HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/04/2007, PH1 - CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING REGULATIONS TO INCREASE BUILDING HEIGHT AND INTENSITY LIM { i
counck
j aGEnaa uEpoin
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Direc r
Prepared By: Michael Codron, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING
REGULATIONS TO INCREASE BUILDING HEIGHT AND
INTENSITY LIMITS IN THE DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL ZONE;
(Downtown Core,TA 50-06).
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Planning Commission, introduce an ordinance amending Section
17.42 of the Zoning Regulations to increase building height and intensity limits in the
Downtown Commercial zone, consistent with recent amendments to the Land Use
Element of the General Plan.
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Planning Commission recommendation with the following modifications:
a. Modify the second sentence of Section 17.42.020.C.1.a to require a 1,500
square-foot maximum floor area for tall buildings downtown, as follows:
The average floor area of dwellings within the project shall be 1,500
square feet or less ^"a ie.,_. 4nrn c the amaF ti,e ..:ia:. �, n be
.. . .�.
deveted to
Musing, (e*eluding par-king).
b. Modify Section 17.42.020.C.Ld as follows:
The project provides for preservation or adaptive reuse of all buildings on the
City's Inventer-y Master List of Historic Resources located on the project site in a
manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment
of Historic Resources.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
In February, 2007, the City Council approved General Plan amendments to clarify City
policy regarding tall buildings in the downtown core area. The revised policies allowed
for a moderate increase to downtown building height with certain provisions. Land Use
Element (LUE) Policy 4.16.4 says, "Generally, new buildings should not exceed 60 feet
in height." LUE Policy 4.16.4 goes on to say that tall buildings, those between 50 and 75
feet tall, may be approved if multiple policy objectives are met and lists many of these
policy objectives including housing affordability, adaptive reuse of historic structures;
pedestrian connections, increased retail floor area, and others.
Council Agenda Report
Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limits(C-D Zone Amendments) Page 2
The City is now in the process of implementing the policies approved by the City Council
in February. This phase of the project includes two items: an amendment to the Zoning
Regulations and an update to the Community Design Guidelines.
On August 1, 2007, after three public hearings, the Planning Commission recommended
approval of an amendment to the Zoning Regulations to implement the recently revised
General Plan policies. The proposed changes apply to the C-D zone(the Downtown) and
include performance standards, policy objectives and application requirements that would
apply to buildings taller than 50 feet.
The proposed amendments establish a detailed review process to insure that tall buildings
downtown are developed in a manner that is consistent with the objectives established in
the General Plan. The ordinance gives the Architectural Review Commission the
authority to approve buildings up to 60 feet tall. However, since General Plan policies
indicate that new buildings should generally not exceed 60 feet in height, a Planning
Commission Use Permit would be required to entitle buildings between 60 and 75 feet
tall.
This report includes analysis of the Planning Commission's recommendations along with
modifications recommended by staff that are consistent with achieving key General Plan
objectives. In addition, several alternatives are offered at the end of this report.
BACKGROUND
The issue of downtown building height and intensity limits has been under review since
March 2006, when the City Council held a study session to discuss existing General Plan
policy relating to tall buildings in the downtown core area. At the time, the Land Use
Element included policies that allowed for "a few, taller landmark buildings (about five
stories or 75 feet tall)" but did not include any policy direction for when those taller
buildings might be appropriate.
The Council noted that the policy conflicted with the current Zoning Regulations
standards, which set the height limit for the Downtown Commercial (C-D) zone at 50
feet. Staff was directed to clarify the policy issues relating to tall buildings downtown
while providing fora moderate increase to building height and intensity limits to achieve
other General Plan objectives such as design housing, amenities; and retail floor area.
After seven public hearings, community outreach, articles in the local paper and
presentations before various community groups, the City Council adopted the General
Plan policy amendments to clarify allowed heights in the Downtown Commercial zone on
February 6, 2007.
Council Agenda Report
Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limits(C-D.Zone Amendments) Page 3
DISCUSSION
Situation
The General Plan policies that were amended in February 2007 now need to be
implemented. Implementation involves two items: revisions to the Zoning Ordinance
and an update to the Community Design Guidelines. On August 1, 2007, the Planning
Commission took action on the first of these items (Attachment 1, Planning Commission
Resolution No. 5486-07 and meeting minutes from June 27, July 25 and August 1,2007).
The Planning Commission is recommending approval of an ordinance based closely on
the policies adopted by the City Council in February, 2007 (Attachment 2). The
ordinance articulates when and how the policy objectives in the General Plan should be
achieved when taller buildings are allowed. The recommended ordinance is designed to
work in concert with an update to the City's Community Design Guidelines and detailed
computer modeling of taller buildings to insure that the new policies are appropriately
implemented (Attachment 3).
Implementation:. Ordinance Amending Zoning Regs.and Design Guidelines Update
The City's Zoning Regulations are adopted and amended by ordinance. An ordinance is a
law are enacted by the Council that applies equally to all projects. Design Guidelines are
adopted by resolution, provide direction on site and building design, allow for the
exercise of discretion by the reviewing body such as the ARC, and are generally more
flexible. Flexibility is provided so that the Guidelines can be applied to individual and
sometimes unique building site circumstances. The Guidelines also provide architects
with flexibility to allow for creative design interpretations. Because ordinances are
legally binding and the basis for enforcement action by the City, they must be clear and
unambiguous. Ordinances most often make use of the imperative shall, while guidelines
often use the term should.
1. How Does the Proposed Ordinance Amending the Zoning Regulations Work?
Development in the Downtown is of great interest and concern among City residents and
Downtown property owners. Both City residents and Downtown property owners desire
certainty that what they value about the Downtown will not be adversely impacted by new
development. They desire certainty that specific features will be protected. Downtown
property and business owners also desire flexibility in the regulations to allow them to
develop their properties in the ways that best suits how they want to use their properties.
While certainty and flexibility can pull in different directions, they need not be mutually
exclusive. The proposed Zoning Regulations amendments are designed to provide a
balance between certainty and the use of discretion in the development review process
(see Attachment 4 for the legislative draft, or Attachment 11 for the final text, of the
proposed ordinance amendments). The proposed ordinance provides certainty to the
development community and to citizens of San Luis Obispo by listing requirements for
tall buildings and establishing a minimum number of features that projects subject to the
ordinance must include. The proposed ordinance also provides the Planning Commission
with the ability to modify or require additional project features so that the public benefits
/~3
Council Agenda Report
Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limits(C-D Zone Amendments) Page 4
of a project significantly outweigh any detrimental impacts of additional building height.
The ordinance includes three sections relating to tall buildings. These include
Performance Standards, Policy Objectives and Application Requirements. Here is how it
works:
a. Performance Standards
• All of the Performance Standards are required of buildings 50 to 75 feet
tall. These include things like minimum residential density, energy
efficiency, etc.
b. Policy Obiectives &Process
• At least two General Plan Policy Objectives are required to be included in
all projects that propose buildings over 50 ft in height. (The ordinance
includes a menu of 12 different objectives to choose from including items
such as providing a mid-block pedestrian connection between streets,
providing more affordable housing than required, multi-story retail, or
open space protection to name a few.)
• The ordinance gives the Architectural Review Commission the ability to
approve buildings up to 60 feet tall. (All proposed condominiums will
still require Planning Commission and City Council approval.)
• The ordinance gives the Planning Commission the ability to approve a Use
Permit for buