners. Commercial use of project information which is not otherwise publicly available as a
matter of public record shall require approval by the College of Architecture and Environmental Design.
AA. 2Z
VA4v
Date: /'11'Pate:
Jhn andeville,AICP ho s R. Jone canmmnity Development Director Coll a of Archit ture and Environmental Design
yofSan Luis Obispo Cal' ornia Polyt hnic State University
9 Palm Street 0 e Grand Avenue
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 an Luis Obispo, CA 93407
Attachment 11
Downtown Building Height and Intensitv Limits: Alternative
Implementation Methods
The proposed General Plan amendments represent the recommended alternative for
implementing the Council's direction on downtown building height and intensity limits.
However, there are other alternatives that have been considered in leading up to this
recommendation. The proposed amendments will produce policy-based standards in a
new ordinance. This is the model that the City has historically used to insure that new
development projects further General Plan objectives and help the City reach its stated
goals.
Alternatives for implementing the proposed ordinance revisions include:
A Form-Based Code for Downtown —The following definition of form based codes is
taken from the Form Based Code Institute website,,
http://www.formbasedcodes.org/definition.html, and edited for this purpose.
Form-based codes are a method of regulating development to achieve a
specific urban form. Form-based codes control physical form primarily,
with a lesser focus on land use, through city or county regulations.
Form-based codes address the relationship between building facades and
public spaces, the form and mass of buildings in relation to one another,
and the scale and types of streets and blocks. The regulations and
standards in form-based codes are presented in both diagrams and words
and designates the appropriate form and scale (and therefore,character) of
development rather than only distinctions in land-use types.
In short, a form-based code would require development of design standards similarto
those provided in the Community Design Guidelines, however, these.guidelines would
be much more specific and would become ordinance requirements.
A form-based approach was not taken in this case because it would be a major departure
from past City practice and it is a resource intensive endeavor that should only occur as
part of a more comprehensive update to the City's General Plan and Zoning Regulations.
Transfer of Development Credits (TDC) — In general, TDCs refer to incentive programs
that allow a property owner to sell development rights from her land to a developer who
can then use these rights to increase the density of development at another designated
location. While the seller of development rights still owns the land and can continue
using it, an easement is placed on the property that prevents further development. A
TDC program has the benefit of protecting resources and providing additional income to
both the seller and, potentially, the buyer of the development rights.
Attachment 11
Building Height Alternative Overview Page 2
Staff has considered a program for a transfer of development credits, primarily with
respect to historical resources. Most of the downtown core area is located with the
Downtown Historic District, and includes many buildings that are historically and
architecturally significant at both the local and State level. The City has very specific
policies that say historic buildings should not be demolished or substantially changed in
outward appearance. However, the proposed project could have the effect of promoting
redevelopment by making it financially attractive to property owners to demolish historic
buildings. A TDC program would allow development of tall buildings on receiver sites -
(non-historic sites) by capturing the unused development potential from historic sites.
Owners of developed sites would compensate owners of sender sites (historically
significant properties) who would only be able to redevelop their sites in ways that are
compatible with existing historical resources.
A TDC program is not proposed at this time. The program would require a
comprehensive effort to identify property owners willing to act as "senders." In addition,
implementation of a TDC program should be coordinated with'a new historical resource
survey and historic preservation ordinance. Staff is currently in the early phases of
developing a historic preservation ordinance,and it could be two to three years before the
effort is completed.
Quantifiable Standards Approach —With advancements in computer modeling it is now
possible to quantify objectives and establish preferred development scenarios in advance.
This would allow for a more objective process for determining whether or not a proposed
project meets General Plan requirements. For instance, a model of the downtown core
area could be used to determine the best location for new dwelling units, new pedestrian
connections, new viewing decks, and other project features. The difference between a
quantified model and the proposed Cal Poly model is that the quantified model would
serve as a plan and would guide development towards a pre-determined outcome. The
Cal Poly model is intended to reflect existing conditions to facilitate analysis of proposed
development projects.
A quantified model would essentially act like a high-tech version of the City's
Downtown Concept Plan, which currently serves as a guide for directing improvements
in the downtown core area. This approach is not recommended at this time because of
the time and cost involved with creating the computer model. The approach would likely
be more useful if the model covered a larger geographic area with a relatively large
number of proposed development projects. In this case, the geographic area is small and
the projects are relatively few. Therefore, continuing past practice and reviewing
proposed projects on a case-by-case basis is feasible and can be accommodated within
reasonable timeframes.
Open Application Period Approach/Design Competition —The City could also establish
a design competition or open application period for tall buildings downtown. This would
be similar to the City's condominium conversion process. Applications would be
accepted between January 1S`and March 31"each year. Each year, the City would select
the top design proposals and allow them to go through the permit process. This program
could continue until the City had achieved its goals for housing units, retail floor area, or
other parameters that would be established by policy.
Attachment 11
Building Height Alternative,Overview Page 3
This approach is not recommended because it would require project proponents to make
a major investment in an uncertain outcome and, therefore, would limit the potential
number of projects proposals that the City would receive.
Comprehensive General Plan Update - The City of San Luis Obispo has not pursued a
major update of its Land Use or Circulation Elements since the current plans were
adopted in 1994. This alternative involves making no changes at this time, and waiting
until the General Plan update is underway before proposing-policy amendments relating
to building height and intensity limits downtown..
This alternative is not recommended because there are currently inconsistencies between
the General Plan and Zoning Regulations that should be addressed now. In addition, this
recommendation would not be consistent with the direction provided by the City Council
in March, 2006.
Overview of.Building.Height and Intensity Limits: Other Jurisdictions
Cities in San Luis Obispo County
Paso Robles—Community Development Dept. 805.237.3970
Maximum height buildup for the downtown area is about 32 feet. The height of a new
building is determined by existing buildings, 10% variation of the mean height of the
existing buildings. Buildings on the ends of blocks are similar in height to adjoining
buildings or their height is determined by the mean height of existing buildings. This
form of regulation maximum height keeps new development wanting to build to the
maximum height at scale to existing buildings. All new development projects are
reviewed by the Design Review Commission for compliance with policies and
regulations.
Atascadero—Community Development Dept. 805.461.5000 ext.3470
Maximum height buildup for the downtown vanes depending on the zoning. For
Industrial, Commercial Park, and Industrial Park Zones maximum buildup is 45 feet. For
Commercial Professional, Commercial Retail, Commercial Service, and Commercial
Tourist it is 35 feet. The maximum height is allowed by right.if it is a conforming use. If
it is anon-conforming use they will need an additional use permit.
Morro Bay—Public Services 805.772.6261
Most zones allow a maximum height of 25 feet above natural grade. However,the R-4,
which is the highest density of the residential zones, and C-1, which is commercial, allow
a maximum height of 30 feet. The downtown area is mostly comprised of C-1 zoning,
which allows for a maximum height of 30 feet unless if the commercial structure is
within 20 feet of a residential district other than R-4, then they are only allowed a
maximum height of 25 feet. The maximum height is somewhat allowed by right. For
small projects the city staff reviews for compliance. For large projects, such as mix-use
or hotels, they will need a use permit.
Attachment 11
Building Height Alternative.. Jverview Page 4
Pismo Beach—Community Development Dept. 805.773.4658
Pismo Beach's downtown is comprised of three sub-districts;they are the Commercial
(Central Core)District CD-C, Commercial (Mixed-Use and Resident-Serving
Commercial) District CD-M, and Commercial (Visitors Services)District CD-V. The
height limit for buildings in all three sub-districts is 35 feet above the exiting site grade.
For all new building developed in the downtown area they must be reviewed by the
Planning Commission for compliance with all regulations and standards. The building
itself requires a Coastal Development Permit. The city of Pismo Beach is currently in
talks with the California Coastal Commission to get their most recent zoning code
approved so they are currently using the 1993 zoning code.
Grover Beach—Community Development Dept. 805.473.4520
The maximum allowable height for Grover Beach's Central Business District is 3 stories
and not to exceed 40 feet. The maximum height is given by right but all new projects
must be reviewed by the Planning Commission for architectural approval.
Arroyo Grande—Community Development Dept. 805.473.5420
The city of Arroyo Grande has two downtown zones.The Grand St. Downtown
Commercial zone allows a maximum height of 30 to 35 feet or 3 stories, whichever is
less. The Village Historical Downtown allows a maximum height of 30 feet or 3 stories,
whichever is less. All new projects go through review with Architectural Review
Commission for compliance with standards and regulations. The maximum height
allowed is somewhat given by right since it is in the zoning code.
Cities north of SLO County
Salinas—Community Planning and Development 831.758.7206
The city currently does not have a maximum height buildup limit for the downtown area.
They feel this is more practical. They do have a FAR of 3.0 which gives the city some
regulation over development. The city is also currently trying to change the code to
allow for more intense development.
Carmel—Community Planning and Building 831.620.2010
Carmel's central core allows for amaximum height of 30 feet unless it is prevailing. To
achieve this maximum height it would depend on the situation. If it is based on design
then it would have to go through design review. If it requires a use permit or a variance it
would have to go through the Planning Commission.
Monterey—Community Development Dept. 831.646.3885
Monterey is a fairly conservative city when it comes to development because they want
to maintain a small scale downtown to preserve the historical feeling. Monterey's
downtown consists mostly of C-2 zoning, which is community commercial district. .C-2
zoning allows for a maximum buildup of 25 feet or 2 stories and all new projects meeting�� 6
Attachment 11
Building Height Alternative,., Jverview -� Page 5
the maximum height limit are subject to a design review. New projects can also build up
to a height of 35 feet or 3 stories but require a use permit.
Los Gatos—Community Development Dept.408.354.6872
The downtown consists of C-2 zoning, which allows for a maximum height of 45 feet.
All new projects must get an Architectural insight approval and must be reviewed by staff
for compatibility with existing structures. Then the Planning Commission reviews the
project. Nothing in the code is given by right.
Sunnyvale—Community Development Dept.408.730.7444
Sunnyvale has a system of allowing each block in the downtown area a different
maximum.height limit. The maximum heights range from 30 to 100 feet. Any new
project requires a conditional use permit, which the Planning Commission must approve
and the City Council also reviews the process. The city is very sensitive about their
downtown and so any project going in that is higher than the maximum height allowed is
a deviation and most likely is not supported by the staff.
Fremont—Community Development Dept. 510.494.4440
Fremont's downtown area consists of CBD zoning. The CBD zone does not have a
maximum height buildup but they do have FAR for the downtown. They have two FAR
for the downtown area: 1)within one-half mile of the Bay Area Rapid Transit District
property lines—0.80 FAR. 2)other areas—0.50 FAR. Increases in FAR are allowed but
are processed as findings. Documents need to be submitted giving a justification for
FAR increase and stating the impacts on traffic, wind, sun, sewer and general impacts to
the surrounding properties. Request for increases up to 5% above specified FAR shall be
considered by the Director of Development and Environmental Services. Over 5% and
up to 15% above the specified FAR shall be considered by the Planning Commission.
Anything above 15% shall be considered by the City Council.
Cities south of SLO County
Santa Maria—Community Development Dept. 805.925.0951 ext.244
Santa Maria's downtown area consists of C-1 zoning, which.is the Central Business
District. The maximum height buildup in the C-1 zone is 3 stories of 40 feet,whichever
is less. For any new project in the C-1 zone building above 1 story or 18 feet adjacent to
a residential zoning district, a conditional use permit or planned development permit is
required unless the new project in the C-1 zone is located 100 feet from the residential
zone. An exception to the maximum height buildup of 3 stories or 40 feet are any new
projects that fall within the boundaries of the Central Redevelopment Project. All new
projects within this area are allowed to buildup to a maximum of 75 feet but anything
above 3 stories or 40 feet is subject to approval of a conditional use permit or a planned
development permit by the Planning Commission.
�l
Attachment 11
Building Height AlternativL..Overview NPage 6
Ventura—Community Development Dept. 805.654.7893
Currently the maximum height allowed for the densest area is 44 feet(3 stories) and as
long as the new project is a permitted use and meets all standards and regulations the
maximum height is allowed by right. The Downtown Specific Plan is currently being
updated to change to form base code. The draft document's policy on maximum height
buildup states that the downtown area is going to have an average height of four stories.
This means that up to 20% of each building footprint per lot can be five stories,no more
than 55% shall be four stories and a minimum of 25% shall be three stories.
City of Ventura Draft Downtown Specific Plan Development Code Chapter 3
httn://www.ci.ventura.ca.us/depts/comm dev/downtownplan/index.asp
Oxnard—Planning and Environmental Services 805.385.7858
Oxnard's downtown area consists of CBD zoning, which is the Central Business District.
The CBD zone allows for a maximum buildup of 48 feet which is given by right. An
additional 25%increase in buildup is allowed by a special use permit. Additional non-
occupied building features may exceed the maximum height by 15 feet.
Attachment 12
city of san tui s oBi s o
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For ER#50-06
1. Project Title: Downtown Height Ordinance
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
SLO, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Michael Codron, Associate Planner, 781-7175
4. Project Location: Downtown Core (see Attachment 1)
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
SLO, CA 93401
6. General Plan Designation: General Retail
7. Zoning: Downtown Commercial (CD) and Downtown Commercial-Historic (CD-H)
8. Description of the Project: On March 14, 2006, the City Council held a study session on the
issue of Downtown building heights and intensity limits and directed staff to:
1) Revise the City's floor area ratio (FAR)definition to exclude basements and parking.
2) Confirm policy inconsistencies among General Plan policies and development standards for
the downtown.
3) 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 alternatives and recommendations with the Cultural Heritage Committee,
Architectural Review Commission, Planning Commission, and Downtown Association
before returning to the City Council.
In order to fulfill this Council direction General Plan policy changes will be separated from
ordinance implementation. After existing policies related to building height and intensity in the
Crrr OF SAN LUIS OBISpo 1 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
i
- Attachment 12
City's downtown core are clarified through General Plan amendments, then specific ordinance
revisions will be proposed to implement the new policies.
An expanded project description with proposed General Plan Amendments in legislative draft
format are attached to this initial study as Attachment 2.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The Downtown Commercial (CD) zone is located in
the heart of San Luis Obispo, situated-along three primary streets, Monterey Street, Higuera
Street and Marsh Street. The northeast/southwest boundaries of the CD zone are Santa Rosa
Street and Beach Street;respectively. The CD zone is bordered by office, public, residential and
retail uses. Adjacent zones include Retail Commercial (CR), Office (0), Public'Facility (PF),
High Density Residential (R-4) and Medium High Density Residential (R-3). The CR zone has
similar standards as the CD zone, except for a greater parking requirement, including on-site
parking requirements, resulting in less intense development. Allowable building height in the
surrounding areas is 35 feet for the office and residentially zoned land, and 45 feet for CR zoned
land.
The Downtown Historic District and the Chinatown Historic District overlay portions of the CD
zone. The Downtown Historic District is a large district bounded by Osos Street and Nipomo
Street and extending down Dana Street.. The Chinatown Historic District is a small portion of
this area located along Palm Street between Morro and Chono Streets. There are many valuable
historic resources within these districts, including the Mission, the Ah Louis Store, the Andrews
Building, the Sinsheimer Brother's Store and the Warden Block building.
The Downtown Area is generally flat south of the creek. North of the creek, the topography
includes a slope up to the Palm Street ridge, which is most evident on Chorro Street and Morro
Street between Monterey and Palm Streets.
10. Project Entitlements Requested: General Plan Text Amendment, Municipal Code Text
Amendment,Environmental Review.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None
12. Attachments:
Attachment 1: Vicinity Map (LUE Figure 4)
Attachment 2: Expanded Project Description and Proposed General Plan Amendments
Attachment 3: Downtown Views Photo Representations
Attachment 4: Downtown Buildings Photo Representations
Attachment 5: Historic District Boundaries
Attachment 6: Community Design Guidelines, Chapter 4—Downtown
Attachment 7: City of San Luis Obispo Inventory of Historic Resources
Attachment 8: COSE Chapter 3 —Historic Preservation Policies
Attachment 9: CHC Meeting Updates: 8-28-2006 and 9-25-2006 _
Attachment 10: ARC Meeting Update: 10-2-2006
Attachment 11: Computer Shadow Model Representations
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
Attachment 12
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
X Aesthetics Geology/Soils X Public Services
Agricultural Resources Hazards&Hazardous Recreation
Materials
Air Quality Hydrology/water Quality X Transportation&Traffic
Biological Resources Land Use and Planning X Utilities and Service
Systems
Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of
Si cane
Energy and Mineral Population and Housing ' Ff
Resources VR
FISH AND,GAME FEES
There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish
X and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a
de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees.
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been
circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more
State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days(CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
Attachment 12
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and X
agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
reared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL RvIPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant' impact(s) or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the.earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,nothing further is required.
Signature Date
k4 E U
Printed Name For:John Mandeville,
Community Development Director
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
Attachment 12
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No Impact" answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact"answer should be explained where it is
based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to
pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved,including off-site as well as on-site,cumulative as well
as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. The explanation of each
issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold,if any,used to evaluate each question.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact'is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant If there are
one or more"Potentially Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made,an EIR is required.
4. "Potentially Significant Unless.Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has
reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must
describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis,"may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process,an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D) of.the California Code of
Regulations. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at.the end of the-checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to,a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate,include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached,and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion. In this case,a brief discussion should identify the following:
A. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
B. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,and state whether such effects
were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis.
C. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to
which they address site-specific conditions for the project
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CMECKusr 2006
Attachment "12
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Ing_:,ation Sources Sources Potentially atentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#50-06 Downtown Building Height/Intensity Limits issues unless impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
1.AESTHETICS. Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1,2 X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited
to,trees,rock outcroppings,open space,and historic buildings X
within a local or state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of 3,4 X
the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would X
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Evaluation
a) Scenic Vistas and Views-Figure 11 of the Conservation and Open Space Element(COSE) is the City's Scenic Roadways
Map, which shows the scenic vistas that are located in the City. None of these vistas are physically located in the downtown
core area and the proposed project will have no direct effect on these vistas. Appendix 'B" of the Circulation Element
includes the Scenic Roadway Survey Methodology and the City's evaluation of roads with scenic value. The study shows that
roadway locations within the downtown core area scored too low in the visual quality evaluation to be designated as scenic
roadways. However,many of the visual resources identified in Figure 11 are visible from downtown. Views from downtown
out towards the hillsides include the following visual resources in their order of prominence: Cerro San Luis,Cuesta Grade,
Santa Lucia Range, Bishop's Peak, Laguna Lake Ridge, Terrace Hill, Irish Hills, and South Street Hills. A photo
representation of these views is attached(Attachment 3).
The Land Use Element includes policies regarding open places and views downtown,specifically:
LUE Policy 4.7: Downtown should include many carefully located open places where
people can rest and enjoy views of the surrounding hills. Downtown should include some
outdoor spaces where people are completely separated from vehicle traffic, in additional
to Mission Plaza. Opportunities include extensions of Mission Plaza, a few new plazas,
and selected street closures.
Open places in the downtown core where people can rest and enjoy views of the surrounding hills currently include the Jack
House Gardens,Mission Plaza,the creekwalk extension,the Chinese Memorial Garden(under construction),the corner plaza
at City Hall and the lawn and plaza in front of the County Government Center(Old Courthouse Building). In addition,there
are plans for two potential street closures where views are available. These include the Broad Street dog-leg and Monterey
Street between Osos and Santa Rosa. No change is proposed to this policy.
To the extent that the proposed project would increase the number of buildings downtown that are developed or redeveloped
to heights between 50 and 75 feet,existing views of surrounding visual resources will be lost at the sidewalk level. Recent
projects approved and developed in the downtown core area, including the Marsh Street Parking Garage Expansion and the
Court Street project, illustrate this fact. Both projects obscured sidewalk-level views of Cerro San Luis. However, these
recent projects show that the impact occurs under existing conditions, with development up to but not exceeding 50 feet tall.
Therefore the effect of the proposed project, which would increase the number of buildings built above 50 feet in height, is
considered minor with respect to its effect on scenic vistas. However, if existing policies are not clarified, views from the
public places discussed in LUE Policy 4.7 could be compromised. The proposed amendment to LUE Policy 4.13 and the
mitigation measures listed below are intended to insure that these views from public open places are protected as part of the
project.
The effects of individual development projects on existing views are evaluated based on the goals, policies and programs
included in Chapter 9 of the COSE. In particular,COSE Policy 9.22.1 says that"the City will preserve and improve views of
important scenic resources from public places."
CITY OF SAN LUIS Osispo 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLsT 2006
Attac
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Irn,,.,t ation Sources Sources Potentially otentiallyLess Ihan No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#50-06 Downtown Building Height/Intensity Limits Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inc rated
The downtown core area is intended to be the most intensely developed location in the City, and yet, because of its valley
setting, is essentially surrounded by visual resources and views that people enjoy. LUE Policy 4.7 provides clear policy
direction because it says that downtown should include many carefully located open places where people can rest and enjoy
views of the hills. However,LUE Policy 4.13 seems to indicate that views from sidewalks should be protected throughout the
downtown core through modified building design. The proposed project amends LUE Policy 4.13 to reinforce the need for
view protection from public open places that is discussed in both LUE Policy 4.7 and COSE Policy 9.22.1,while insuring that
most development projects in the downtown core area are not minimized for the purpose of view protection. During their
discussion of building height and intensity in the downtown core, the Cultural Heritage Committee and the ARC expressed
support for the following land uselview protection strategy:
Use building design, street furniture and landscaping to provide a comfortable sense of
enclosure for pedestrians on the sidewalk (as discussed in the Community Design
Guidelines), while.preserving hillside views from carefully located public open places,
and encouraging public access to "new views." Tree selection in these public, open
places should be consistent with maintaining views,and trees with a dense canopy should
be avoided(see Attachments 9 and 10 for CHC and ARC meeting updates).
The ARC further recommended that the City undertake a study of important views in the downtown core area that should be
protected. Therefore,the following mitigation measure is recommended as a new Land Use Element Program.
Mitigation Measure AES-1: New Land Use Element Program—The City will undertake a study of visual resources within
the Downtown core area to identify potential locations for new publicly-owned open places with access to views of important
scenic resources. The City will consider protecting these views by creating open places through street closures and/or
property acquisition, as encouraged by LUE Policy 4.7. A range of options for property acquisition, including development
agreements,will be considered,consistent with the City's fiscal policies and objectives.
The proposed mitigation measure would mitigate the potential impact to a less than significant level because, in conjunction
with existing COSE policies,the new program will insure that there will always be public locations within the downtown core
area where views of surrounding visual resources will be available. The new program encourages proactive implementation
of LUE Policy 4.7,4.13 and COSE Policy 9.22.1.
The land use strategy discussed above was supported by the ARC and CHC and the proposed amendments to LUE Policy
4.13 are based on this direction. It should also be noted that there are many views throughout the downtown core area that are
not located in"public open places"and also will not be impacted by future development of mid-rise buildings. For instance,
sidewalk areas around the perimeter of the CD zone,such as on Palm Street between Nipomo and Broad,provide high-quality
views of adjacent hillsides. Views from the sidewalk,parallel to the roadway are also available throughout the CD zone(see
Attachment 3). The view of the Irish Hills looking down the roadway at Palm and Morro will be unchanged by future
development. The sidewalk level view of Cuesta Grade at Monterey and Santa Rosa is exceptional and will also be
unchanged by this project. Existing General Plan policy encourages public access to "new views," which are those views
created at the upper levels of new development projects. These views take advantage of the downtown core area's unique
setting in a valley amidst numerous visual resources and can provide 360-degree views of the surrounding hillsides,providing
the public with a connection to the natural landscape that would not otherwise be available.
b) Other Scenic Resources- Highway 101 along the western edge of downtown San Luis Obispo is designated as a roadway
of moderate scenic value in Figure 11 of the COSE. The proposed project would enable some taller buildings within the
downtown core , up to 75 feet tall where the current height limit is 50 feet. No views from the scenic highway would be
impacted by this change because the visual resources available from the highway are to the west and north of the downtown
core(Attachment 3).
c) Visual Character and Quality-The visual quality of the downtown core area is defined by a combination of features. The
character defining features can be broadly categorized as pedestrian orientation and historic character. Pedestrian-oriented
features include:
CRY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
Attachment 12
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Int-_._.iation Sources sodices Potentially' _.iteatially I.—Than ivo
Significant Significant Signifii.ant Impact
ER#50-06 Downtown Building Height/Intensity Limits
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inco ted
• continuous building storefronts
• recessed building entries with 12'to 16'first floor heights
• mid-block pedestrian connections
• generally low-scale street walls with one to three-story facades and a few notable taller buildings(Attachment 4)
• _sidewalk-level access to sum and shade
• public open space areas that are separated from vehicles with access to views
• landscape features such as benches,planters,large canopy street trees and lighting
• a proliferation of awnings and projecting signs that are designed for and oriented to pedestrians on the sidewalk
The visual quality is also defined by historic character. This character is created by the historic buildings within the
downtown core area and the traditional development pattern that is prevalent within the Downtown Historic District, which
covers most of the project area(Attachment 5). This traditional development pattern is associated with the numerous historic
buildings in the downtown core and their components,such as traditional building materials,decorated parapets and cornices,
and a combination of land uses including residential apartments or offices above retail storefronts. Potential impacts to
historic character are evaluated in the Cultural Resources section of this Initial Study.
The evaluation below addresses potential impacts to visual quality with respect to downtown's pedestrian-oriented features.
The proposed project would have an adverse impact on the visual character or quality of the downtown core area if future
development of tall buildings impacts the ability of new development to create or maintain the pedestrian features listed
above.
Continuous Building Storefronts
The project will not change the requirement for continuous storefronts in the downtown core area because the Community
Design Guidelines strongly encourage this type of development and LUE Policy 4.13 is being amended to clarify that building
design need only be modified to provide access to street level views when adjacent to publicly owned open places.
Recessed Building Entries with 12'to 16'First Floor Heights
The proposed policy changes would allow for new four story buildings to include sufficient height that the first floor would
not need to be diminished in size,consistent with the historic development pattern of the downtown core area.
Mid-Block Pedestrian Connections
The proposed policy changes specifically encourage mid-block pedestrian connections, where appropriate. These types of
spaces encourage people to take new routes to locations throughout the downtown core area, and open up new locations for
people to explore.
Generally Low-Scale Street Walls With One to Three-Story Facades and a Few Notable Taller Buildings
Attachment 4 provides photo representations of existing building facades in the downtown core area. The incorporation of
new mid-rise buildings into a lower scale environment is considered one of the biggest challenges of successful downtown
development. The following is a list of Best Practices for new downtown development provided in the Downtown
Development Handbook(ULI, 1992):
1) Breaking the horizontal expanse of long facades into increments that relate to the human scale by using
fenestration,architectural details,and varying setbacks and rooflines to define a sequence of bays;
2) Articulating the building mass to create an aggregation of smaller forms as a means of reducing the
perception of overwhelming bulk;
CrrY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 8 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
attachment 12
Issues, Discussion and Supporting I61_l.Zation Sources Sources Potentially Stentiauy Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#50-06 Downtown BuildingHeight/Intensity ht/Intensi Limits Issues unless Impact
g � Mitigation
Incorporated
3) Providing a sequence of public spaces and walkways that are linked to the street grid;
4) Using setbacks to reinforce the definition of the streetwall and.bring interior activities to the edge of the
pedestrian zone.
5) Orienting major facades and entrances to the streets that serve as important pedestrian corridors;
6) Using transparent ground-story facades and retail activity to integrate the structure functionally with other
uses that edge the street;and
7) Designing transitions in height and massing.
The Architectural Review Commission and the CHC reviewed this list of Best Practices in conjunction with an overview of
the City's Community Design Guidelines(Attachment 6). It was determined that an update to the Design Guidelines should
be undertaken, specifically to address transitions in height and massing between new development and existing buildings.
The ARC appointed a subcommittee to work with staff on this amendment. The following mitigation measure is
recommended to insure that this update takes place.
Mitigation Measure AES-2: New Land Use Element Program - The Community Design Guidelines shall be updated to
include guidelines for mid-rise buildings within the downtown core area,with a particular focus on guidelines for architectural
transitions between new development and existing buildings within the Downtown Historic District.
As discussed in the Community Design Guidelines building height is necessary to "enclose the street so that it provides a
pleasant space for pedestrians." This concept is detailed in Fundamentals of Urban Design (Hedman and Jaszewski, 1984),
which says that providing a sense of enclosure helps pedestrians become comfortable in public spaces and allows them to
focus on details of building design,storefront displays,street furniture and other pedestrian oriented features.
This sense of enclosure is best achieved with a building height to street width ratio between 1:2 and 1:1. Higuera Street and
Marsh Street are 70 feet wide from storefront to storefront. Therefore, buildings between 35 feet and 70 feet tall would fall
within the recommended height for pedestrian orientation along these street frontages. When the ratio of building height to
street width exceeds the 1:1 ratio, the tops of buildings are no longer visible in the pedestrian's peripheral view without
adjusting the head angle,providing a less comfortable environment.
Proposed LUE Policy 4.16.4 states that new buildings should be set back above the second or third story to maintain a street
fagade that is consistent with the historic pattern of development. Adherence to this policy and the Design Guidelines will
insure that appropriate height to width ratios are achieved throughout the downtown core area.
Sidewalk Level Access to Sun and Shade
City staff has analyzed the downtown core street grid with respect to the movements of the sun over the course of the year.
The City's street grid is skewed to the west such that buildings along Monterey, Higuera and Marsh Streets face southeast
(even side of the street) and northwest (odd side of the street). This skew provides an exceptional benefit in terms of solar
access at the sidewalk level because it creates a sunny side of the street(even side, facing southeast) and a shady side (odd
side, facing northwest). Later in the day, when shadows get longer, the shadows of the odd side buildings are cast in the
northeast direction and do not reach the sidewalk on the even side of the street, except in a few locations. The sidewalks
along the odd side of Monterey,Higuera and Marsh even get some direct sunlight late in the day(when temperatures drop and
direct sunlight is highly desirable). The orientation of the streets and the resulting pattern of sunlight and shade on the
sidewalks contributes greatly to the downtown core area's sense of place. Pedestrians downtown essentially have a choice
between walking in the sun or shade. The intensity of the sun and the ambient temperature will often determine what side of
the street a person chooses to walk down.
CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPo 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
Attachment 12
Issues, Discussion and Supporting In). ..ettion Sources sources Potentially _ 'iteatially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#50-06 Downtown BuildingHeight/intensity ht/intensi Limits Issues unless Impact
9 tY Mitigation
Incorporated
This issue is primarily a concern on downtown's main arterial streets, Monterey,Higuera and Marsh. During the course of
the day, sidewalks along the cross streets all receive direct sunlight as the sun transits from east to west. In addition,
sidewalks on the odd side of cross streets(buildings face northeast) get morning sun. The sidewalks along the even side of
cross streets (buildings face southwest) receive afternoon and evening sum. These cross streets are narrower and adjacent
buildings do cast shadows on sidewalks across the street in many locations.
Based on this analysis, an impact to the visual character of the downtown core area would occur if new buildings located
along the odd side of Monterey,Higuera,and Marsh cast a shadow onto the sidewalk of the sunny side of the street-the even
side facing southeast. This effect is most damaging during the winter solstice,when access to sun is at apremium and the sun
is lowest in the sky. Staff has prepared a computer model to illustrate the shading effects of progressively taller buildings in
the project area. Attachment 11 includes two representative views of the model, one is a plan view and the other is a
perspective. The analysis shows that as buildings get taller and bulkier, shadow effects increase. However, when taller
buildings are designed to meet the proposed FAR standard,of 3.75, and include setbacks after the second or third story, the
effects of shadows are diminished,and solar access for pedestrians on downtown sidewalks is not impacted.
As part of the proposed project, LUE Policy 4.5 would be amended to say that new buildings should not obstruct sunlight
from reaching sidewalks on the northwest side of the downtown core's key arterial streets, Monterey, Higuera and Marsh.
These are the main streets used by pedestrians traveling to destinations in the downtown core area.
To the extent that new downtown buildings are set back above the second or third story, as required by LUE Policy 4.16.4
and the Community Design Guidelines, the potential shading of these sidewalks will be diminished. As illustrated by the
Anderson Hotel,and by the City's computer shading model,tall buildings that are not set back above the second or third story
are likely to shade sidewalks with southern exposure. Therefore,the following mitigation measure is recommended to insure
compliance with the proposed amendment to I.UE Policy 4.5:
Mitigation, Measure AES-3: Planning applications submitted for Architectural Review of buildings between 50 to 75 feet
tall shall include a solar shading analysis to illustrate shading caused by proposed buildings between the hours of 11:00 AM
and 3:00 PM during the winter solstice.
Public Open Space Areas Separated From Vehicles, With Access to Views
This character defuung feature of the downtown core area is expressed by LUE Policy 4.7 and is further implemented by the
project through revisions to LUE Policy 4.13,which is intended to strengthen the City's ability to protect views from publicly
owned open places such as Mission Plaza.
Landscape Features Such as Benches, Planters, Large Canopy Street Trees and Lighting
The proposed project would have not have an impact on these landscape features. In many cases, wider sidewalks will be
provided with new development,creating an increased opportunity for these pedestrian landscape features.
A Proliferation of Awnings and Projecting Signs Designed for and Oriented to Pedestrians on the Sidewalk
The proposed project would not have an impact on storefront building designs, which are controlled by the Community
Design Guidelines. In particular, adherence to Design Guidelines Section 4.2.C.3 (Storefront Rhythm) and 4.2.C.4
(Individual Storefront Proportions) will help insure that new buildings reflect the traditional development pattern of the
downtown core area and do not impact the area's visual quality or sense of place.
d) Light and Glare - The City's Community Design Guidelines (Section 6.1.C) includes standards for lighting that are
intended to reduce light spill and glare. The proposed project would enable some buildings in the downtown core to be
developed between 50 and 75 feet tall. The changes proposed to the City's policies and municipal code will not result in
substantial light or glare or lighting of the nighttime sky since care is given during the review of each proposed building
design to insure compliance with existing standards.
Crry OF SAN LUIS OwsPo 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKusT 2006
Attachment 12
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Int.-....ation Sources Sources Potentially )tentiauy Less Titan No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#50-06 Downtown Building Height/Intensity Limits Issues unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Conclusion
The proposed project involves changes to the City's General Plan, to be implemented by an amendment to the Zoning
Regulations,that would permit development of buildings between 50 and 75 feet tall in the downtown core area. The project
is expected to improve the ability of property owners and developers to provide dwelling units in new buildings,as required
by the Housing Element of the General Plan. The project also provides opportunities to insure that new buildings incorporate
design amenities and maximize revenue producing land uses (such as retail stores,restaurants and hotels) that contribute to
the economic health of the City by creating jobs and contributing to City revenues through increased sales tax and transient
occupancy tax receipts.
The above analysis focuses on aesthetics issues and indicates that development of tall buildings in the downtown core area has
the potential to create significant environmental impacts on both scenic vistas and the visual character of the downtown core
area.
Mitigation Measures are recommended to insure that potentially significant impacts are reduced to insignificant levels. These
measures include:
Mitigation Measure AES-1: New Land Use Element Program—The City will undertake a study of visual resources within
the Downtown core area to identify potential locations for new publicly-owned open places with access to views of important
scenic resources. The City will consider protecting these views by creating open places through street closures and/or
property acquisition, as encouraged by LUE Policy 4.7. A range of options for property acquisition,including development
agreements,will be considered,consistent with the City's fiscal policies and objectives.
Mitigation Measure AES-2: New Land Use Element Program - The Community Design Guidelines shall be updated to
include guidelines for tall buildings within the downtown core area, with a particular focus on guidelines for architectural
transitions between new development and existing buildings within the Downtown Historic District.
Mitigation Measure AES-3: New Planning Application Requirement - Planning applications submitted for Architectural
Review of new buildings between 50 to 75 feet tall shall include a solar shading analysis to illustrate shading caused by
proposed buildings between the hours of 11:00 AM and 3:00 PM during the winter solstice.
With incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures,the impacts of the project are considered less than significant.
2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of
Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps 5 g
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a g
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to
their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland X
to non-agricultural use?
Evaluation
a) The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency identifies the project site as urban
land,therefore no farmland conversion will result from the project.
b) No Williamson Act contract or agricultural zoning exists with the project boundaries.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 11 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
Attachment 12
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Int,....ation Sources Sources Potentially irentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#50-06 Downtown BuildingHeight/intensity ht/intensi Limits Issues unless Impact
g � Mitigation
Incorporated
c) The proposed project would not change the environment in a way that could result in conversion of farmland to non-
agricultural uses.
Conclusion
The project will have no impact on agricultural resources and is intended to relieve pressure on development at the fringes of
the community by allowing for intensification and infill development within an area that is already completely urbanized.
3. AIR QUALITY. Would theproject:
a) Conflict`with or obstruct implementation of the.applicable-air X
quality plats? 6
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to,aiv X
existing or projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulativelyconsiderable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is nonrattainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard X
(including releasing enmissions which exceed qualitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)? . .
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of X
people?
Evaluation
a),b) San Luis Obispo County is a non-attainment area for the State and PM10(fine particulate matter 10 microns or smaller
in diameter) air quality standards. State law requires that emissions of non-attainment pollutants and their precursors be
reduced by at least 5%per year until the standards are attained. The proposed project does not directly involve development
related activities. When future projects are proposed under the revised policies, those projects will be reviewed by the Air
Pollution Control District(APCD)for compliance with the local Clean Air Plan and CEQA Air Quality Handbook,published
by the APCD. The recommendations of the APCD for mitigating air impacts during the construction and operational phases
of projects are routinely implemented by the City through discretionary review processes,such as Architectural Review.
c) The project is intended to allow for a moderate increase in the intensity of development in the downtown core,CD zone.
To the extent that the project also results in increased vehicle trips, air quality impacts may occur. When new projects are
proposed they are routinely evaluated for their impacts to air quality, and where necessary, trip reduction requirements are
required to reduce the number of vehicle trips that are likely to be generated by the project, consistent with existing
Circulation Element policies. The location of the proposed project,the downtown core area,is proximate to services,public
transportation and bicycle routes,which increases the potential effectiveness of vehicle trip reduction measures.
d) The downtown area is occupied by retail businesses,offices,public uses and residential uses that do not create substantial
pollutant concentrations. Residential uses are considered sensitive receptors,however, the proposed project will not increase
exposure of residents to substantial pollutant concentrations.
e) The project is not expected to result in the creation of objectionable odors. Occasionally businesses in the downtown
engage in activities that have the potential to create strong odors. In mixed-use developments, these types of activities are
controlled through existing ordinance requirements (SLOMC 17.08.072.A.1). Other uses are evaluated for consistency with
adjacent uses through the Architectural Review or use permit approval processes. Odor complaints are investigated and
enforced by the Air Pollution Control District,as well as City Code Enforcement.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo 12 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECCKKUSr 2006
�y
achment 19
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Int._..ation Sources ources Potentially . _ entially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#50-06 Downtown Building Height/intensity Limits Issues iImpact
Mititigatigati on
Incorporated
Conclusion
The proposed project will facilitate the development of housing in a location that is proximate to services,public transit and
bicycle routes and is therefore consistent with APCD recommendations, Individual projects that are proposed in the future
are subject to the requirements of the San Luis Obispo Clean Air Plan. Future projects that exceed CAP thresholds will be
required to adopt specific mitigation measures to reduce potential air quality impacts. During the construction phase of new
buildings downtown, the City requires compliance with the Clean Air Plan and APCD recommendations for dust control, in
addition to the City's own dust control ordinance. During the operational phase of new development projects, the City
implements alternative transportation and demand management programs as recommended by APCD and encouraged by the
City's Circulation Element. The proposed project will have a less than significant impact on air quality.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a)..,Have a,st bstantial adverseef€ecG ez bes c�reat)q grthrougb ?" X
9"
ns,on anps*i 's-zdene& Fas a catdate?
°'-sensiti�e•,�oY spectalistatus�Retttas trtlucal etz regnaLplatrs; � -Ri
a poheres a ieg�ulati4ns,orilaj+-.t4 a Gzftifor�ya]J pattrnen[of Ftski,
and Gairie;or TJX:Frislt and VlRiidtifeervrce?-""•
y moi.
Mave a S ltstanttal`adverse et pct,on anp aa�ar ran,}tabrtat of X
attief'•sensituve naMual wnlinuznbyzdentt ed m lol l o%r gi x�alu i
r:
plants,p'olicres,pr iegalaucin; pr by.rlt California Depart 4�nti, ':
of fth-and;Game or t�J S Fisk and*ddlhfe Service?. . .
�ej Rave a:substantial adverse effect on fei}erally�p btected wetlands X
as defined in Section 404 of the GMA'Water Anti rnc}riflkng,,liut'^;
'tigt limited.to,marsh,vernal goal;:coastal etc);through tliYect
removal,filling,hydrological inte7 iiption o�,othei means'; 7"
d} . interfere.substantially with,the miiVe 'ent of arty tauwe resideii X
or migratory fisb or wildlifeuspecies,orlvtaQh esta' is' natuvef
resrderrt ortmtgratot wildlife Forfdors;M_ 'I gse of
K '
nativeidldtifen_sery?ries?.,
Conflicr*ith anv�joc:;I-FoIi res of oirdinances protecting.. X
ljtalogical resour¢e_s>•sucb"as.4 tree presedation poUcy or, a .'•1
orilinanco? a ,
t) :,patlict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conse iron '' X
Flan;Natural Community Gonservapori,Flan,,or other approved i
Wal,re11e
" pal or stat6 habitat conservation •'lan?
Evaluation
a), b), c), d), e), f) The proposed project would establish policies, programs and ordinance standards to enable mid-rise
buildings in the downtown core area of San Luis Obispo. This is an area that is completely urbanized and intensely developed
with building and infrastructure. San Luis Obispo Creek also runs through the center of the downtown core area. Further
encroachment on the creek's riparian area is prohibited by the City's Creek Setback Ordinance. Future proposals to develop
buildings adjacent to the creek will have to comply with the requirements of the ordinance.
Conclusion
The project will have no impact on biological resources.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the vrQiect..
'a) °Cause-&substantial advers&chanoe in the ngri ficance Qf'a . ->;" 1,7,8 X
historic resource as.defned in CEQA Guidelines§15064:5't'
b Causea substantial adverse change in the significance of,an 9 X
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEckusT 2006
Attachment 12
Issues, Discussion and Supporting It..-,r„ation Sources sources Potentially &ially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#50-06 Downtown BuildingHeight/Intensity hUlntensi Limits Issues unless Impact
g � Mitigation
incorporated
archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
§15064.5)
C) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource 9 X
or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of 9 X
formal cemeteries?
Settine
San Luis Obispo has a rich cultural heritage spanning the prehistoric, Spanish,Mexican,and American periods. The City is
located within the area historically occupied by the Obispeno Chumash, the northernmost of the Chumash people of
California. The Obispeno occupied land from the Pacific coast east to the coast range and from the Santa Maria River north
to approximately Point Estero. The era of Chumash contact with Europeans began with the initial Spanish exploration of
California in 1542. Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa was founded in 1772, the first Spanish establishment in Chumash
territory. In 1822 California became a Mexican Territory, and the mission lands gradually became private ranchos via the
new Mexican land grants. After California entered the Union in 1850,the ranchos continued to raise cattle until 1863-1864,
when a severe drought depleted the cattle. By 1869, dairying had become an important part of the local economy,headed
primarily by Swiss and Swiss-Italian farmers. Chinese,Portuguese, and other ethnic groups also played important roles in
local history,particularly in the downtown core area.
From its inception as a mission settlement in 1772,the commercial and civic life of San Luis Obispo evolved along the streets
adjacent to the Old Mission.Today,the principal business district covers roughly the same area it did in the late 19th century,
occupying both sides of Monterey,Higuera, and Marsh Streets between Santa Rosa and Nipomo Streets. This is essentially
the project boundary, covering the current Downtown Commercial (CD) zone. Here is located the City's largest
concentration of historic,multi-storied commercial,residential and public buildings,offering visible proof of the significance
and central role of Downtown over time. The evolution of the current streetscape began in 1873, when the County built its
Greek Revival style courthouse to replace the 1850 adobe original. With the connection of Higuera Street between 1889-
1892, the streetscape surrounding the project area began to mature. As the pattern of transportation and land use changed in
the early 1900s, commercial buildings began to outnumber private residences in the study area. Civic and commercial
buildings housing retail establishments,restaurants,professional offices,and residential units on upper floors,today dominate
the built environment. Architectural styles are eclectic, and include Mission Revival, Tudor Revival, California Craftsmen,
Richardsonian Romanesque, early 20th century commercial, Spanish Colonial Revival, Streamline Moderne, and
Contemporary. Due to the high concentration of cultural resources — including both archaeological sites and historic
buildings—Downtown San Luis Obispo has been designated as a Historical District.
Archaeological Resources
The archaeology of San Luis Obispo reflects the City's rich,multi-cultural heritage. Archaeological excavations and
construction projects have unearthed an unusually rich collection of pre-historic and historic artifacts and features considered
as significant under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)Section 15064.5. Although limited in geographic area,
past excavations suggest that the probability of encountering additional artifacts and archaeological features due to future
development projects is high.
Records pertaining to prehistoric sites within the city are very limited. Chert flakes,fire-affected rock,and shell have been
documented at CA-SLO-1424 and CA-SLO-835. CA-SLO-30,at Mill and Osos streets,reportedly contained four burials.
However,the site,discovered in 1948,was poorly documented. Prehistoric materials also were reportedly discovered in 1986
during construction of the Palm Street parking structure,but there is no report of these discoveries.
Many of the prior studies document historical research and excavations in the vicinity of Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa.
The Palm Street Historic Site,CA-SLO-1419H,was discovered in 1986 during construction of the Palm Street parking
stricture. The site contains extensive remains from the Mission period to the present. Recent investigation of this site at the
city-owned Kozak parking lot property on the corner of Palm and Morro Streets revealed an extensive Mission-era Chumash
midden as well as late 19 century refuse deposits(SLO-1419H,Heritage Discoveries 1995).
CrrY OF SAN Luis OBISPo 14 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
Attachment 12
Issues, Discussion and Supporting li,._.,,,ation Sources Sources Potentiall, ,iennally Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#50-06 Downtown BuildingHeight/Intensity ht/Intensi Limits issues unless impact
9 � Mitigation
Incorporated
Historical Resources
Proposed projects within the Downtown Historic District would be near or next to several of the City's most historically and
architecturally significant buildings. These include:Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa,Murray Adobe,Carnegie Library,
Ah Louis Store,Muzio's Store,Sauer/Adams Adobe,Sauer Bakery,Universal Auto Parts Building,J.P.Andrews Building,
Fremont Theatre,Sperry-Laird Building,and the Anderson Hotel. Several of the listed structures have been determined to be
eligible or"potentially eligible"for the National Register of Historic Places.
Evaluation
a) The project site area is predominantly located within the.Downtown Historic District, which has a significant inventory of
historical resources. This inventory is included in the City's Historical Resource Preservation Guidelines and is attached to
this initial study (Attachment 7). New buildings can have an impact on existing historical resources in two ways,directly,by
altering or demolishing existing buildings to make way for new ones, or indirectly, by changing the overall character of the
historic district.
Chapter 3 of the Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) includes specific goals, policies and programs to promote
historic preservation (Attachment 8). The following analysis provides an overview of how these policies work to protect
historic resources from direct impacts (relocation, demolition,etc.), as well as impacts associated with incompatible adjacent
development.
COSE Policy 3.21.2 Demolitions. Historically or architecturally significant buildings should not be
demolished or substantially changed in outward appearance, unless doing so is necessary to remove a threat to
health and safety and other means to eliminate or reduce the threat to acceptable levels are infeasible.
COSE Policy 3.21.2 provides clear direction that the City should not approve projects that demolish or substantially alter the
appearance of historic buildings, unless doing so is necessary to remove a threat to health and safety and other means to
eliminate or reduce the threat to acceptable levels are infeasible. Projects that propose to remove historic buildings that are
not a safety threat should be considered inconsistent with the General Plan and denied on this basis. Individual policies,that
state that a direction "should" be followed, however, are interpreted in the context of all other policies and it is conceivable
that a project that demolishes a historic resource could be found consistent with the General Plan if the project, as a whole,
was consistent with other policies and furthered other important goals and objectives. This policy is an important mitigation
to the impact that taller building limits will have in the form of an incentive for property owners to replace smaller historic
buildings with buildings capable of generating more revenue.
COSE Policy 3.21.4 Changes to historic buildings. Changes or additions to historically or architecturally
significant buildings should be consistent with the original structure and follow the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Buildings. New buildings in historical districts, or on historically
significant sites, should reflect the form, spacing and materials of nearby historic structures. The street
appearance of buildings which contribute to a neighborhood's architectural character should be maintained.
COSE Policy 3.21.4 specifically refers to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards as the guiding document for how historic
properties should be treated. When rehabilitation projects are submitted to the City, staff provides decision makers with an
analysis of how well theproject meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. These standards mitigate the potential impact
that new construction can have on the appearance of historically and architecturally significant buildings. This policy also
provides guidance for new buildings in historic districts, such as the Downtown Historic District and the Chinatown Historic
District. Projects within historic districts or that directly effect historic resources are referred to the CHC for review.
COSE Policy 3.21.5 Historic Districts and Neighborhoods. In evaluating new pubic or private development,
the City should identify and protect neighborhoods and districts having historical character due to the
collective effect of Contributing or Master List historic properties.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO b INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
Attachma
Issues, Discussion and Supporting h. .1-,i ion Sources Sources Potentiate, ,trntially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#50-06 Downtown BuildingHei htlintensi Limits Issues Unless Impact
g � Mitigation
Incorporated
The Downtown Historic District and the Chinatown Historic District are both located within the project area. New projects
located within historic districts must be evaluated for their affect on adjacent historical resources and on the district as a
whole.
COSE Program 3.30.10 Cultural Heritage Committee Whitepaper. The City will implement the
recommendations of the Cultural Heritage Committee's 'Vhitepaper," including the adoption of an historic
preservation ordinance.
COSE Program 3.30.10 refers to a set of recommendations that the CHC prepared in May 2000, including the adoption of an
historic preservation ordinance. Many of the White Paper recommendations, including a revised Building Demolition
Ordinance, have already been implemented. Existing General Plan policies, such as those that were adopted in the May,
2006,COSE,provide a high level of protection for historic resources.
Staff is currently in the early stages of preparing an historic preservation ordinance. However, the ordinance will not be
adopted before potential changes to downtown building height limits are enacted. Therefore, the CHC recommends to the
City Council that all new downtown development projects be required to be designed in a manner that is consistent with the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Specifically,on September 25th,2006,the CHC
recommended the following required finding for tall buildings:
Any ordinance revision proposed to enable "landmark" buildings (60-75 feet tall) in the downtown core
shall establish the following or similar mandatoryfinding for approval: The proposed project is consistent
with the General Plan because historic resources on the project site will be retained and either preserved
or rehabilitated in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties, unless demolition is necessary to remove a threat to health and safety and other means
to eliminate or reduce the threat to acceptable levels are infeasible.
The purpose of this recommendation is for the CHC to make it clear that,consistent with the City's historic preservation goals
and policies, they will not recommend approval of projects that include demolition of historic resources. Demolitions of
historic buildings are always inconsistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and are always considered a significant
and unavoidable impact under CEQA,the California Environmental Quality Act. If the finding listed above is supported by
the City Council and put into effect as part of the current project,then proposals to demolish historically significant buildings
could not be approved because the finding could not be made in an affirmative manner. In the past,the City Council has only
allowed historic buildings to be demolished if that had lost their integrity, and as such, were no longer considered historical
resources. An example of this would be the Loobliner Building, 969 Monterey Street, which had undergone significant
exterior alterations to the point that the historic value of the building had been compromised and the building was no longer
considered historic by the Council even though it was on the City's Inventory of Historic Resources. The building was
allowed to be demolished and an attractive new building was erected in its place.
As previously stated,the proposed increase in downtown building height and intensity limits in the downtown core area could
make it financially attractive for property owners and developers to try to remove historic buildings and completely redevelop
existing sites. This analysis indicates that there are two approaches to dealing with proposals to demolish historic buildings in
downtown San Luis Obispo. One response would be for the City to prohibit demolitions of historic buildings,except where
there is a threat to health and safety. This could be accomplished in the ordinance that would enable development of tall
buildings in the downtown core,consistent with the CRC's recommendation. The other way would be to evaluate proposed
demolitions on a case-by-case basis. For instance, if a project proposal includes demolition of one or more historically
significant buildings, then the project will create significant and unavoidable impacts under CEQA. CEQA will require the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Report and to approve the project the City Council would have to make Findings of
Overriding Consideration, to indicate why, in consideration of all General Plan policies, the proposed loss of historic
resources is acceptable. While an ordinance would provide for more certainty and potentially better protection of historic
resources,the case by case approach would allow the City Council to make these decisions based on an individual evaluation
of the environmental effects of the proposed project and its overall benefits to the community. For the purpose of this
environmental review,either alternative would result in compliance with CEQA requirements and no mitigation measures are
required. .
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 16 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
/— �7r
Attachment 12
Issues, Discussion and Supporting I, .,,,dtion Sources Sources Potential_ ,tendally Less7han No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#50-06 Downtown Building Height/Intensity Limits Issues unless Impact
Mitigation
Inc orated
b), c), d) The City's Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines include procedures for mitigating potentially
significant impacts to archaeological resources and paleontological resources due to construction projects. Prior projects in
the downtown core area including the Court Street Project and the Pahn Street Garage involved significant mitigation
requirements for archeological resources. Public Works projects within the downtown core area that involve installation
and/or replacement of utilities infrastructure are also evaluated for their potential to disturb archeological resources.
According to the Guidelines, the downtown core area is a sensitive site because of proximity to San Luis Creek and known
archeological resources, including human burials. Therefore, planning applications submitted for new buildings downtown
must include Phase I Archeological Resource Inventories. In most cases,depending on the scope of the project,the Phase I
report will recommend further work,including a Phase II Subsurface Archeological Resource Evaluation. The Phase II report
would include recommendations for avoidance, excavation, recovery, and curation as determined to be necessary by a
qualified archeologist and the Community Development Director. The recommendations are based on the scope of the
project, the significance of the resources, and the value of curation and public education vs. the preferred practice of
avoidance and/or leaving the resource in place. With the Guidelines in effect, the impacts of new development projects on
archeological resources,paleontological resources and potential burials are adequately addressed.
Conclusion
The downtown core area is located within an historic district and among many known archeological sites, including human
burials. The project area also includes many important buildings that are included on the City's Inventory of Historical
Resources. Therefore, new development projects must be evaluated for their potential to impact historic resources, either
directly through alterations or demolitions or indirectly by changing the overall character of the district
There is also very high probability that pre-historic or archeological materials will be found when new development projects
are constructed in the downtown core area. As a result,the Archeological Resource Preservation Guidelines requires that new
projects submit Phase I studies with recommendations on how to proceed. The Guidelines include adopted City standards for
how to proceed in the event that archeological resources are determined to be present. Adherence to these standards insures
the impacts to archeological resources are less than significant.
The City's Cultural Heritage Committee reviews all new development projects and building alterations in the Downtown
Historic District,and makes recommendations to City decision makers regarding potential impacts on historical resources and
archeological resources, consistent with General Plan policies and other City guidelines. CEQA also plays a role because
impacts to historical and archeological resources are considered an impact on the environment. This results in significant
discretionary review requirements for projects that involve alterations to historical resources,and a requirement to prepare an
EIR if an historical resource is proposed for demolition. The proposed project is expected to have a less than significant
impact on Cultural Resources because existing policies that promote historic preservation are in place and adherence to the
City's Community Design Guidelines is required prior to project approvals. Future projects that involve significant,
unavoidable impacts to these resources will require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report.
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would theproject:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse X
effects,including risk of loss,injury or death involving:
I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other 10 X
substantial evidence of a known fault?Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
H. Strong seismic ground shaking? 10 X
III. Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? 10 }(
IV. Landslides? 10 X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X
CRY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo 17 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHC ECKLIsT 2006
/--�79
ttnPhmIznt 12
Issues, Discussion and Supporting L..�A...ation Sources Sone Potentiall, centiany Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#50-06 Downtown Building Height/Intensity Limits Issues unless Impact
Mitigation
Inc orated
BeIdeated on a geatagieunif orsoil.thatis,itn`st�ble,ox thgt ."
would become pasta' a as'a result of the puo(etit,and�iotenga ;! X
: .resultinFort dr'off Site latCdsrde>Ttera�speaJhg;°�FI %den j
liquefaction,or c(, apse?
d} Tae located on expansive s'oil,'as defined in Table-'lS 113 elf the""!
Uniform Building Cade(1994};creatnng sutast&ntt#1 nsksYo ltfe X
or pr91) -y?
a_): Have soils incapable of adegtzatelq spporting'th'e tisk of septic
tanks or alternative waste water disposal Systems inhere seivers'�-`+ X
are not available fbr the.dis`, sal,-of ivas ivaCer sl
Evaluation
a) There are no known fault lines on site or in the immediate vicinity.However,the City of San Luis Obispo is in Seismic
Zone 4,a seismically active region of California and strong ground shaking should be expected at any time during the life of
proposed structures. Structures must be designed in compliance with seismic design criteria established in the Uniform
Building Code. Since this is a code requirement that is monitored through the review of plans during the Building Division's
plan check process,no further mitigation is necessary.
b) The project area is within the City's urbanized downtown core and the project will not result in substantial soil erosion or
loss of topsoil.
c) The site lies in an area identified by the Safety Element of the General Plan as being in an area of High Liquefaction
Potential. As defined in the Safety Element,liquefaction is"the sudden loss of the soil's supporting strength due to
groundwater filling and lubricating the spaces between soil particles as a result of ground shaking." In extreme cases of
liquefaction,structures can tilt,break apart,or sink into the ground. The likelihood of liquefaction increases with the strength
and duration of an earthquake. The risk of settlement for new construction can be reduced to an acceptable level through
careful site preparation and proper foundation design. Recommendations for proper site preparation and foundation design
are included in project soils reports and soils engineering reports. These documents are required by code to be submitted to
the Building Division as part of the construction permit process,therefore,no further mitigation is necessary.
d) Expansive soils are common in San Luis Obispo and occur in the downtown core area. Recommendations included in
soils reports and soils engineering reports,which are required as part of the building permit application process,are sufficient
to mitigate potential hazards from building on expansive soils. In general,the presence of expansive soils requires additional
base for roadways and flat work and deeper footings for building foundations.
e) Septic tanks are not permitted with new construction in the City. The project will be served by the City's sewer system.
Conclusion
The proposed project involves less than significant impacts with respect to geology and soils.
7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the pro'ect:
a) Create significant hazard to the public or thaenwonment',
through the routine use,transport.or disposal of hazardous X
Materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the epyitprtment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and,accident conditgns X
involving the release of hazardous materials into the,-,
environment? '
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials substances of waste within one=quartet 9 X
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 18 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
1—?6
Attachment 12
Issues, Discussion and Supporting It ....ation Sources Sources Potentiau, .;tenday Less Than rte
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#50-06 Downtown Building Height/Intensity Limits Issues unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
.ittile'of an:exlstfng"orproposedscho�l2 ;>��' ��- ' ;°; '' ; .
d) 'ie located on a site whteli,ia included o'p4a hst of hazardcaus ; '
rnaterials+srtes c6i4i7e3 ptii sttant`tq qtvemineut"od"e ecpion _ X
45962.5 and,as a fesulr,.would at create a stgn fieanf`haza
the public or the ens ironMen0
e) dr a project located within an airport'Iand use Ryan o>;wHotefl
such-ii- lan has notbeeti ado-lited within two rriil`es of a public 9 X
aiiport or-pgblie'use airport,':vbouild thg proleet re"sult in4sa`Fety.41
baz'ard pbople,residmg;orworking,inthepr�a3eetat 2t';
£ n7, projtisct within the vYeiriity of a prvaaraustnp;; otitd the .,�
r .VmJect tbsult in,a,safety"haaard forpeopte ze�iding or�orlung:, 9 X
limpaiz implemgntat on of o}physicallX�tnlet ere,FWith aq'a Is�ted X
eme;gencyFesponse:pian pr.emdrgenc�y evaoAl .1@aCsotr lat>Q'„";t `'
Lipese:Feople of sttuetures-io a srgNficant nsk;of lose;'ii ury;
,ilr",death involvingwuldland:fires,uihchv4— ,where cjTands`are X
adjacentlo urbaakti d areas'or where residences are 7n(e>knuxed x 10
;'4 rg¢ifb..wtildIands4i:
Evaluation
a),b),c),d) Development in the downtown core area normally includes retail,restaurant,office and automobile parking uses
that are not likely to create health hazards. The City's Zoning Regulations insure that uses involving hazardous substances are
separated from densely populated urban areas. Where generators or other fuel tanks are required,permits issued by the City's
Fire Department ensure compliance with applicable public safety standards. The project site area is not subject to reasonably
foreseeable upset or accident conditions because the downtown core area does not include major transportation routes such as
the railroad or Highway 101,which are located outside of the downtown core area.
e),f) The project site is not within the Airport Land Use Plan area and is located greater than two miles from the San Luis
Obispo County Regional Airport.
g) The proposed project will not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan. Projects proposed in the downtown
core area are reviewed by the Fire Marshall to insure compliance with access requirements for firefighters and paramedics.
h) The project site is an urbanized area that is not adjacent to wildland fire areas.
Conclusion
The proposed project will create no impacts with respect to hazards or hazardous materials.
8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the ro'ect:
a) -%61ate arty water quality staridards'or-waste ili charge 'J ;,` X
reguuirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater-Supplies or!At0i...
substantially with groundwater recharge such'that t'here,would be,
a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of iheldqllif
groundwater table,lewel.(e g.the,production rate pf pre-e)eisting'`t X
nearby wells would drop to a.level'which would not support
existing land uses or planneduses for wluch;permitsrhavelbeeu.
granted)? I
c) 'Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site,or :1
area,including through the alteration of the eourse of a stream or,, 11 ){
river,in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 19 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
Attachment 12
Issues, Discussion and Supporting h,._....ation Sources Sources Potentially_" nentiaUy Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#50-06 Downtown Building Heightlintensity Limits Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
ailwtoff on or off site?
d) Substantially alter.thee=ting.drainage pattentof the s tear
area,iticlu* throti the alteration of ai
g gh the ccttirse of-a a'r X
river,or substantially increase thetate or amount of surface 11
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding ori or off site?
e) Create or zontribute runoff water whioh would eXceecl the:,
capadt+y of existing or planned stossitwaterldrainage systems.or . 11 X
pzovide'substantial additional sources of polluted�ruudff?:'
f) Otherwise'substatrtially-.segradewafer quality?' X
g)• Place housing withih a 100=year flood hazard area.as mapped'r0pi
a federal F1oo8 Fla and Boundary or Fli;.lod Tnsueakce};tate Map 12 X
or other flood&azard delineation map? . ' ,
h) Place within x•100}rear flood hazard area,structures which' 12 X
would impede or redirect flood•flows?.'-
Expose pegple.or structures to significant tiisktgf loss,-7njury,or
death iavolvmi g flooding;`itcluding;Rogding ds aresul of••the X
failure of a levee or dam? ',
Thundationby seicle,tstEnami,or mudtlaw7 X
Evaluation
a) Future development of tall buildings in the downtown core area will not violate water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements because building plans for new development projects are subject to the City's Waterways Management Plan and
requirements established by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The City's standards and the standards applied by the
Regional Board insure that new development project meet all water quality and waste discharge requirements.
b) The project area does not make use of groundwater and development in the downtown core area will have no effect on the
local groundwater table level.
c), d), e), f) Development in the downtown core area does not have the potential to substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern because the area is already completely urbanized. All area drainage from new development projects is directed into
the storm drain system or overland into one of the City's waterways. In the downtown core area, stormwater flows are
directed into San Luis Creek New development is required to be consistent with the requirements of the Waterways
Management Plan, which prohibits increases in the rate and volume.of post development stomrwater runoff. Proof of
compliance with the Waterways Management Plan is required to be submitted to the City at the Planning Application stage,
and this information is verified before construction permits are issued. Development in the downtown core area is not
expected to have a negative effect on water quality.
g) A significant portion of the downtown core area lies within the 100-year flood plain of San Luis Obispo Creek. Over the
years,shallow sheet flooding has been observed. The Flood Insurance Rate Map(FIRM)prepared by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency(FEMA)indicates that portions of the project area are within the AO Zone with a maximum floodwater
depth of 2 feet. The AO Zone is described as areas of 100-year shallow flooding where depths are between 1 and 3 feet.
The potential impacts of flooding in San Luis Obispo are addressed by ordinance requirements contained in the Flood
Damage Prevention Guidelines. For projects in the AO Zone,the ordinance requires the lowest finished floor of buildings to
be raised to a minimum of one foot above the 100-year peak flood elevation. Flood-proofing of downtown commercial
buildings using.flood-gates and the use of building materials that are less likely to be damaged by water are identified as
acceptable alternatives in the ordinance to raising the finished floor elevation.
The project also has the potential to affect flooding downstream, by changing the velocity and elevation of floodwaters
through the addition of new structures within the flood plain. This potential impact is addressed by the Flood Damage
Prevention Guidelines and the Waterways Management Plan. Any project that increases flood depths by more than one foot
is required to implement design alternatives that are consistent with the City's Flood Damage Prevention Guidelines. As part
of the building permit application for buildings proposed in the flood zone,the applicant must submit a hydrologic study that
shows how the project complies with standards of the Flood Damage Prevention Guidelines to the approval of the Public
CnY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 20 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
Attachment 12
Issues, Discussion and Supporting It.,_."..ation Sources Source Potentially .itentially Less 11tan No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#50-06 Downtown Building Heighttintensity Limits Issues riles Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Works Department.
Compliance with standards contained in the Flood Damage Prevention Guidelines and the Waterways Management Plan is
considered adequate to mitigate potentially significant impacts to people and property from flooding hazards.
Conclusion
The project site area is completely urbanized and future development will not negatively effect water quality,runoff patters
or flood levels,and will not subject property to significant flooding hazards,because compliance with existing standards will
require that flood protection measures are installed where necessary and that existing runoff conditions are not exacerbated
with the development of new buildings and other improvements.
9. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would theproject:
a) Physically divide an established community? X
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,or regulation
of an agency with jurisdiction over the, project adopfed.
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific ,plan, X
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted f6r the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan pr natural X
community conservation lain?
Evaluation
a) The proposed project will allow for further infill and intensification of the City's downtown core area and will not
physically divide an established community.
b) The project will not conflict with any land use plan,policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect. The City's General Plan currently allows buildings up to 75 feet tall and residential density up to 36
units per acre in the downtown core area. However,most development in the downtown core area is less intense than current
policies envision. With respect to residential density, the City of San Luis Obispo has seen a net deficit of residential
dwellings in the downtown core area since the current General Plan was adopted. The proposed project would allow for taller
buildings in an effort to facilitate residential development, among other goals, but would not conflict with existing plans or
policies.
c) There are currently no habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans in effect within the project area.
Conclusion
The proposed project will have no impacts on land use and planning.
10. NEINERAL RESOURCES. Would the ro'ect:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the X
state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, X
specific plan or other land useplan?
Evaluation
a), b) The proposed project would not result in the loss of a known mineral resource and no locally-important mineral
resource recovery site has been identified within the project area.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 21 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
U �
Attachment 12
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Int.._,."etion Sources Sources Potentially ;tentially Less Thu No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#50-06 Downtown Building Height/Intensity Limits issues unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Conclusion
The project will have no impact on mineral resources.
11.NOISE. Would the ro'ect result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in exce's"s`of
"standards established in the local general pian pr'noise 13, 14 X
ordinatree,or applicable standards of other agetietes�?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation.ofexce0s v0 groupdbPrAv. X
vibration or groundborne noise lgQels?
e) . A substantial permanent increase in umbiont-rIp se levels in the 13,14
project Wcinity above,levels,existing withotititlre project?4 ' X
d) A substantial temporary, a panodic increasen,ambignt noise 13,14
levels iii fhe;p>;oject vicinity above levels existing without the X
projeet� ,. .
e) For a project locafed withtq.ap airport land use•Tan,or.wlaece'.
sti'c1t a plan-has not be6i adapted within two es of a public X
ort ar. :public use would the;
s p1rt+ prgllecE expose people .
fesidiit :or Workin to the"`ro ect:area to exEe5sige noise levels.?'`,
f) For a project within the vicinity of aptivate_airstrip,would
project expose people residing or working in the ptojeci area'.'to, X
xeessive noise f6eIs? M1
Evaluation
a) The proposed project is located in the City's downtown core area. The Noise Element of the General Plan includes the
City's goals,policies and programs regarding noise exposure. Residential uses are considered noise sensitive uses and the
Noise Element includes standards for interior and exterior noise exposure limits for these types of uses. The Noise Element
also projects noise levels at General Plan build-out.
According to the Noise Element, Figure 5b, the project site area will be subject to transportation generated noise levels in
excess of 60dB. 60dB LDN(24-hour, day and night average) is the maximum level of exterior noise exposure permitted in
residential open space areas, such as private yards and decks, without requiring some form of mitigation. Mitigation of
excessive noise levels is generally possible for up to IOdB of noise(Noise Element,Figure 1). The noise in the project area is
generated primarily by vehicle traffic on Highway 101,but also includes noise from vehicle traffic on area streets. Maximum
interior noise exposure is established at 45dB IDN. Interior noise exposure limits are easier to accomplish because standard
construction techniques will reduce noise exposure levels by 15dB and additional noise attenuation measures can reduce
interior noise exposure by an additional 15dB,resulting in a total interior noise level reduction of MO.
Areas within 342 feet of the centerline of Highway 101 would be subject to noise in excess of 70dB. In these locations it is
more difficult to provide outdoor use areas that comply with acceptable noise exposure limits. However, the project site is
completely outside of the area that is subject to projected noise levels of over MO. Therefore,the proposed project will not
expose people to excessive exterior noise levels. As individual projects come forward for review by the City, noise studies
will be required, per Figure 2 of the Noise Element. Noise study recommendations are routinely incorporated into project
conditions of approval and mitigation measures, to insure that projects are consistent with the General Plan for both interior
and exterior noise exposure limits.
b) The project site is the City's urban downtown core and is not an area that has ground-mounted machinery that would cause
vibration.
c), d) Proposed projects in the downtown core area may include features, such as parking garages, that would increase
ambient noise levels above current levels. Temporary increases in ambient noise levels can occur during construction. The
CITY OF SAN Luis Owspo 22 INITIAL STuOY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
��y
Attachment 12
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Int. ation Sources sources Potentially Jtentially Loss Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#54-06 Downtown BuildingHeight/Intensity htllntens' Limits Issues unless Impact
g Mitigation
Incorporated
City of San Luis Obispo has a Noise Ordinance that includes standards for maximum noise levels across property lines. The
Noise Ordinance also includes standards for construction related noise. Compliance with Noise Ordinance requirements is
required and sufficient to mitigate any potential impacts to less than significant levels.
The Police Department has indicated that it deals with a large number of noise complaints due to existing nightclubs and bars
in the downtown core area. The impacts are generated by sound systems within nightclubs and by patrons of these downtown
businesses. With the development of new buildings in the downtown core area, and the associated_addition of residential
dwellings,conflicts between patrons of nightclubs and bars and downtown residents may increase. Nightclubs and bars in the
downtown area require Administrative Use Permit approval. Use permits typically limit hours of operation and require crowd
control plans. The Noise Ordinance also gives the Police Department the ability to act on noise complaints. Establishments
that continually violate noise standards and are the subject of neighborhood complaints may have their use permits revoked.
If noise complaints rise as more residents are added to the downtown core area, the City may need to revise its noise
ordinance standards accordingly.
e),f) The project area is outside of the boundaries covered by the Airport Land Use Plan for the San Luis Obispo County
Regional Airport.
Conclusion
The proposed project will result in less than significant noise impacts. Future projects proposed in the downtown core area
may be required to prepare Noise studies to insure compliance with the criteria in the General Plan Noise Element and the
City's Noise Ordinance.
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly
(for example, by proposing new homes or businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other X
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating X
the construction of replacement housing else-where?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the X
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Evaluation
a) The proposed project would increase the potential for significant residential development in the downtown core area by
allowing for increased building height (from 50 feet to 75 feet) and increased development intensity (from the current FAR
limit of 3.0 to 3.75). This population growth would be located in an existing urban area that is designed to accommodate
development of the proposed intensity. Existing City policy encourages infill and intensification in areas already committed
to urban development(LUE Goal 12). Existing policy also states that the downtown core area should be the most intensely
developed location in the City (LUE Policy 4.15). Therefore, the increased population that may result from the proposed
policy and ordinance changes would be consistent with existing City policies for population and housing. The project would
help implement Housing Element Policy 6.2.2, which says that new commercial developments in the downtown core area
shall include housing.
b) The project will not displace existing housing and is intended to encourage the development of additional housing,among
other objectives.
c) The project will not displace substantial numbers of people.
CITY OF SAN LUIS Osispo 23 INMAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
kaL "-lT F`A 12
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Infi....,ation Sources :210tentially otentially Iess7uan No
gnificant Significant Significant Impact
ER#50-06 Downtown BuildingHeight/intensity ht/intens' Limits Issues unless Impact
9 ttY Mitigation
Inc orated
Conclusion
The proposed project will have less than significant impacts in the area of population and housing.
13.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities,the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Parks? X
e) Other public facilities? X
Evaluation
a) The San Luis Obispo Fire Department (SLOFD) provides emergency and non-emergency fire protection services in the
City. Emergency services include fire response, emergency medical response, hazardous materials response, and public
assistance. Non-emergency services include fire and life safety inspections,building inspections,fire code investigations,and
public education. SLOFD currently operates four stations and maintains a response time goal of four minutes. Station#1
(2160 Santa Barbara Avenue) and Station#2 (13.6 N. Chorro Street)are located less than 1 mile from the project area,to the
south and north,respectively._
The proposed project would enable development of tall buildings within the downtown core area,to heights between 50 and
75-feet. As opposed to high-rise buildings (buildings that exceed 75 feet in height), these "mid-rise" buildings are not
required to have significant internal fire suppression systems. Internal systems allow fires in high-rise buildings to be
contained and fought from the inside of the building. In contrast,fires in mid-rise buildings would primarily be fought from
the exterior using fire escapes,the City's ladder truck and ladders brought on-site into courtyard areas within a project.
Containing and controlling fires within tall buildings in the City's downtown core area is one of the most challenging and
resource intensive types of potential fires that the SLOFD faces. The City's 75' ladder truck can access the top of the
Anderson Hotel from Court Street. However, other locations present unique challenges. For instance,sidewalks and street
trees in other locations might require the ladder truck to set up farther away from the building and could reduce the potential
height that the ladder could reach. Building setbacks at upper levels could provide a staging area at an upper level deck,but
also would make it more difficult to reach the tallest parts of the building that are set back farther. In some locations
downtown, service alleys, adjacent lower roofs or adjacent vacant parcels would provide access to all sides of a building. In
other locations,the only access to the upper floors of a building would be from the street.
In addition to these access issues, providing fire and life safety protection for tall buildings is very resource intensive,
requiring a large number of firefighters and fire suppression apparatus. Multiple, simultaneous calls are also a concern for
SLOFD. For instance, the City's ladder truck, located at Fire Station#1,is part of an engine company that provides primary
response for a large geographic area in the City. If the ladder truck is out on a prior service call when an emergency occurs in
a downtown building, the response-time objective of four minutes may not be met. In addition, calls for service to a tall
building downtown would likely draw additional engine companies from the City's fire stations on Laurel Lane(Fire Station
#3)and Los Osos Valley Road(Fire Station#4).
The City has limited resources in terms of firefighters and apparatus to serve simultaneous calls for service in different
locations, therefore, it is preferable to design fire suppression systems into buildings to the greatest extent possible. In
recognition of the fact that buildings between 50 and 75 feet involve many of the same fire and life safety challenges as high-
rise buildings, many jurisdictions in California have incorporated high-rise standards into their local ordinances to apply to
proposed mid-rise buildings. As previously stated, high-rise buildings require significant internal fire suppression systems.
High-rise buildings must be designed to meet standards for Type I or Type H fire resistive construction, which means that
CITY OF SAN Luis OBIsPO 24 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIsT 2006
Attachment 12
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Int. _.,ation Sources Sources Potentially .ocmtiauy Uis Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#50-06 Downtown Building Height/Intensity Limits Issues Unless Impact
Mifigafion
Incorporated
non-combustible framing materials, such as steel or concrete, must be used. Standards for high-rise buildings also include
requirements for pressurized stair cores and a fire control room, which would allow the fire department to control fire
suppression systems throughout the building from one location. Santa Monica, Santa Cruz, and Gilroy have all redefined
"high-rise" buildings in their local codes to mean any building that has an occupied floor beginning 55 feet or higher above
adjacent grade,instead of the statewide standard of 75 feet. Other jurisdictions with locally defined regulations for mid-rise
buildings include all of Orange County, San Jose, Fremont, Burbank, Foster City, Ventura and El Segundo, among others.
These other jurisdictions include some,but not all,high-rise requirements in their mid-rise building regulations.
Therefore, as part of the proposed project, the City intends to evaluate the specific standards adopted by other jurisdictions
and agencies to determine if those standards would be effective in the City of San Luis Obispo. This evaluation will occur as
part of the ordinance to implement the proposed General Plan amendments.
As part of the planning process,the design of proposed buildings is evaluated by the City's Fire Marshall. When emergency
access issues are identified, the Fire Marshall can require design modifications to insure that the project meets the Fire Code
and that SLOFD can provide adequate fire fighting and life safety response services to the project. With respect to tall
buildings, advance planning for fire fighting and emergency response is even more important and the following mitigation
measure is recommended to insure that designers of proposed buildings in the downtown core area take these issues into
account early on in the design development process. In addition, SLOFD is currently reviewing standards for high-rise
buildings that might be appropriate for buildings between 50 and 75 feet tall. These requirements may be incorporated into
the project during the second phase,when ordinance revisions are proposed.
Mitigation Measure PS-1: New Planning Application Requirement. Planning applications submitted for new buildings
between 50 and 75 feet tall within the downtown core area shall include a fire and life safety access plan, which will show
how access to upper floors will be provided, consistent with the Uniform Fire Code and the requirements of SLOFD.
Applicants are encouraged to review proposed emergency access plans with the City's Fire Marshal prior to finalizing their
building design and submitting their planning applications.
The above mitigation measure will help insure that buildings between 50 and 75 feet tall are designed in a manner that is
consistent with the Uniform Fire Code and the City's standards. This represents an improvement over the current standard
because it will force building designers to take fire department access requirements into account with the initial design of a
building.
b) Police protection is provided by the City of San Luis Obispo Police Department(SLOPD). Police services for the area are
based at the station located at the intersection of Walnut and Santa.Rosa,just outside of the downtown core area. SLOPD
also operates an un-staffed storefront office on 840 Marsh Street,within the downtown core area.
The Police Department has indicated that courtyard areas and viewing decks that are open to the public should be maintained
under private ownership and patrolled by a private security company because these areas are more difficult to patrol and
would require an increased focus by beat officers. Also of concern with new mid-rise buildings are the design of the
stairwells and elevators in terms of the safety and security of users. SLOPD reviews plans for new development projects in
the downtown core area for these considerations. SLOPD's recommendations can result in design modifications of proposed
buildings to insure that adequate service is provided to the project in its operational phase. Mid-rise buildings that include
multiple uses within a single development are more complicated to police, therefore, the following mitigation measure is
recommended to insure that SLOPD's concerns are addressed early in the design development process.
Mitigation Measure PS-2: Planning Application Requirement. Planning applications submitted for new buildings between .
50 and 75 feet tall within the downtown core area shall include a security plan to cover all proposed parking areas,courtyards
areas, public stairways, elevators and decks. The security plan will identify the locations of 911 capable phones in parking
areas,will establish rules and regulations for public use of courtyards and decks,and establish timeframes for private security
patrols to be in place. Applicants are encouraged to review proposed emergency access plans with the City's Police
Department prior to finalizing their building design and submitting their planning applications.
c) Proposed tall buildings located in the downtown core area will have no impact on area-schools. New development projects
CRY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 25 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Int-_..,,ation Sources Sources Potentially :oteatially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#50-06 Downtown Building Heightlintensity Limits Issues unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
are required to pay school fees,which are used to offset increased demand for school facilities caused by new development.
d) The proposed project may increase the number of residents that live in the downtown core area. The Parks and Recreation
Element of the General Plan includes a standard for parkland of 10 acres per 1000 residents. The development of new
buildings in the downtown core area will contribute to the City's ability to achieve this policy standard through the payment of
in-lieu fees. Fees are set at an amount that is intended to offset the impact of each new dwelling unit. Therefore,the effect of
the proposed project on parks is expected to be less than significant.
e)No other public facilities have been identified that could be impacted by the proposed project.
Conclusion
The proposed General Plan Amendments would enable the development of taller buildings in the downtown core area and
would result in a moderate increase to existing building height and intensity limits. Future projects that are developed under
the proposed policies will increase service demand for fire and police protection. Potentially significant impacts could occur
if proposals for new development are not adequately evaluated to insure that these impacts do not occur. Therefore, the
following mitigation measures are required to insure that new planning applications include the necessary information for the
City to evaluate its ability to provide fire and police protection to new development projects.
Mitigation Measure PS-1: New Planning Application Requirement. Planning applications submitted for new buildings
between 50 and 75 feet tall within the downtown core area shall include a fire and life safety access plan, which will show
how access to upper floors will be provided, consistent with the Uniform Fire Code and the requirements of SLOFD.
Applicants are encouraged to review proposed emergency access plans with the City's Fire Marshal prior to finalizing their
building design and submitting their planning applications.
Mitigation Measure PS-2: Planning Application Requirement. Planting applications submitted for new buildings between
50 and 75 feet tall within the downtown core area shall include a security plan to cover all proposed parking areas,courtyards
areas, public stairways, elevators and decks. The security plan will identify the locations of 911 capable phones in parking
areas,will establish rules and regulations for public use of courtyards and decks,and establish timeframes for private security
patrols to be in place. Applicants are encouraged to review proposed emergency access plans with the City's Police
Department prior to finalizing their building design and submitting their planning applications.
The above mitigation measures insure that SLOFD and SLOPD play an active role in evaluating their ability to serve new
development in the downtown core area. Where SLOFD and SLOPD finds proposed plans unacceptable or inadequate,then
modifications to the plans,or modifications.to project design will be required. Overall, impacts to public services from the
proposed project are considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
14.RECREATION. Would theproject:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical 15 g
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which[night have an adverse g
physical effect on the environment?
a) The proposed project may increase the number of residents that live in the downtown core area. The Parks and Recreation
Element of the General Plan includes a standard for parkland of 10 acres per 1000 residents. The development of new
buildings in the downtown core area will contribute to the City's ability to achieve this policy standard by paying Parkland in-
lieu fees. Fees are set at an amount that is intended to offset the impact of each new dwelling units. Therefore,the effect of
the proposed project on parks is expected to be less than significant.
There is limited ability in the downtown core area to develop new recreation facilities, but the existing parks, including
(CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 26 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
Attachment 12
Issues, Discussion and Supporting In1%...,ation Sources sources Potentially .otentially Less Than No
Significant Sigtificant Significant Impact
ER#50-06 Downtown Building Height/intensity Limits issues unless Impact
Mitigation
lac orated
Mitchell Park and Emerson Park are centrally located and provide good recreational opportunities for existing and future
residents. The downtown core area is also located adjacent to open space resources,such as trails on Cerro San Luis and the
Railroad Safety Bicycle Trail, that provide exceptional recreational opportunities for City residents, including downtown
residents. The proposed project, which would allow for a moderate increase in downtown building height and intensity limits,
is expected to have a less than significant impact on these recreational facilities.
b) The proposed project does not involve or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that would have
and adverse physical effect on the environment.
Conclusion
The proposed project will have less than significant impacts on recreation facilities.
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would theproject:
a) Cause-an increase in traffic which issubstantia'l' T"Oatfari to the
existing traffic load aid Capacity of the street jys't�10;e:;�kesu'lt
iti a substantial 1nbmase in either the number ft(vbhiele=tr ps,the• X
voltmie to'capapi.ty ratio oFi ioads,or conge,qoe al
intersectiortk)�,
b) Exceed;7either individually-or cumulatively;a level ofservice
standard establishedby the county congestion mattage lent X
"agency for designated roads and bighways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase tiazards due to design features(e.g&,'sbarp .
curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses'(e.g: X
farm equipment)?. .
e) "Result in inadequate efnergency access? '4 : ;,_ "" X
f) Result in i6adeg4ateparkingcapacity? ; }f
g) Conflict with adopted policies,plans;aTrograms supporting X
alternative tran tion(e. .bus turnouts,bie.cic racks)?
Evaluation
a), b) The City's Circulation Element of the General Plan classifies streets as arterial, collector and local, based on their
design characteristics and capacity. Key downtown streets that provide access to and through the downtown core include
Santa Rosa, Osos, Chorro and Broad on the east-west axis and Higuera, Marsh, and Monterey on the north-south axis. A
grided network of local streets provides access to and from the core area to surrounding neighborhoods. Highway 101 is
located to the north and west of the downtown core area and primary access to the Highway is provided at Marsh,Broad
(southbound only),Osos(northbound only),and Santa Rosa.
As new buildings are developed within the downtown core,traffic travel patterns will change and generate additional vehicle
trips. These additional demands will likely impact the operation of signalized and un-signalized intersections and may
degrade the level of service(LOS)at some intersections. The Circulation Element(CI)of the City's General Plan provides a
management strategy for addressing increased traffic congestion. Cl Policy 7.1 provides actions that the City will pursue as
LOS decreases, including"institute programs that require the use of alternative forms of transportation and establish policies
and programs that act as disincentives to the use of vehicles." Depending on the specific distribution of traffic generated by
new development, and whether or not on-site parking is provided, future projects may significantly impact intersection
operations. When intersections are potentially impacted by new development,the City routinely requires project applicants to
submit a traffic study. An analysis of LOS impacts at intersections is a basic traffic study component and is required by the
City's Transportation Impact Study Guidelines. Where impacts are identified,mitigation is required consistent with Cl Policy
CITY OF SAN LUIS Ostspo 27 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
Attachment 12
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Inh....,ation Sources Sources PotentiallyaJ9t:ially Less Thu No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#50-06 Downtown Building Height/Intensity Limits Issues unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
7.1 and other Circulation Element policies.
The traffics impacts of downtown development, including the construction of additional parking garages, was evaluatedin the
draft Final Environmental Impact Repon for the Parking and Downtown Access Plan(Parsons Transportation Group, 1999).
This report concluded that traffic impacts to area intersections and street segments would not exceed thresholds of
significance (e.g. LOS E) established by the City's Circulation Element, and that specific mitigation may not be required.
While this report provides important background data and is an appropriate reference document, the specific impacts of
proposed projects will need to be separately evaluated. Applications for new development projects that have the potential to
exceed thresholds of significance for traffic are required to include traffic studies, per the City's Traffic Impact Study
guidelines. The impacts of the proposed project with respect to traffic increases is considered less than significant because
the change represents a moderate increase in building height and intensity limits in the downtown core area,which is already
planned to accommodate significant retail floor area and residential density.
c) The project will have no impact on air traffic patterns.
d) The intensity of development associated with tall buildings may generate significant pedestrian demand that is not
addressed by the City's current sidewalk system or signal system. This is an important consideration at intersections,where
conflicts between pedestrians and coming vehicles are most likely to occur. Recent improvements at intersections associated
with the Court Street Project include improved pedestrian controls, such as countdown walk signs, and wider sidewalks in
some locations. In the case of the Court Street Project,wider sidewalks were provided by eliminating on-street parking along
the project's street frontage.
The City is currently working on a Downtown Pedestrian Access Plan, which may include standards for wider sidewalks
throughout the downtown core area. The preparation of the Downtown Pedestrian Access Plan is an on-going City program
that will address the long-term goals of providing,safe pedestrian.access to and throughout the downtown core area.
Implementation of the existing program will insure that impacts to pedestrians due to hazards will be addressed..
e) The downtown core area is located on a grided street network that provides adequate emergency response access. The first
responder to incidents in the downtown core is the SLO City Fire Department. Two stations,Station#1 (2160 Santa Barbara)
and Station#2(136 North Chorro)are located outside of the downtown core,but within the City's response time goal of four
minutes.
f) Parking requirements in the downtown core area are set at a maximum of 1 parking space per 500 square feet of gross floor
area for retail and office uses and l.parking space per 350 square feet for restaurant uses. However, on-site parking is not
required. Ordinance No. 1101,adopted in 1987,established parking in-lieu fees for the downtown core area. The fees were
most recently updated in 2004 by Resolution No. 9614 and are adjusted annually by the Consumer Price Index.. The current
cost of a parking space for new construction is$12,456. When there is a change in use that causes an increase in the parking
requirement for an existing building,such as a retail space converted to a restaurant,the fee is$3,113 per parking space.
In-lieu fees that are collected through the program go to the City's Parking Fund,which supportsparking operations and the
construction and maintenance of new parking facilities in the downtown core. There are currently three parking garages in the
project area,including two on Palm Street and the Marsh Street Garage. In total these garages include 917 parking spaces..In
addition to on-street parking, surface level parking, and private parking in the downtown core there are a total of 3,218
parking spaces.
New commercial development in the downtown core, including tall buildings, will be required to pay in-lieu fees and in some
circumstances may provide on-site parking in garages. Over time, implementation of the City's Parking and Downtown
Access Plan will insure adequate parking for new development by constructing new public parking garages. A parking garage
at the comer of Nipomo Street and Monterey Street is currently being planned. The garage would include between 400 and
600 new parking spaces.
Existing and planned parking provided for commercial uses is sufficient to meet parking demand, however, a potentially
significant impact has been identified with respect to residential parking. The City's current ordinance does not require on-
CITY OF SAN Luis GIBISPo 28 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
'qacihmcnt 12
Issues, Discussion and Supporting In,....,ation Sources Sources Potentially eotentially ixssThan No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER*50-06 Downtown Building Height/Intensity Limits Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
site parking for residential uses in the downtown core area and overnight parking is not currently permitted in the City's ,
parking garages. Current proposals for new downtown residential development projects with on-site parking include the.
Marpomo Project(579 Marsh,33 condominium units),the Chinatown Project(847 Palm Street,63 condominium units), and
Garden Street Terraces (736 Marsh, 57 condominium units). Current proposals that include residential units but that do not
include parking are the Ah Louis Building (800 Palm, 1 rental unit) and the redevelopment of the old Bladerunner building
(956 Monterey, 2 rental units). In general, it can be expected that the larger condominium projects will provide on-site
parking to attract a wider pool of potential buyers,whereas developers of projects with a smaller number of condominium or
rental units may not provide on-site parking because it would be cost prohibitive to build parking for such a small number of
units.
There are a range of considerations with respect to residential parking in the City's urban core. Parking for residential units in
the core should not be pushed into surrounding neighborhoods: The City.is considering a parking district in these areas,
which would prohibit overnight parking except by neighborhood residents.and guests. Parking for downtown core residents
could be provided in the City's parking garages on a fee basis, but there are significant hurdles to overcome with respect to
guidelines (hours, access, safety, and garage maintenance) before such a program could be established. Parking can be
required on-site for larger residential projects, however, this would result in fewer residential units and larger buildings to
make room for the parking. On-site parking also creates problems with sidewalk continuity and vehicle access to garages,
which should be minimised to maintain the pedestrian focus of the downtown core area. One way to address the issue would
be to prohibit on-site parking and focus on alternative transportation.programs, which are emphasized in the City's
Circulation Element. If on-site parking is prohibited and no other parking is made available to residents of a downtown
project, then deed or lease restrictions on vehicle ownership would be necessary to insure that residents are aware of parking
limitations and comply with the restrictions.
Under the City's current standards, a potentially significant impact could occur if a large residential project (25-75 units) is
developed without on-site parking. Therefore the following mitigation measure is recommended:
Mitigation Measure Trans-1: New Land Use Element Program. The City should revise the Access and Parking
Management Plan (2002) to include a Downtown access program for residents in the Downtown core area. The revision
should evaluate various strategies and long-term parking solutions and include implementation recommendations. Strategies
and solutions that may be considered include,but are not limited to:
1. A fee based program to allow limited residential parking in downtown parking structures owned and operated by the
City.
2. Criteria for on-site parking (requirements and prohibitions) based on project size, project location, site access
criteria,housing type,and feasible alternative transportation options.
3. Determination if any Downtown core streets should have driveway access restricted.
4. Vehicle parking and storage areas located outside the downtown core area,such as Park and Ride style lots,that can
be used by downtown core residents.
5. The development of additional transit programs to increase options for downtown residents.
6. Credit towards parking requirements for projects that implement shared vehicle programs.
g) The proposed project will not conflict withadopted adopted policies, plans or programs for alternative transportation. The
proposed project may result in increased residential development in the downtown core area, which would facilitate
alternative forms of transportation such as walking, bicycling and transit because it will bring City residents closer to
commercial services and existing public transportation resources.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OsispO 29 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKusT 2006
/ �j
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Info...,5on Sources Sources Potentially .otentially Less I n m No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#50-06 Downtown Building Height/Intensity Limits Issnes MitigatibulliunlesImpact
on
Incorporated
Conclusion
The proposed project would involve a moderate increase to the downtown's building height and intensity limits and would
allow for the development of tall buildings (between 50 and 75 feet). The downtown core area is the City's most intensely
developed location and is served by a grided street network in proximity to Highway 101. The area is planned for significant
commercial and residential development and the proposed project will not exceed the capacity of the downtown core area
circulation-system to handle the additional development anticipated. Individual development projects that are proposed in the
future will be evaluated for their potential to increase traffic and impact intersections or create safety hazards. Existing City
standards for Level of Service and mitigation requirements for projects that exceed established thresholds are sufficient to
mitigate potential traffic related impacts.
The following mitigation measure has been identified as necessary to deal with potential impacts relative to parking. On-site
parking is not required in the downtown core area and therefore, new projects that increase the number of residents living
downtown will also increase the number of vehicles parked in the core area. The City currently does not allow overnight
parking in its garages. A comprehensive program to address residential parking needs in the downtown core area is therefore
warranted.
Mitigation Measure Trans-1: New Land Use Element Program. The City should revise the Access and Parking
Management Plan (2002) to include a Downtown access program for residents in the Downtown core area. The revision
should evaluate various strategies and long-term parking solutions and include implementation recommendations. Strategies
and solutions that may be considered include,but are not limited to:
1. A fee based program to allow limited residential parking in downtown parking structures owned and operated by the
City.
2. Criteria for on-site parking (requirements and prohibitions) based on project size, project location, site access
criteria,housing type,and feasible alternative transportation options.
3. Determination if any Downtown core streets should have driveway access restricted.
4. Vehicle parking and storage areas located outside the downtown core area,such as Park and Ride style lots,that can
be used by downtown core residents.
5. The development of additional transit programs to increase options for downtown residents.
6. Credit towards parking requirements for projects that implement shared vehicle programs.
With implementation of the above mitigation measure, the City will be in a position to implement a residential parking
program for downtown residents before impacts occur. If a large residential development project without on-site parking is
proposed before the residential parking program is created,then the full range of parking options should be considered in the
project's environmental review to insure that parking impacts do not occur.
16.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the rWed:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable X
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water
or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing X
facilities,the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the X
construction of which could cause significant environmental _F
CITY OF SAN Luis OBiSPO 30 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
Attachment 12
Issues, Discussion and Supporting IntL,.:.,ation Sources Sources Potentially - .-otentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#50-06 Downtown Building Height/Intensity Limits Issues unless Impact
Mitigation
Inc orated
effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources,or are new and X
expanded entitlements needed? . . . ,
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider X
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to
the provider's existing commitment?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to X
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations X
related to solid waste?
Evaluation
a) The City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department has indicated that the proposed project would not impact the City's
ability to meet applicable wastewater treatment requirements. Comments note that individual projects proposed downtown
are subject to wastewater impact fees, which ensure that new development projects pay a fair share of the total cost of
constructing the wastewater treatment and collection facilities that are needed to serve development citywide.
b) Individual development projects proposed in the downtown core area are evaluated by the Utilities Department on a case
by case basis to insure that City standards and the requirements of other applicable codes,such as the Plumbing Code,can be
met In the case of tall buildings, which may involve significant residential density, office, restaurant, retail and transient
uses, the Utilities Department has two primary concerns. These include adequate water pressure to deliver potable water and
fire flows to the upper floors of tall buildings and adequate capacity in the wastewater collection system. Resolution of these
issues is required by existing code, prior to issuance of construction permits. In practice, the City works with project
proponents to identify service deficiencies early on in the planning process for new development projects. The resolution to
these potential issues involves specific identifiable measures,such as pumps internal to the building to increase water pressure
or upsizing of local collection lines to increase capacity. These are relatively minor aspects of new construction projects,but
upgrading utilities infrastructure in the downtown core does have-the potential to cause significant environmental impacts,
particularly with respect to historical and archeological resources. As a result, the following mitigation measure is
recommended to insure that increased utilities infrastructure needs are identified early in the planning process for tall
buildings downtown.
Mitigation Measuire Util-1: Planning Application Requirement. Planning Applications submitted to the City of San Luis
Obispo for buildings between 50 and 75 feet tall shall include an engineer's evaluation of existing utilities infrastructure to
ensure that the project will have adequate water pressure and that the collection system in the area surrounding the project is
sufficient to meet the project's demand. Where deficiencies are identified,the project developer shall work with the Utilities
Department to identify needed improvements and shall be required as a condition of approval to perform those improvements
as part of the future project.
c) Individual projects proposed in the future are required to comply with the drainage requirements of the City's Waterways
Management Plan. This plan was adopted for the purpose of insuring water quality and proper drainage within the City's
watershed. The Waterways Management Plan requires that site development be designed so that post-development site
drainage does not exceed pre-development run-off. This can be achieved through a combination of detention and use of
pervious surfaces to increase water absorption on-site. In most cases downtown, additional development will not create
additional tun-off because most project sites are either currently developed or paved with surface level parking.
d) The Water & Wastewater Management Element and the Land Use Element of the General Plan projects the City water
needs at its ultimate build-out. Development of the downtown core area with additional residential uses has long been
considered under the General Plan. Residential density limits in the CD zone have been set at 36 units per acre since the 1994
Land Use Element was adopted. No change to the residential density standard is proposed with the project. The proposed
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISpo 31 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
�a 12
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Ini..:..ation Sources sources Potentially otentialy Less Inum No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#50-06 Downtown Building Height/Intensity Limits Issues tigatc Impact
Mitigadoa
Incorporated
project may facilitate development of additional residential density in the downtown core area,but this growth is included in
the anticipated General Plan build-out. The 2006 Water Resources Status Report indicates that there is currently 256 acre-
feet of water available to allocate to in-fill development and intensification projects (development within the 1994 City
Limits). Another 256 acre-feet is available to serve the City's expansion areas, for a total of 512 acre feet of water available
to allocate to development. The City is also pursuing multiple water supply projects including the water reuse project, the
Nacimiento Pipeline Project, additional water conservation programs and the Salinas Dam transfer. Development of these
water supply resources would provide more than enough water to meet the City's projected water demand in the build-out
scenario of the City's current General Plan.
e) According to the City's Utilities Department,the City's Water Reclamation Facility(WRF)has adequate capacity to serve
future development downtown. The Wastewater Facilities Master Plan anticipates build-out under the General Plan and
includes a program for upgrades to the collection system and the Water Reclamation Facility based on regulatory
requirements and projected demand. The City's impact fee program for wastewater is used to fund these anticipated
improvements.
t), g) Background research for the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB939) shows that Californians dispose of
roughly 2,500 pounds of waste per month. Over 90% of this waste goes to landfills, posing a threat to groundwater, air
quality, and public health. Cold Canyon landfill is projected to reach its capacity by 2018. To help reduce the waste stream
generated by new development projects, consistent with the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element, recycling
facilities must be planned for, and a solid waste reduction plan for recycling discarded construction materials must be
submitted with new building permit applications. New development projects are already required by ordinance to include
facilities for recycling to reduce the potential waste stream,therefore,no mitigation is required.
Conclusion
The proposed project will have a less than significant impacts on water quality and drainage related issues,including flooding.
However, service systems such as the water distribution system and the wastewater collection system may need to be
upgraded where individual projects proposed in the future do not meet City standards for service. Issues of adequate water
pressure and adequate sizing of sewer mains must be evaluated with each proposed project, per existing policies and
standards. The following mitigation measure is recommended to insure that applications for new development projects in the
downtown core area will include sufficient information for the City to evaluate these potential impacts.
Mitiaation Measure Util-1: Planning Application Requirement. Planning Applications submitted to the City of San Luis
Obispo for proposed mid-rise buildings(between 50 and 75 feet tall)shall include an engineer's evaluation of existing utilities
infrastructure to ensure that the project will have adequate water pressure for domestic use and fire flows and that the
collection system in the area surrounding the project is sufficient to meet the project's impact. Where deficiencies are
identified, the project developer shall work with the Utilities Department to identify needed improvements and shall be
required as a condition of approval to perform those improvements as part of the future project.
With implementation of the proposed mitigation measure,impacts to utilities and service systems will be less than significant.
17.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal g
community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or prehistory?
The project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,substantially reduce habitat or threaten any
plant or animal community.
CnY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 32 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
-5;y
Attachment 12
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Info...,ation Sources Sources Potentially -_ateotiauy LmsTlmn xo
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#50-06 Downtown Building Height/Intensity Limits issues unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
ba Does the pxaject have5tmpacts Shat-re u dint ualt ltp ed but-z
cumulativelyponsiderable ("Cumglattvetytcons�alera'brV '�
means that the in�etnenuif effects of:a'jcdJ 'Ae considerable g
`when viewed fnconnect►aq`wsth tftWefficts bfthe�astgro}eefs, r
�theeffects.ofQttieieturegt,pBJt�ts,angl.theeffectsiof�pzptiablbr`.`
The proposed project clarifies existing General Plan policies and provides for a moderate increase to building height and
intensity limits for the downtown core area. This area was planned for significant retail and residential development in the
existing General Plan. Impacts that have been identified in this initial study include
e) 'Does the project haue envn tental_effects which wrllc,cause g
substantial adverse effects:oinbnman.lietngs;etttier$trectty or :`•,
ry s:a
TI
The project does not involve environmental effects that will cause adverse effects on human beings.
18.EARLIER ANALYSES.
Z azlier anal]sis ini<y,l�e used wl�eFe,pur uan£nto the tie rlg,piOgram E)R,or,otlter C°EQA prgcess,aori&or rrn-e of ects�a$r .
been adequately analy2ed m
an ear
ETR or Nega'tige I)ecl3trarionSeeton `5063 (c�;(3) (D} . III t4tue a discnsstbir
ould id_entt y F
sbi _ the followrn items "£, r
a) )Gar_1ier sinal sis u d Pdent eazker aural` ses an s}al wllerg the .aze availali)e fo .tev�eyv^
Final Environmental Impact Report. Land Use Element/Circulation Element Updates,City of San Luis Obispo, August 1994.
SCH#92101006
Final Environmental Impact Report. Copeland's Project,City of San Luis Obispo,August 2002. SCH#2002031058
Final Environmental Impact Re rt.Parking and Downtown Access Plan,City of San Luis Obisno. 1999.
bj Ifnpacts adequately addressed Identify whtch,effects&oin the atigve checklist�ii evithrn;the scope of and ailegiiltel
ra
analyzed in an earlier document.pursuantto applicable legal stapdaids,andsta[e,�vhelhersueh effects were address l Fsy`,
initi ation nteaspres-based on ifig e,riiei
No effects identified we addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures FOf effects tliaGaze'tbiis,than,SfgOdhcant.widi I,OiBAUQ-t Itieorporated,"describe ffte mit gstio :
medsures,which viere incorporated or refined from the earlier docymentatgdrthe extenttg which they address site-specific-
conditions:of the_ro'ect: `
No mitigation measures were incorporated from earlier documents.
19. SOURCE REFERENCES.
1. Conservation and Open Space Element,City of San Luis Obispo,2006
2. Community Design Guidelines,City of San Luis Obispo,2003
3. Downtown Development Handbook,ULI, 1992
4. Fundamentals of Urban Design,APA Planners Press, 1984
5. Farmland Ma in
6. APCD Clean Air Plan
7. City of San Luis Obispo Historical Resource Preservation Guidelines
8. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Buildings
9. City of San Luis Obispo Informational—Map Atlas
10. City of San Luis Obis o Safe Element,Jul 2000
CRY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 33 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
9s_
Attachment 12
Issues, Discussion and Supporting In,.....ation Sources Sources Potentially otentially Less T6an No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#50-06 Downtown Building Heightlintensity Limits Issues unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
11. City of San Luis Obispo,Waterways Management Plan,
12. Flood Insurance Rate Ma (Community Panel#060310-0005C),July 7, 1981.
13. City of San Luis Obispo,Noise Guidebook,May 1996
14. City of San Luis Obispo,Noise Element,May 1996
15. City of San Luis Obispo,Parks and Recreation Element,June 2001
Attachments: S ee C4%"%4 1 Re ka 1* IF q,le,
ac ent 1: Vicinity Map(LUEFigure 4)
Atta 2: Expanded Project Description and Propos eneral Plan Amendments
Attac t . Downtown Views Photo Represents "
Attachment ` town Buildings Phot tions
Attachment 5: to ' District Boun e
Attachment 6: Co a esi elines,Chapter 4—Downtown
Attachment 7: City of S ispo Inventory of Historic Resources
Attachment 8: COS er storic Preservation Policies
Attachment 9: eeting Up 8-28-2006 and 9-25-2006
Attachme C Meeting Update: -2006
Attac 1: Computer Shadow Model Re sentations
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
Attachment 12
REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS
1) Mitigation Measure AES-1: New Land Use Element Program—The City will undertake a study of
visual resources within the Downtown core area to identify potential locations for new publicly-owned
open places with access to views of important scenic resources. The City will consider protecting these
views by creating open places through street closures and/or property acquisition, as encouraged by LUE
Policy 4.7. A range of options for property acquisition, including development agreements, will be
considered, consistent with the City's fiscal policies and objectives.
• Monitoring Program: The proposed Land Use Element program will incorporated into the project
and will be adopted at the same time as the proposed General Plan
Amendments.
2) Mitigation Measure AES-2: New Land Use Element Program -The Community Design Guidelines
shall be updated to include guidelines for tall buildings within the downtown core area,with a particular
focus on guidelines for architectural transitions between new development and existing buildings within
the Downtown Historic District.
• Monitoring Program: The proposed Land Use Element program will incorporated into the project
and will be adopted at the same time as the proposed General -Plan
Amendments. The Architectural Review Commission has established a
subcommittee of its members to work with City staff on the proposed update.
3) Mitigation Measure AES-3: New Planning Application Requirement - Planning applications
submitted for Architectural Review of new buildings between 50 to 75 feet tall shall include a solar
shading analysis to illustrate shading caused by proposed buildings between the hours of 11:00 AM and
3:00 PM during the winter solstice.
• Monitoring Program: The proposed application requirements will be incorporated into the City's
standard checklists for planning applications after approval of the proposed
General Plan Amendments and the future ordinance, which will be proposed
to implement the changes.
4) Mitigation Measure PS-1: New Planning Application Requirement. Planning applications
submitted for new buildings between 50 and 75 feet tall within the downtown core area shall include a
fire and life safety access plan, which will show how access to upper floors will be provided, consistent
with the Uniform Fire Code and the requirements of SLOFD. Applicants are encouraged to review
proposed emergency access plans with the City's Fire Marshal pridr to finalizing their building design
and submitting their planning applications.
• Monitoring Program: The proposed application requirements will be incorporated into the City's
standard checklists for planning applications after approval of the proposed
General Plan Amendments and the future ordinance,which will be proposed
to implement the changes.
CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 35 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHHEOKuST 2006
_ Attachment 12
5) Mitigation Measure PS-2: Planning Application Requirement. Planning applications submitted for
new buildings between 50 and 75 feet tall within the downtown core area.shall include a security plan to
cover all proposed parking areas, courtyards areas, public stairways, elevators and decks. The security
plan will identify the locations of 911 capable phones in parking areas, will establish rules and
regulations for public use of courtyards and decks, and establish timeframes for private security patrols
to be in place. Applicants are encouraged to review proposed emergency access plans with the City's
Police Department prior to finalizing their building design and submitting their planning applications.
• Monitoring Program: The proposed application requirements will be incorporated into the City's
standard checklists for planning applications after approval of the proposed
General Plan Amendments and the future ordinance, which will be proposed
to implement the changes.
6) Mitigation Measure Trans-1: New Land Use Element Program. The City should revise the Access
and Parking Management Plan (2002) to include a Downtown access program for residents in the
Downtown core area. The revision should evaluate various strategies and long-term parking solutions
and include implementation recommendations. Strategies and solutions that may be considered include,
but are not limited to:
1. A fee based program to allow limited residential parking in downtown parking structures owned
and operated by the City. "
2. Criteria for on-site parking (requirements and prohibitions)based on project size,project
location, site access criteria, housing type, and feasible alternative transportation options.
I Determination if any Downtown core streets should have driveway access restricted.
4. Vehicle parking and storage areas located outside the downtown core area, such as Park and Ride
style lots, that can be used by downtown core residents.
5. The development of additional transit programs to increase options for downtown residents.
6. Credit towards parking requirements for projects that implement shared vehicle programs.
• Monitoring Program: The proposed Land Use Element program will incorporated into the project
and will be adopted at the same time as the proposed General Plan
Amendments..
7) Mitigation Measure Util-1: Planning Application Requirement. Planning Applications submitted .
to the City of San Luis Obispo for buildings between 50 and 75 feet tall shall include an engineer's
evaluation of existing utilities infrastructure to ensure that the project will have adequate water pressure
for domestic use and fire flows and that the collection system in the area surrounding the project is
sufficient to meet the project's impact. Where deficiencies are identified, the project developer shall
work with the Utilities Department to identify needed improvements and shall be required as a condition
of approval to perform those improvements as part of the future project.
CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 36 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
Attachment 12
• Monitoring Program: The proposed application requirements will be incorporated into the City's
standard checklists for planning applications after approval of the proposed
General Plan Amendments and the future ordinance, which will be proposed
to implement the changes.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 37 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
Attachment 13
QQ° q community development depaRtment
memomnoum
August 29, 2006
To: Ken Hampian, CAO
From: John Mandeville, Community Development Director
By: Michael Codron, Associate Planner
Subject:Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limits:CHC Review
Last night staff made a presentation to the CHC on the Downtown Building Height
and Intensity Limits Discussion. Only four CHC members were present, and the
Committee as a whole did not feel comfortable delving into the issue shorthanded.
Therefore,the continued their discussion to the next CHC meeting, scheduled for
September 25 . Before the CHC continued the discussion, Staff provided a detailed
presentation of the issues at hand, and explained the two-step approach to addressing
Council's direction provided at the conclusion of the March study session. First,the
policy issues will be discussed and clarified by the City Council after input from the
Advisory groups. Ordinance revisions will be proposed based on the clarified
policies and will also go through the Advisory groups and City Council for adoption.
Staff is planning to meet with the absent CHC members prior to the September
meeting in order to bring them up to speed on the discussion so that the September
25`s meeting will be productive.
Although last night's discussion did not really"take off,"it was still a useful meeting
with great public attendance. The Council Hearing Room was full and nine members
of the audience provided testimony. A summary of the testimony and CHC
comments follows:
Members of the public gave the following comments:
• Trying to place a number limit on landmark buildings is dangerous—
Buildings should develop and by their design and merits will become
landmarks. The city has lost of lot of landmark and taller buildings and he
listed a few examples. Many of these buildings have been lost and the
building mass needs to be returned. The taller first floor of buildings reflects
the historic character that accommodated natural ventilation through
clerestory windows.
• Current prices up to $3.00 sq. ft. triple net, on the way to $4.00 sq. ft. for retail
space. By limiting square footage downtown, the result is increasing rent
costs due to limited supply. Direction should be to protect and retain facades
of old buildings—it's what people see and relate to. Trying to retain the
interior of old buildings is neither efficient nor cost-effective. Older buildings
tended to not be laid out well for current retail or office needs. It's expensive
1006
Attachment 13
Page 2
to retain these interiors. The city needs to allow basements and not count
them toward FAR—this is the best place for storage and mechanical
equipment. Currently, the only option is to store merchandise off-site and this
creates morning traffic as the trucks bring merchandise to stores. It doesn't
make financial sense to use retail floor area to store merchandise.
• There is a SLO Chamber of Commerce sub=committee studying the height.
issue. The idea from the sub-committee (has yet to be vetted with Chamber
Board), is to propose a 60' height limit for new buildings. The desire to keep
the historic character of buildings would encourage a 16' first-floor ceiling
height and tall windows on the ground level (see attached graphic). Height
limits are more important than story limitations. Visitors that come into the
Chamber are looking for a vibrant and active downtown with a mix of uses.
The sub-committee will be making a recommendation to respect history but
also accommodate taller buildings. Tiering and setbacks at upper floors will
make new taller buildings less obtrusive at the street level.
• Speaker representing the American Institute of Architects(AIA) is glad the
city is looking at the height issue. There is a reason that additional height
needs to be accommodated—with safety issues and newer technology and
HVAC requirements, there is a need for more interior space between floors. It
is more important to consider overall height than numbers of stories. Facades
are important.
• Parking needs to be accommodated in equation if residential units are
included.in the buildings being proposed. The topography, clearance and
ventilation required for development of a parking garage and the overall cost
of construction makes projects that include residential units very ekpensive to
build. There is a need to allow additional floors to increase the viability of the
development and the affordability of the units. As the cost of the development
goes up, the amount that the market rate units have to carry goes up too. If
there is a fourth floor with residential units, there are more market rate units
over which to spread the costs to subsidize the affordable units.
• All project decisions are balancing acts. Decision makers need to be able to
balance all aspects of a project. From a CEQA perspective, the city needs to
carefully consider the language that gets adopted so that it doesn't tie the
hands of the decision makers and not allow them to consider all of the city
goals. CEQA is a guarantee of disclosure and is not intended to be used to
disallow certain decisions.
• Make this the toughest ordinance possible so that we do not lose more
character and great buildings downtown. Talk about Garden Street—don't
make decisions based on economics. It's too important to protect our
downtown historic.resources.
Attachment 13
Pagc 3
• There is already a review process in place. Keep wording as tight as possible.
Clean up the policy wording. Concerned about tall buildings on Garden
Street. If development is done carefully, away from the street, then it should
be allowed to go higher.
• Santa Barbara had a similar street to Garden Street and it is no longer there
because that city allowed development that didn't protect'the existing
character. While the commenter doesn't live in San Luis Obispo, she has an
appreciation of the historic character of the downtown. What is the possibility
of doing a moratorium until the decisions are made? It is sticky to be able to
have residences downtown: in Avila Beach, these residences have become
vacation rentals.
The CHC discussed these issues as follows:
Tom Wheeler—the policies contain some complex wording and changes need to be
carefully considered. Wants to wait until full committee is in attendance.
Dan Carpenter—wants the input of the 3 missing Committee members. Agrees that
it seems suitable to let Landmark buildings appear where they develop rather than
specify the location of where they should happen. There may be two in one block
and none in three blocks. He has concern about shading on the streets and gave
several examples,but felt that this shading and obscuring of buildings was due to a
heavy tree canopy. He would like to see the tree canopy addressed as it blocks views
and fewer trees might open up some views.
Lynne Landwehr—historically, there were no trees downtown, but we don't want to
go back to that situation. She sees the logic of needing 60' of height to be able to
accommodate 4 stories, but she's not sure she agrees with that approach. She would
like to seethe policies/ordinance address how the height limit is measured. Historic
buildings may have architectural elements that bring up height of building but that
don't increase building mass. Wants a definition that includes what is measurable
height and what is a building element. Also has some concerns about public viewing
from upper floors of new buildings: if there are residences included in these
buildings, the residents may not like the public wandering about near their houses.
1
Attachment 13
49 communrty development &paMmcnt
memomnWm
September 26, 2006
To: Ken Hampian,CAO
From: John Mandeville,Community Development Direct
By: Michael Codron,Associate Planner
Subject:Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limits: CHC Review
Last night, the CHC held a second public hearing for the Downtown Building Height
and Intensity Limits discussion. Five CHC members were present during the staff
review of the issues and public comment portion of the meeting, but one member had
to leave prion to the Committee finalizing their recommendations.
Nor to last night's meeting, staff met with the three CHC members who were absent
during the August meeting in order to bring them up to speed on the discussion. This
facilitated the process and resulted in a productive meeting.
Last night's meeting had less public attendance than the August meeting. Four
members of the public provided testimony for the CHC's consideration. A summary
of the testimony and the CHC's action follows:
Members of the public gave the following comments:
• Maintain the flexibility and judge projects on their merits. It is not possible to
define rules that fit all situations. A 60' tall height is not that big a change
from the existing limit. If the City wants residential in the downtown area, it
may need to allow 5 floors in buildings and 60' is too low to get 5 floors
without going to low ceiling heights. Look at allowing up to 75' as upper end
height. Perhaps the City should just use 75' as the allowed height. For
buildings between 50' and 75', set up guidelines for what features need to be
incorporated.
• Might want to consider using the language of the Secretary of the Interior
regarding adaptive re-use of historic buildings. How to balance historic and
other policies? (i.e. residential uses downtown and preventing urban sprawl).
Need to maintain latitude in standards and not take discretion away from
decision-makers who need to balance competing policies.
• The issue is heights and not stories. You can do 5-6 stories in 70'. Scale
relative to context is more important. "Landmark"is difficult to define. "I'll
know it when I see it" doesn't give enough direction to designers. The term
implies an historic building, but it is used for new buildings so we may want
to define a different term. What are we using as our benchmark for historic
character? Around the turn of the century, buildings were higher in the
Attachment 13
Page 2
downtown area. How far back do we go to determine what's an appropriate
height for downtown?
• The SLO Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors has prepared a letter to
submit to the CHC (see attachment). The Chamber supports infill
development and a compact urban form so they are supportive of the proposed
changes to allow greater height in the downtown area. Their sub-committee
made up of professionals including Andrew Merriam, Pierre Rademaker, Bill
Thoma, and Barry Williams and they have recommended a 60' height limit as
the base allowed height for a 4 story building. Interstitial spaces need to be
bigger in new buildings to accommodate mechanical equipment. Taller first
floors are needed to maintain consistency with the historic character of
existing downtown buildings. They also support allowing architectural
features to extend 10' above height limit. The Chamber's letter includes
suggestions for policy wording changes.
On a 4-0 vote. the CHC provided the following direction and feedback to staff•
1. The CHC supports a moderate increase in the base building height limit,.
specifically to accommodate four story buildings, consistent with Council
direction to consider alternatives for a moderate increase to downtown building
height and intensity limits to achieve General Plan goals, including housing, retail
floor area and design amenities.
2. The CHC supports a use permit process for buildings taller than the base height
that would involve special requirements such as affordable housing, energy
efficiency, pedestrian connections, plazas, pubic access to upper level views, and
historic preservation. The term "landmark" should not be used to describe this
process because landmarks, such as the Mission or the Fremont Theatre, are not
normally defined by building height. There should not be a limit on the number
of these tall buildings — there could be three in one block and none in other
blocks. Stories are not a useful standard, but the Community Design Guidelines
should provide guidance for the height of the first story, which is typically 12 to
16 feet downtown.
3. The CHC recommends that any ordinance allowing taller buildings include the
following mandatory finding for approval, which implements Conservation and
Open Space Element Policy 3.21.2:
The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan because
historic resources on the project site will be retained and either
preserved or rehabilitated in a manner consistent with the Secretary
of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties,
unless demolition is necessary to remove a threat to health and
safety and other means to eliminate or reduce the threat to
acceptable levels are infeasible.
Attachmcilt 13
Page 3
4. The CHC recommends that LUE Policy 4.13 and 4.16.4 be amended to clarify the
following land use strategy for the downtown core:.
Use building design, street furniture and landscaping to provide a
comfortable sense of enclosure for pedestrians on the sidewalk,
while preserving hillside views from carefully located public open
places, and encouraging public access to "new views." Tree
selection in these public, open places should be consistent with
maintaining views, and trees with a dense canopy should be
avoided.
5. The CHC recommends that the Community Design Guidelines be updated
to include guidelines on architectural transitions between existing
development and new buildings.
A)
-- Attachmaiit 13
community development 6epAmment
mEmouanaum
October 3,2006
To: Ken Hampian, CAO
From: John Mandeville, Community Development Director
By: Michael Codron, Associate Planner
Subject: Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limits: ARC Review
The Architectural Review Commission held a public hearing last night to discuss the
Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limits project. The Council Hearing Room
was full and testimony was provided from 11 members of the public. Public
comments were varied and insightful and are summarized below.
The ARC's discussion was broad based and included several recommendations. The
ARC agreed with the CHC's recommendations and provided additional specifics
regarding a maximum building height limit and Floor Area Ratio standard.
The ARC also appointed a sub-committee made up of Chairman Michael Boudreau,
Jim Lopes and Anthony Palazzo to work with staff on an update to the Community
Design Guidelines. The update would be part of the second step to the process, and
would occur only after the Council considers changes to the policies for downtown
development.
Members of the public gave the following comments:
• The 50-55 foot height increase is a workable option. Chamber of Commerce
recommendation is also within reason. Neither staff or Chamber graphics
illustrate a first floor recess. Performance standard and use permit approach may
be a way to accomplish goals for downtown. Project proponents should be
required to demonstrate how projects contribute to City goals — earn amenity
credits (Vancouver is example of how it is used). View protection — downtown
should focus on view protection and enhancement. Use performance guidelines
or standards to optimize public views especially if they were previously
obstructed or not available. Continuous tree canopy should not be a goal. Shade
or solar opportunities can be incorporated into performance standards or use
permits. Public spaces in downtown SLO are overtaxed already with user
intensity. There is need for public outdoor space or projects could contribute to
downtown space acquisition and development. Do a study to determine where
these open spaces'should occur. Building stair-stepping to accommodate grade
differences should occur. New buildings that exceed four stories should be
lighter on the eye and on the skyline. SLO downtown buildings could be double
the height of surrounding cities.
- Attachment 13
Page 2
• It is a difficult task because we are trying to put restrictions in place for projects
that haven't even been submitted to.the city yet. The idea of a 25% limit on
height between adjacent buildings is difficult because there is a difference
between single purpose buildings and larger mixed-use projects. Historic
buildings exist and projects should pay respect to historic aspect and nature of
SLO,but also it is impossible to retain an historic building and build up to 75' on
top of it. Can keep facades or certain aspects of historic building but can't retain
the whole structure. Look at width of streets and widths of sidewalks. Smaller
towns have larger sidewalks of 10-14 wide which keeps a pedestrian focus.
Also, a block may have character of 2-3 story buildings along street and it needs
a larger monument building to make it interesting - we need to keep flexibility
for larger buildings.
• What are we trying to do with downtown? We need to take a look at the
economic realities of what Downtown was, what it has become and what its
prospects for the future are. Downtown housing is second priority to its revenue-
producing ability. Look at this issue in the context of a general plan LUE that is
12 years old. A lot of change has happened — politically and economically.
Take those issues into account since many of the LUE policies bog down the
design process. Context of 2006 isn't being used as widely as we could. Are we
trying to limit creative juices of design community by arbitrary FARs, limits on
height, window placement etc.? There is a lot of talk about views — a person
doesn't go downtown to look at views. He goes downtown to experience a well-
landscaped, well-articulated, downtown with vibrant buildings. City has built 3
parking lots and the top floor is used for parking — the views are incredible, put
community facilities up there and not automobiles. Favorable to concept of use
permits for taller buildings — should recommend that they resurrect original
planned development ordinance. Ordinance has been bastardized by current use.
He can visualize a PD overlay over downtown and let the design community and
forward thinking developers bring forward designs that forward economic and
community goals.
• All the times he looked from Mission plaza up Monterey street—he never thinks
that putting 75' buildings along that street will enhance that. This effort is being
considered under an ostensible justification of housing for downtown employees.
How do we ensure affordability for downtown employees for these housing
units? National retailers will pay low wages and these employees won't be able
to live there. High income earners will be the only ones who can afford to live in
units.
• "Landmark" —building or site that has historical significance especially one that
has been recognized by national or local agency.. Don't call them landmarks but
just call them "tall buildings". There are a lot of inconsistencies between land
use, ordinance etc. Ask the question of what are our goals for downtown?
• The ARC'S deliberations need to focus on architectural and physical aspects of
downtown. Takes issue with prior speaker that main goal of downtown is solely
//U V
Attachment 13
Page 3
for revenue production. A diversity of uses is needed downtown. Housing
should be accommodated downtown on second or higher floors and will benefit
retail economy. Marpomo and Court street projects met 50' height limit. Do we
really need to go to 55' or 60'9 There is inconsistency in general plan that needs
addressing. Also agrees with poor choice of word being "landmark" — call it
signature or taller building. We are falling into trap — we will end up at end of
process just reacting to projects that are being considered now. Goes downtown
to relate to surroundings—view of Cerro San Luis at comer of Palm and Chorro
is towering and identifies SLO. Prospect of buying air rights over Chongs candy
store in order to maintain visual context should be considered. Urban experience
is enhanced by the Cerro San Luis view. Identify where views within
downtown exist. Use Transer of Development Credits (TDCs) to increase FAR
or building height from visual corridors to buildings in core.
• Problem with suggested wording of 4.16.4 — what gives person the right to put
up a four story building vs a 2-3 story building? Take subjectivity out of
planning and decide which locations are allowed to go to 2 stories, 3 stories and
4 stories. Pick spots where you're going to have to protect views. It's not right
to allow 55 feet in one place and not in another right next door. Generate a plot
map of allowable heights that are site or block-specific. Downtown is not about
views but is about sunlight. Housing—won't be affordable downtown regardless
of supply. Good ideas on FAR — consider defining ground floor coverage and
first floor height and setback; and setback at higher floors depending on what
view maps show.
• The Chamber of Commerce submitted a letter and illustration to the ARC. The
Chamber believes.in compact urban form and efficient use of land. Looked at
moderate height increase with a subcommittee made up of a group of
professionals (Bill Thoma, Pierre Rademaker, Randy Detmer, Barry Williams) —
what height would make sense? Illustration shows 60' — I" floor should be
higher to reflect tradition of higher first floor in historic character. Marpoma
made it fit 50' height limit but had to shorten floor heights and it would have
been a better development if they could have taken advantage of more height.
Mechanical equipment creates need for more interstitial space between floors,
thus more height. Housing can be affordable. We love our downtown.
Downtown concept plan was created with a lot of heart. Diversity and variety
downtown is needed for vitality. We need to be able to accommodate new and
different projects. Views — publicly-owned open places are the only views that
should be addressed. Take "rest" out of policy. Other features should be
included in the protected views — views of historic buldings, etc. Not that many
properties will be able to take advantage of increased height so don't limit to 55'
because 60' will allow more creativity.
• Expressed general support for increased heights downtown. Prior speaker said it
well in terms of responding to the needs of 2006 and not the needs of 1990 or
bygone era. Interesting to see that behind the surface of the height limit is an
issue of density. Density drives many desirable things in a community —
- A#tachment 13
Page 4
compact settlement pattern, vibrant retail core, transportation and affordable
housing—all pivot around density. City should be 21' century city not just a 19th
century city. Increased pressure on energy supplies are a factor for some — we
must continue to evolve into a denser, higher rise urban form to respond to future
energy shortages and need to reduce energy use because of global warming.
Studies suggest patterns of retail consumption, that even to drive one block
requires 1200-1500 housing units within a pedestrian radius. Downtown needs
to take care of itself regardless of Dalidio. Doesn't support those who suggest
that we need to address all views all the time. Maybe something beyond the
current identified views, such as identifying view corridors — spot zoning could
be used to address. Having lived in high density environments, issues of sunlight
are important. The degree of sunlight/view protection next to public place
should be scaled to the size of the public space. Beyond second story, pedestrian
will not really notice height differences. Relax height limit.
• Questions how infill projects on small lots would be able to accommodate
pedestrian walkways. No one has mentioned apartments — is it possible to do
two or three levels of apartments and then townhouses above that? Hasn't seen
any projects proposing apartments.
• Cost of building apartments is horrendous which is the reason we aren't seeing
them developed. Parking, retail uses, etc. — it is.difficult to make it work
financially. Should never be talking about stories, talk about height limit in feet.
Can get variety of stories within feet limit.
By consensus, the ARC provided the following direction and feedback to staff
1. The ARC supports increasing the base height limit for new buildings downtown
to between 55 and 60 feet.
2. The ARC supports increasing the Floor Area Ratio limit to 3.75,with limiting
factors. The maximum FAR should be limited to maintain appropriate building
height to street width ratios, to maintain consistency with the context of the site,
and to maintain an appropriate relationship to adjacent buildings.
3. The ARC supports the following revised definition for Floor Area Ratio:
"The floor area of a building or buildings on a lot divided by the lot area. In
calculating FAR, floor area shall mean the conditioned floor area of the
building(s) (as defined by Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations),
excluding parking garages and basements, provided the finish floor elevation of
the fust floor is less than 30"above sidewalk grade."
4. The ARC provided direction to staff to consider the current definition of building
height as it applies downtown, and consider its effect on sloped sites.
Attachment 13
Page 5
5. The ARC supports a use permit process for buildings above the base height. A
tall building use permit process should be used to encourage design amenities and
features in tall buildings, such as:
• The project is designed to exceed Title 24 requirements by a minimum of 5%
and meets the solar access standards provided in Table 2 of the Conservation
and Open Space Element
• The project provides for an adaptive reuse of a historical resource in a manner
consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation
• The project provides a public viewing deck or similar feature to provide
public access to views of surrounding natural features such as Cerro San Luis
• Minimum residential component of 18-units per acre
• Inclusionary housing requirement is met on-site
• Project provides public plaza, with seating and public art
• Project provides major pedestrian connection between Higuera Street and the
Creekwalk,Monterey Street and the Creekwalk, or between Higuera Street
and Marsh Street at a mid-block location
• Project plans are certified to meet Silver LEED or equivalent
• Project meets the City's definition of"affordable by design"
• The project involves a public/private partnership with the purpose of
providing affordable housing
6. The ARC supports view protection from public spaces, and recommended that the
City pursue study of important views downtown that should be protected.
7. The ARC established a sub-committee made up of Chairman Michael Boudreau,
Jim Lopes and Anthony Palazzo to work with staff on an update to the
Community Design Guidelines to include guidelines on architectural transitions
between existing and new development.
Attachment: ARC Agenda Report, 10-02-2006
Attachment 13
community development aepaMment
memomnaum
December 28,2006
To: Ken Hampian, CAO
From: John Mandeville, Community Development Director
By: Michael Codron, Associate Planner
Subject: Downtown Height and Intensity Limits: Planning Commission Review
On December 13, 2006, the Planning Commission held their fust public hearing to
review staff recommendations regarding downtown building height and intensity
limits. The meeting was well attended and testimony was provided from 10 members
of the public. Public comments were varied and insightful and are summarized
below.
The Planning Commission focused their discussion on the recommended General
Plan amendments, which are proposed to clarify existing policies and to
accommodate a moderate increase in building height and intensity limits, as directed
by the City Council. The Planning Commission also discussed the proposed
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project.
The meeting was attended by five Commissioners (Chair Miller, Vice-Chair
Christianson, Ashbaugh, McCoy and Stevenson). After the first of the year, two new
Commissioners will be seated. The Commission discussed the project for over two
hours and voted unanimously to continue the public hearing to January 10,2007.
Members of the public gave the following comments:
• Speaker noted that builders know what the existing rules are and have purchased
property based upon that understanding of the site's potential. Allowing taller
buildings allows a windfall to current owners. This would be fine IF the City
received some benefit as a result. However, the taller height will result in a
negative impact to the downtown. Workforce housing will not happen. Only
costlier housing will be built. Chinatown is only proposing 3.3 affordable units
and 49 market rate units. Muzios upstairs residences have been vacated. These
units were true workforce housing units and will be replaced with the
development of higher end housing. The City will not be getting what they want.
• Speaker noted that he has studied downtown retail areas worldwide and felt the
main concerns should not be views but sunlight and the unique downtown
shopping experience as opposed to the suburban shopping mall. All successful
downtowns have several key ingredients. The main purpose for a downtown is
for good retail. It is a tourist draw too — they would rather shop downtown than
shop in a generic center outside of town. Access to sunlight is also a key
ingredient — important to maintain so keep that in mind when making decisions. f
Attachment 13
Pane 3
Views are important for public open plazas but not for sidewalk views. You
want pedestrians to focus on the street wall next to them. Key ingredients =
intensity and continuity of retail development.
• Speaker generally supports increased building height downtown. He believes the
proposal is too timid. Allow heights to increase to the same as the Anderson
hotel or the Anderson hotel plus one floor. Flexibility allows many scenarios.
Housing—put mechanisms in place to ensure affordable housing is implemented.
Don't look at density as evil. There is a public benefit of retail and foot traffic is
needed. There needs to be lots of residential units in proximity to the retail core.
More density is required today to support enough foot traffic and to support mass
transit.
• Speaker generally supports this proposal. He believes it to be a moderate
proposal. If FAR definition excludes conditioned floor area, the City should be
aware that this also excludes all mechanical areas that are unconditioned (which
can be up to 15% of a mid-rise building). Views and trees are not as important
when weighing priorities. Not appropriate to value trees over buildings and also
need to preserve views of some of our very special buildings and their associated
detailed architecture. Maximum density currently allowed downtown is 36
du/acre, but this needs to be increased if we want housing downtown. In Santa
Barbara and southern California, there are wonderful projects that have 108
du/acre in the downtown area. He fully supports the use of TDCs — especially
where it protects historic resources.
• Speaker felt it is useful to be able to have this discussion and go through the
evaluation process at the same time that several projects are being considered so
that it is possible to see how the ideas might be implemented. Often we attempt
to create regulations in a vacuum but this process has helped to define their
project. She recommends support of the changes. They are proposing some
affordable by design units as well as deed-restricted affordable units as part of
Garden Street Terraces.
• Speaker said that when it costs anywhere from $300-$400 per sq. ft. to build
downtown, you may see infill on vacant parcels, but probably not a lot of
buildings being torn down and rebuilt due to cost. Trees and canopies shade
sidewalks more than buildings do. He questioned whether residences were
included as part of FAR. FAR of 3.75 is too restrictive. Atriums and other
architectural details/features can make or break a design and shouldn't count
towards FAR.
• Speaker said that workforce housing has a greater possibility of being
constructed if the density limits are raised. He also represents the local chapter
of the AIA and worked with the Chamber of Commerce in developing a height
recommendation and they support the proposed language changes.
• Speaker said that the way to preserve views is to put development in the
downtown area rather than expanding outward into the hills. Affordability is a
/_//2
Attachment 13
Page 3
challenge. There are a variety of streets downtown. Sidestreets are narrower and
may not accommodate taller buildings as well as wider streets. Don't make
canyons. "Landmark"—these feature buildings are important in a downtown but
are not just the taller buildings.
• Speaker expressed support for staff recommendation. The list of amenities under
LUE 4.16.4 could be modified — the item that talks about providing pedestrian
connections between various streets should allow other areas for pedestrian
connections rather than limiting where these might happen.
• Speaker voiced concerns with work-force housing, parking problems and the
need for diversity in housing. Be careful that gentrification of old buildings
doesn't eliminate diversity. Diversity is what makes our downtown unique.
The Planning Commission provided the following comments:
• Commr. Ashbaugh had concerns with current and future projects meeting the
City's housing needs, expressed the importance that views not be sacrificed, and
noted he was considering a no-project option.
• Commr. Christianson asked about the height and number of stories of particular
current buildings downtown so that she and the public had some perspective. She
noted that she would not support Commr. Ashbaugh's idea of a no-project option.
She noted that work-force housing represents all types of workers,not just low-
income; noted that the need to preserve open space is a priority that reflects the
need for added retail and increased density downtown, and although the proposals
are timid, she voiced support for them,noting there should be basic, solid
guidelines with case-by-case evaluations.
• Commr. Stevenson noted appreciation for the public comment and would like to
see further review. He had general concern on the Mitigated Negative
Declaration,and noted there is a need for a visual impact analysis and new design
guidelines. He noted that he would like to see affordable by design housing.
• Commr. McCoy expressed concern about continuing discussion if the
Commission was not in majority. It was noted that all comments made by the
Commission will go to the City Council.
• Commr. Miller agreed that the Commission should go through the five points and
environmental review instead of making general comments, and the need for
sunlight in the downtown, meeting areas, keeping density downtown therefore
eliminating sprawl. She was excited by the mixed use concept with retail, office
and housing and felt that staff gave a great presentation.
The Planning Commission went on to discuss each proposed amendment and will
continue to do so at the January 10, 2007, meeting. Staff will report the results of the
Commission's deliberations after the meeting. The Commission's agenda report is
attached.
1-113
..----.,� Atta,.-hmaiit 13
community development bepARtment
-�.----�� memomnaum
January 16,2007
To: Ken Hampian, CAO
From: John Mandeville, Community Development Director
By: Michael Codron,Associate Planner
Subject: Downtown Height and Intensity Limits: Planning Commission Review
On January 10, 2007, the Planning Commission held their second public hearing to
review staff recommendations regarding downtown building height and intensity
limits. Chairwoman Miller called for additional public testimony at the beginning of
the meeting and three additional people spoke. After public testimony, the
Commission continued working through the proposed General Plan amendments one-
by-one before discussing the project's environmental review.
After discussion of each of the proposed amendments, the Commission voted 6-1
(Ashbaugh) to approve a recommendation to the City Council to approve General
Plan amendments that would provide for a moderate increase to downtown building
heights and intensity limits. The Commission also recommended approval of a
mitigated negative declaration for the project.
The resolution approved by the Planning Commission with the proposed text of the
amendments is attached, as is the brief agenda report submitted to the Commission
for the meeting.
The Planning Commission's recommendation will be considered by the City Council
during their regular meeting scheduled for February 6,2007.
- . � -
Attachment 14
Vii. .POINT
T��b..into-p-o6
How tall should taller buildings be,
No answers yet,
but you a2 welcome
to participate in
the discussion
BY lteN HAntPrAN
AND JOHN MANOEVIr r c
owntown SaLui
n s ObispoDis changing—as it always
has.But the pace of physical "f })
change has accelerated re r s�
cently,mostly because of the
remodeling of existing build.
ings Much of this remodeling
has been sparked by the
deadline for property owners t
to strengthen their nnrein- TRIBUNE PHOTO BY JAYSON MELLOM
forced masonry buildings San Luis Obispo,with the help of several advisory bodies and
Some of the construction is interested citizens,Is going through a careful review of
new.Other"projects"are not possible changes to downtown building height limits.
really Projects,but still only
ideas that have,nevertheless, says that there may be a few Era efforts to let folks know
generated attention and head- taller"landmark"buildings how to stay informed and par-
lines. downtown,up to five stories ticipate in this process.Here
Most cities must create re or 75 feet tab Rte zoning reg- are some of the things we are
development agencies to en- ulations that implement the doing,
courage this kind of interest General Plan,however,estab• •Citizens can get a lot of
and investment in their down- fish a martimum buil
towns.San Luis Obispo does. height of 50 feet for�w information
lauding p on our Web site,
n't have one.Instead,our buildings.These differing ung past reports("the
ring longer story"),meeting min.
downtown's success has been standards have created ambi- ales,and upcoming hearings
driven primarily by private hi- guity and have been difficult and related reports at
vestment on the part of(crop to apply to proposals brought and relwedrepo is at cora
rty owners.Their investment forward by property owners, mtp://W bttp://WWW.Slocity0ig/com
downtown has been shaped The city policy that requires town.
and supported by the vision housing to be included in new •We have created a large
and`11,C"of successive city downtown development is a e-mail group to notify citizens
councils and the community more recent goal that has cre-
'� of upcoming meetings,pro-
ated pressure for some taller vide status reports on past
This kind of energy sparks buildings,too.The housing meetings,address"rumors"
change,which in turn gener- goal is a worthy one.In ad& and answer questions.Tri-
ates different reactions.When tion to increasing San Luis bone readers who wish to be
change involves something Obispo's total housing supply, added to this group should e-
we cherish,like Pur down- most respected urban plan. mail their interest to
town,reactions usually in. ners agree that housing is mcodron®slocityorg.
clude some anxiety and a pro- very important to a vibrant *Ali meetings
tective instinct This is a good downtown.On the other hand, will li a roon this topic
thing.Change needs to be no one wants to" o taller pP pnately noticed
thoughtfully and car 8 in the newspaper,including
efully without restraint What to dog through larger display ads,
managed. Last March the council held and our Downtown Ass ds
The city,with the help of a study session to discuss our tion will help in getting the
several advisory bodies and goals for the downtown and word out to downtown busi-
intergsted citizens,is going how the goals relate to our nesses.
through a thoughtful and building height policies.After The next hearing in the se-
careful review of possible much public testimony,the ties is scheduled before the
changes to our downtown council directed staff to evalu- Architectural Review Com-
building height limits.Tris is ate alternatives for clearing up mission on Monday.The
being done,in part because the policy ambiguity,and in meeting starts at 5 p.m.and is
Of another vision and goal— light of dty housing and other located in the Council Hear-
that more housing is built in goals,m also bring back alter- ing Room(Room 9)at City
the downtown.This review natives"for moderately in- Hall,990 Palm St
has pnemted some fear and creasing the downtown build. In reconciling policy issues
sPeculation,too. ung height and intensity lim. and differing
Here is the short sto a goals,the City
story its"beyond the current 50•foot Council always has the tough-
along with directions to the height limit
longer story and how citizens Wo est job—mak ng the final de
can participate in the process, citizenadvisoryb dies a the works made aasiecisions.The City r,r,however,
ePest,the city is not consid; Cultural Heritage Committee, though the input of interested
ring new rules that would al- the Architectural Review and informed citizens.We
low the entire downtown to Commission,the
go"s the D ng hope this article has prow ded
"sky high."In being
on i Commission and the Down• helpful information about the
many buildings be ng unsuit- ' town Association—the plan issue and how to be involved.
able for added height,the poi- is to return to council with
icy considerations on the broad policy recommenda- Ken Hampian is city admin-
table are far more discrete. tions in early 2007,with more istmtor of San Luis Obispo.
But they could lead to some detailed rules to follow.Given John Mandeville is the city's
change. strong community interest in community development
The city's General Plan this topic,staff is making ex- director
L
Attachment 15-
San
sSan Luis Obispo Downtown Association
POSITION ON DOWNTOWN BUILDING HEIGHT
The Downtown Association Design Committee, Economic Activity Committee and Board
of Directors have discussed the matter of project development impacts including building
heights over the past year as several large scale projects have come forward either in
reality such as Mar Pomo or conceptually such as Chinatown or Garden Street Terrace.
In understanding why building heights—and their limitations or variances—are important
to Downtown,one has to consider that for decades, downtowns have typically served as
the commercial business districts of their communities and as such, have a need for the
types of buildings that accommodate commercial, office, residential, service and
professional uses. If one were to recall days gone by,taller buildings than currently exist
were not uncommon along the main streets where commercial,office and residential
might all be housed in one structure. That is not to say that Downtown should be
blanketed with tall structures, but that the City should be flexible in allowing projects that
best develop a space(infill)without damaging the character or historic significance of the
surrounding area. Main Street revitalization movements encourage growth in downtowns
as a way to slow the advance of sprawl,as a way to re-use historic structures and to
transform old commercial districts into vital,safe,diverse places. As such, planning rules
and regulations,including those addressing building heights, need to allow for the types
of development that can both accommodate these principles and pencil out.
The Downtown Association looks at issues like proposed changes to existing building height
limitations in light of how their potential impacts on the built environment affect members of the
Downtown business community.The accommodation of taller, more intensive development
Downtown offers the promise of more shoppers, more eyes on the street, and more urban life. It
also raises concerns of damage to the light, views,and human scale that make the downtown
attractive to shoppers and visitors.
Generally,the Board feels that development proposals that exceed current height limitations have
to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, because the impacts of taller buildings are inherently
localized. Four story,five story,or even larger buildings can be accommodated but they should
be subject to the normal City review process. Ultimately, Downtown business owners want to
know that permanent changes to the fabric of the Downtown will have a net positive effect at the
sidewalk.
In addition to the aspects of building height that have been addressed by Community
Development staff,the CHC and the ARC,the Board recommends consideration of:
1. Light reflectance. Tall surfaces on the northeast side of the street can have the positive effect
of reflecting late sun into cold spaces. Highly reflective tall surfaces can also negatively
impact neighboring structures and spaces.
2. Wind effects. Tall surfaces need to be configured and placed so as to avoid venturi effects at
the pedestrian level.
3. Material quality. Because taller surfaces can be more visually prominent the richness of their
surfaces can have a larger impact. Material quality can be one of the available amenity trade-
offs for allowing increased height.
Regarding the content of the City Council's direction to Community Development staff,the Board
offers these thoughts:
Attachment 15
Floor Area Ratio. Removing basements and parking garages from the FAR calculation is
reasonable. Exceeding the current FAR limit of 3.0 should be allowed if justified by the merits of
the proposed project.
Landmark Proiects. The"landmark"concept is difficult to support, because it implies importance,
and could be unwieldy in its subjectivity. Everyproject should be judged case-by-case, on its own
quality and merits, and building developers should be allowed to make an argument for the height
they think is justified on a given site.
Clarification of General Plan Policies. Full consistency of affected General Plan goals and policies
may not be possible because there are inherent conflicts between the concepts of compact urban
form and view protection. The discussion should be directed toward the application of best
practices and reasonable compromises.The measure should be the net quality of the public
experience.
Transitions Between Buildings:Transitions between neighboring structures should not involve
visible, blank property-line walls above the roofs of smaller buildings.Treatments like recessed
light shafts, artful material changes, or permanent murals should be encouraged for these
surfaces.
As John Mandeville notes in his August 1 memo to the Council,there may not actually be very
many candidates for increased height in the downtown. However, the Downtown Association
encourages the evolution of General Plan and Zoning Ordinance language in a way that allows
the Downtown to accommodate a growing population and compete for its retail base, using
quality as the yardstick for acceptable intensification.
Attachment 16
Chamber makes the case for 60' height limit
The Chamber's newly formed Downtown Height Limit Task Force is developing
strong arguments for why the current 50 foot limit downtown doesn't work with
today's aesthetic, historical, energy, structural, and environmental requirements.
Increasing the allowable building height would solve several critical problems involved,
with high quality downtown development--
• If new structures are to complement the existing historical buildings they must have
first floor ceiling heights consistent with quality older buildings.That puts the
second floor at about the 20 foot level.
• Modern retailers want expansive and exciting sales areas, and that means large
volumes and 16-18 foot ceiling heights on the first floor.
• On upper floors, upscale office and residential users aren't satisfied today with the
old standard of 8 foot ceiling heights. Nine to ten foot ceiling heights are becoming a
minimum standard.
• Energy saving natural ventilation and natural daylight is more feasible with higher
ceilings, taller windows, and transom windows.
• Modern structural, ventilation and communications needs puts more and more
essential duct work, conduits, and structural beams between ceilings and the floors
above, consuming about 2 feet of height per floor.
Attachment 116
SLO Chamber of Commerce,Page 2
The task force's proposal that included the height increase was approved by the
Chamber Board last month and is gaining traction at city hall. The concept of increasing
the limit from the current 50 feet to between 55 and 60 feet has been embraced by both
the Cultural Heritage Commission and the Architectural Review Commission.
- . ----- Architectural
60total w/parapet appurtenances
75' max
Atta-.hmant 16
11' roof
9'ceiling
rt .�
Progressively recess
upper levels to help in
reduction of mass and
13'floor providing for a more
10' celling open feeling at street
level.
. 1
13' floor
10' celling
20'floor
14'windows
16' ceiling w/transoms
10' awning
t:
Modern buildings require larger interstitial Tall windows at the street level are
spaces between the ceiling and floors than traditional in the historic core. The
our historical buildings did; larger structural lower portion allows for the clear
members, water, sewer, communications, viewing of the merchandise while the
fire suppression and especially mechanical upper transoms allow for natural
systems are housed in these spaces. ventilation. The tall windows also
allow for natural light to penetrate
deeper into a building. Ventilation
and natural light are 2 strong points
in making new buildings more user
friendly.
HEIGHT LIMIT ILLUSTRATION
AttaChmant 1.7
Council Resolution No. (2007 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBIPSP APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS REGARDING
DOWNTOWN BUILDING HEIGHT AND INTENSITY LIMITS AND A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROJECT
GPA/ER 50-06
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing
on February 6, 2007, in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, considering Planning Application GPA/ER 50-06, a project to amend certain General
Plan Land Use Element policies regarding downtown building height and intensity limits; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted public
hearings on December 13, 2006, and January 10, 2007, for the purpose of formulating and
forwarding recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the
proposed General Plan amendments; and
WHEREAS, the City Council initiated the project during a March 14, 2006, study session
and directed staff to:
1) Revise the City's floor area ratio (FAR) definition to exclude basements and
parking.
2) Confirm policy inconsistencies among General Plan policies and development
standards for the downtown.
3) 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 alternatives and recommendations with the Cultural Heritage
Committee, Architectural Review Commission, Planning Commission, and
Downtown Association before returning to the Council; and
WHEREAS, the recommended General Plan amendments are based on input received
from the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) and the Architectural Review Commission (ARC),
including testimony received by the CHC and ARC during three public hearings on the proposed
project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact (ER 50-06) for the project, and determined that the
document adequately addresses the potential environmental effects of the proposed General Plan
amendments; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony
of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at
said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
Attachment 1,-7
City Council Resolution No. (2007 Series)
Page 2
Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following
findings:
1. The proposed General Plan amendments will promote the public health, safety and welfare
by ensuring that new tall buildings in the downtown core area provide features that are
necessary to achieve multiple policy objectives, including design amenities, housing and
retail land uses, while maintaining the downtown core area's sense of place.
2. The proposed General Plan amendments insure that development of tall buildings in the
downtown core area will further General Plan goals that promote efficient use of urban land
and identify the downtown core area as the City's most intensely developed area, while also
insuring that view protection is accomplished consistent with LUE Policy 4.7 and COSE
Chapter 9.0.
3. The proposed General Plan amendments will provide for additional housing and economic
development opportunities in the downtown core area, which furthers existing General Plan
policies and allows owners of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings, who are required to retrofit
their buildings, to potentially add additional building height and thereby generate additional
revenue to pay for retrofit projects.
4. The proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project adequately addresses
environmental impacts in the areas of aesthetics, transportation, public services and utilities
and service systems and incorporates mitigation measures to insure that the impacts of the
project are less than significant.
Section 2. Environmental Review. The City Council does hereby approve a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for the project.
Section 3. Action. The City Council does hereby adopt the General Plan amendments
included in Exhibit A.
On motion of seconded by and on
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 60' day of February, 2007.
AYtachment 17
City Council Resolution No., (2007 Series)
Page 3
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
Audrey Hooper, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
!Wrathan Lowell, City Attorney
1-1,23
Attachmailt 17.
Exhibit A
Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limits
General Plan Amendments
LU 4.5 Walking Environment
Downtown should provide safe, exciting places for walking and pleasant places for
sitting. To invite exploration, mid-block walkways, courtyards, and interior malls should
be integrated with new and remodeled buildings, while preserving continuous building
faces on most blocks. Downtown streets should provide adequate space for pedestrians.
There should be a nearly continuous tree canopy along sidewalks, and planters should
provide additional foliage and flowers near public gathering areas. To maintain the
downtown's appeal for pedestrians, new buildings should not obstruct sunlight from
reaching sidewalks on the northwest side of Marsh Street, Higuera Street and Monterey
Street at noon on the winter solstice.
LU 4.13: New Buildings and Views
New downtown development nearby publicly-owned gathering places such as Mission
Plaza, the Jack House Gardens, LC YC Cheng Park, and similar gathering spaces shall
respect views of the hills, framing rather than obscuring them. Adjacent buildings shall
be designed to allow sunlight to reach these open spaces, and when planting new trees the
potential canopy shall be considered subordinate to maintaining views of hillsides. In
other locations downtown, views will be provided parallel to the street right-of-way, at
intersections where building separation naturally makes more views available, and at
upper-level viewing decks.
LU 4.16.4: Building Height
New buildings shall fit within the context and vertical scale of existing development,
shall not obstruct views from, or sunlight to, publicly-owned gathering places such as
Mission Plaza, and should be set back above the second or third level to maintain astreet
fagade that is consistent with the historic pattern of development. Generally, new
buildings should not exceed 60 feet in height. Tall buildings (50-75 feet) shall be
designed to achieve multiple policy objectives, including design amenities, housing and
retail land uses, such as:
• Publicly accessible, open viewing spaces at the upper levels
• Housing affordability in excess of the Inclusionary Housing Requirement
• Energy efficiency beyond State mandated requirements
• Adaptive reuse of a historical resource in a manner consistent with the Secretary
of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation
• High residential density (e.g. above 24 units per acre) achieved by a concentration
of smaller dwelling units
• Street level features such as a public plaza, public seating and/or public art
Attachment 1.7
Planning Commission Resolution No. XXXX-06 Exhibit A
Page 2
• A major pedestrian connection between Higuera Street and the Creekwalk,
Monterey Street and the Creekwalk, between Higuera Street and Marsh Street, or
at another acceptable mid-block location
• Increased retail floor area, including multi-story retail
• Directly implements specific and identifiable City objectives, as set forth in the
General Plan, the Conceptual Plan for the City's Center, the Downtown Strategic
Plan and other key policy documents
• Receiving Transfer of Development Credits for open space protection or historic
preservation
LU 4.18: Commercial Buildings Outside the Core
In General Retail areas adjacent to the commercial core, the pattern of buildings in
relation to the street should become more like the core, with shared driveways and
parking lots, and no street or side-yard setbacks (except for recessed entries and
courtyards). Buildings should not exceed 45 feet in height.
LU 3.1.6: Building Intensity
The ratio of building floor area to site area (FAR) shall not exceed 3.0. Additional floor
area, up to a FAR of 3.75, may be approved for projects in the downtown core. FAR may
be approved up to 4.0 for sites in the downtown core that receive transfer of development '
credit for either open space protection or historic preservation, or that receive density
bonuses for affordable housing. The Zoning Regulations will establish maximum
building height and lot coverage, and minimum setbacks from streets and other property
lines, .as well as procedures for exceptions to such standards in special circumstances.
Architectural review will determine a project's realized building intensity, to reflect
existing or desired architectural character in a neighborhood. When dwellings are
provided in General Retail districts, they shall not exceed 36 units per acre. So long as
the floor area ratio is not exceeded, the maximum residential density may be developed in
addition to nonresidential development on a site.
Land Use Element Definition
Floor Area Ratio (FAR): The floor area of a building or buildings on a lot divided by
the lot area. In calculating FAR, floor area shall mean the conditioned floor area (as
defined by Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations) of the building, excluding
parking garages and basements, provided the finish floor elevation of the first floor is less
than 30" above sidewalk grade.
1/24/2007 1-42, S
Attachment 1.7
Planning Commission Resolution No. XXXX-06 Exhibit A
Page 3
Land Use Element Programs
LU 4.20: Visual Resource Study
The City will undertake a study of visual resources within the downtown core area to
identify potential locations for new public-owned open places with access to views of
important scenic resources. The City will consider acquisition of one or more of these
open places as resources permit. A range of options for property acquisition, including
development agreements, will be considered, consistent with the City's fiscal policies and
objectives.
LU 4.21: Community Design Guidelines Update
The Community Design Guidelines shall be updated to include guidelines for tall
buildings within the downtown core area, with a particular focus on guidelines for
architectural transitions between new development and existing buildings within the
Downtown Historic District.
LU 4.22: Parking for Downtown Residents
The City should revise the Access and Parking Management Plan (2002) to include a
downtown access program for residents in the downtown core area. The revision should
evaluate various strategies and long-term parking solutions and include implementation
recommendations. Strategies and solutions that may be considered include, but are not
limited to, components of Housing Element Programs 6.3.2, 6.3.3 and 6.3.4, in addition
to:
1. A fee based program to allow limited residential parking in downtown parking
structures owned and operated by the City.
2. Criteria for on-site parking (requirements and prohibitions) based on project size,
project location, site access criteria, housing type, and feasible alternative
transportation options.
3. Determination if any downtown core streets should have driveway access
restricted.
4. Vehicle parking and storage areas located outside the downtown core area, such
as Park and Ride style lots, that can be used by downtown core residents.
5. The development of additional transit programs to increase options for downtown
residents.
6. Credit towards parking requirements for projects that implement shared vehicle
programs.
1/24/2007 /_/�
ROSSI ENTERPRISES
750 PISMO SIREEr
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401
(805)543-4333-FAX: (805)54 14220 RECEIVED
FEB 0 6 2007
RED FILE
SLO CITY C!.. �(
February 6, 2007 MEETING AGENDA
DATE Uhl ITEM #-?
Honorable Mayor and City Council AgRr,d2u L
City Hall COUNCIL CDD D!
990 Palm Street CAO FIN DIF.
o, CA 93401 ACAOTTO FIRE cr,,"
San Luis Obispo, ATTORNEY PW DIR
CLERK/ORIG POLICE CHF
RE: Downtown Building Height ❑ DEPT HEADS REC D:R
4�4 ILIT1 D ?
.[;� 7F= r H R D-1:
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council:
I have carefully reviewed the Staff Report on this matter and wish to compliment the
Planning Commission, the Community Development Department staff, the Architectural
Review Committee, and the Cultural Heritage Commission for their excellent work and
balanced perspective.
There has been a thorough consideration of the several issues relating to increasing
building height. Allowing increased building height in prescribed circumstances is
desirable in order to meet the many social, economic, historical and urban amenity
objectives set forth in the City's Planning documents.
The one concern I still have, consistent with my testimony before the Planning
Commission, is that an interior open space or atrium, whether single-story or multi-story,
not be included within the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) calculation. As you consider the
revised ordinance for the Downtown Commercial Zone in the second phase, please give
attention to this particular type of special urban amenity.
Thank you for your full consideration of the Planning Commission recommendations. It
is a sound stance, which will provide great benefit to and increase the vitality of the
downtown in the long term.
And please provide direction for following up on the interior open space idea.
ank you,
OB ROSSI
t Page 1 of 2
RECEIVE" ,
RED FILE
F A S 2817 MEETING AGENDA
Hooper, Audrey SLO CITY CLERKW�#�_
From: Hampian, Ken
Sent: Monday; February 05, 2007 8:00 AM10 COUNCIL E
To: Hooper,Audrey CAO CDD DR
y FIN DIR
Cc: Mandeville, John; Codron, Michael; Murry, Kim ACAO I[�,FIRE CHIEF
�i ATTORNEY Q PW DIR
Subject: FW: Meaningful Public Participation--from Peg Pinard $CLERK/ORIG rPOLICE CHF
11 D HEADS �REC DIR
This is a Redfile for tomorrow night. W—''PO-&�' Ru' HR D Rle UTIL IR
�• CouMec C
From: pinardmat@aol.com [mailto:pinardmat@aol.com] „c GGEpat
Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 4:03 PM
To: Romero, Dave; Settle, Allen;jewan@slocity.org; Mulholland, Christine; Hampian, Ken; Brown, Paul
Subject: Meaningful Public Participation---from Peg Pinard
Dear City Council and Chamber Members,
The Chamber's latest 'e-insider' dismissed surveys of residents as "a bad idea".
Perhaps the `insider' is not aware that citizen surveys have been a critical part
of San Luis Obispo City's "Public Participation Strategy" when the city wants
meaningful input from residents.
This "Public Participation Strategy" was most recently used in 2006 when the
city wanted input and support for Measure Y, the sales tax increase. The city
surveyed residents by mail and telephone, sent multiple mailers, made 46
presentations to a wide range of community groups, created an ad hoc group
for advice, held a `Town Hall' forum, and mailed over 550 informational letters
to a wide range of community leaders representing neighborhood,
environmental, cultural, social, and business groups. The city said that it
created "face to face" opportunities with over 1 ,300 residents and received over
1 ,200 written feedback comments.
This mirrored the "Public Participation Strategy" used in the 1994 General Plan
Update. At that time, the city's mailed survey found that residents named
natural beauty as the city's greatest strength and excessive growth as its
greatest problem. Residents were very satisfied with the downtown character
and replacing small buildings with larger ones was a distinctly minority view.
2/5/2007
: Page 2 of 2
The question now is, "Have the residents' attitudes changed regarding the
character of their downtown?" This is a very important issue for SLO residents.
The proposal going before the Council on Feb. 6 significantly changes the
character of their downtown - yet it has not gone through the "Public
Participation Strategy" process.
As the `insider' acknowledged, this is a "complicated issue" yet there have been
no presentations to a wide range of civic groups, no survey of residents, etc.
Not surprisingly, this abandonment of the "Public Participation Strategy" has
resulted in very little public participation, and attendance at formal hearings has
been dominated by development interests.
It is not too late for the city to follow its own strategies for meaningful public
participation. The proposal that comes out of the Feb. 6 city council meeting
should be the one that is then sent to the community for the same input by
residents that Measure Y received.
cc. The Tribune,
New Times, Residents for Quality Neighborhoods
2/5/2007
Richard Schmidt - 12544-4247 M8/27/56 08:52 PM 61/1
RICHARD SCHMIDT, Architect
/C'va ueccl 12 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 544-4247
Feb. 6, 2007 L� a
City Council �AeA0 L Re: Building Heights DowntownFFEB
ED
San Luis Obispo � z 001
Dear Council Members LERK
Jeob"✓
Please do NOT raise heights as proposed to 75 feet. THIS WOULD BE A TERRIBLE
BLUNDER WHICH WILL DESTROY OUR SMALL-TOWN DOWNTOWN AND RUIN ITS
RETAIL FUTURE. Some thoughts.
1. Taller buildings are not inevitable, natural, desirable or needed. Any talk to the contrary is just
propaganda.
2. At the same time your city plans speak of limiting traffic downtown, you are moving in the
opposite direction of encouraging traffic through auto-served density and on-site parking. The
city is talking out of both sides of its mouth, and makes no sense.
3. Dowotown is SLO's tourist lure. Think about it -- what other in-city attraction do we have?
Tourists flock to downtown precisely because it's low, open, full of views, small scale, fresh and
quaint. Because it has enduring character. Your plan to Manhattanize downtown will destroy all
that, especially if half the stores are just like the ones in the mall at home. Tourists will skip SLO,
and instead go to nearby towns that have preserved their downtown character -- Pismo, Morro
Bay, Cambria and Paso. Don't kill the goose that lays your golden tourism $$$.
4. Citizens don't want taller buildings. Whenever they've been asked that question in a survey,
they've said NO! Why don't you poll residents again if you think this has public support?
Because you know what they'll say, and that's inconvenient to moving ahead with this worng-
headed plan. Furthermore, none of you has explicitly run on the issue of a taller downtown, so
none of you have a mandate to proceed with this. Refusing to do a poll is cowardly.
5. The one building produced so far, the Palm-Morro garage, is a monster. Not only does it now
work inside, it is the ugliest thing in town, and it blocks views from every direction. People hate
it. This is not a good example on which to proceed.
6. The plans we've seen are similarly awful blocky, ugly, view blockers, that actually reduce
retail space(in your primary retail areal!!) while increasing dennsity. Furthermore, any sense of
good urban design is missing. The Copelands have created dead zones on Morro with the
Downtown Center, on Osos and Monterey with the other thingy, and you've just allowed them to
make it even worse by blocking display windows. Anybody with the least knowledge of urban
design knows you don't kill street life this way if you want a vibrant street life. Clearly, this
ignornace of Urban Design 101 ill equips the council or your staff to deal with the issues posed
by your proposed taller buildings.
Just don't do it.
Sincerley,
Richard Schmidt
RECEIVED
RED FILE
MEETING AGENDA FEB 0 to 2001
DAT -2 v Q ITEM # SLO CITY CLERK
2rJCa ��
COUNCIL +CDD DIR
5CAO !E FIN DIR
;R ACAO 5?FIRE CHIEF
PATTORNEY PW DIR
CLERK/ORIG POLICE CHF
OEAT EAD5 a REC DIR
!�P Z, UTIL DIR
® Ci HR DIR__-j
o e4f .Vee
Y Cwa
February 6 f eeaLc.
Letter to
city
Council
This letter requests a continuance due to inability to read posted agenda Prepared by
report; objects to erroneous and inaccurate statements of the Council Michael J.
Agenda Report for public hearing 2 for the above date as prepared by
Jamie Hill;and offers proposals for what I would support. Scarcelll
February 6, 2007
Dear Mayor, members of the San Luis Obispo City Council,and citizens:
In regards to public hearing 2 concerning the tentative tract proposal for TR/ER 104-061 formally
request a continuance, object to the proposal plans,object to the Council Agenda Report as prepared by
Jamie Hill,and offer what I would support.
Continuance
I request a continuance to protect the interests of myself,the public, and the environment. This
continuance would allow for the correction of the Council Agenda Report in a format that is legible to
the public. The current posted Council Agenda Report is illegible on-line on pages 37,40,41,42,43,44,
45,46,47,48,49,and 50(12 of 55 pages). I notified the City Clerk's office of this and they prepared a
copy,free of charge,however their prepared packet omitted 6 pages of pertinent information that is not
able to be viewed on-line. I also notified Jamie Hill of this matter regarding the illegible condition of the
report. To this date no corrections or amendments have occurred to correct the illegible condition of
the report. My specific objections concern items that are illegible and so my comments and objections
are not fully informed as they would be if the entire report was legible.
Objections
In regards to the Council Agenda Report,as prepared by Jamie Hill, I object to the following information:
1) 1 object to the statement that"there is no evidence before the Department that the project will
have any adverse effects on fish and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife
depends. As such,the project qualifies for a de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of fish
and game fees" (Council Agenda Report, public hearing 2, page-37). My objection is based first
on the obvious knowledge that a creek runs parallel to the current easement, and the expansion
of this easement will further encroach upon current riparian vegetation,adjacent shrubbery,
and have other possible adverse affects to wildlife, plants,fish,and water quality. These affects
may also travel down stream affecting larger creeks and other riparian natural resources;
2) 1 object to the statement that reads, "I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a
significant effect on the environment,and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared" (Council
Agenda Report, public hearing 2, page 38). This statement allows for projects to go under the
radar of review. The current project runs within feet of a creek and seeks to expand its
easement even closer. This expansion could reasonable and easily affect surrounding
vegetation, and evidence exists that it already has. Such affects could travel down the ecological
chain and cause further affects, not limited to,fish,game,riparian natural resources, and water
quality.;
3) 1 object to statements of"No Impact" as found on page 41 (Council Agenda Report, public
hearing 2, page 41).These objections are not fully informed as the pages are illegible. However,
I assume that any initial Study Environmental Checklist that marks"No Impact"for a proposed
expansion that is occurring literally feet from a creek and inches from riparian vegetation and
adjacent shrubbery is erroneous. Further,this type of error allows for a proposed project to fly
under the radar of agencies like the Department of Fish and Game by allowing a de minimis
waiver;
4) 1 object to the proposed plans. As informed by Jamie Hill,the proposed plans that are available
on-line are not the most current plans and do not reflect the current proposal. As such, I object
and request a continuance to allow a fully informed public review prior to any decisions made
by the City Council;and
5) 1 object to the proposed expansion lot of five properties. In my opinion,this is too much in too
little.
Support
To seek a resolution that is amicable to all. I would support a continuance to allow for fully informed
public review that addressed and corrected the legibility of the-report,addressed and corrected the full
environmental impacts that are present due to the proximity of a creek which could affect other riparian
systems, allowed amendments to the proposal to mitigate impacts on the proximate creek(i.e. not
encroach any further upon the current riparian shrubbery and creek), and downsized the proposed lot
expansion from 5 to 4 lots. . I would support a lot size of 4 properties,which is present in the properties
northwest of the proposed tract(see properties/tract on Augusta Street with addresses 2650,2662,
2674, &2686).
1 thank you for your time, attention, and commitment to the community.
Very truly yours,
Michael Scarcelli
2650 Augusta Street
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
In support:
Kathleen Flannery
2650 Augusta Street
SLO, CA 93401
RECEIVED RED FILE
FEB 0 6 2807 MEETING AGENDA
DAT .Z 4 ITEM #2,�el
.SLO CITY CLERK
.=.� -s
F44-
ACAO ?;:!R:� CH,--;-
ATTORNEY
H "-ATTORNEY WPW D!R
® CLERIVORIG WPOLICE CHF
❑ DEZT HEADS WPREC DIR
- ., IJTIL MIR
_HR DIR
� C6twu
A
�wt
CL
462 z
ra
" � f
ii K IJII 1 `��
jjjI�✓I� Iv
y`�, �k ,'�• a`v�rr _,��Y►�'-'—�,/' j' '.<j•� '
ilt :.l 1CC. �! r�ipV sfm lob '1 � ' -"`! a'y tf 4.�'a7��e��, �`-
<
1.....�'�:�i4 ,jr•.r�A`y= 4�L1ay 'y �_�� �I^' r.,yi' r`��5]l`�M�1''�wgPl [ G��lt �'��'��\N��n� �+%�
i • `
�.. m
_ 46, ! n
��y
Illi •4
GQ
TO,
CD
? C C
CD
wcn a
'CD
1 / O m
I �� �y ^ • p O O �
cn
*41
ON
tlj
Gw
:;v ."+
r—"3r-- rte" '- _ — r —��' `i` 4��. ' �•
:+L+ Jia = - I i�c � `- •__� , _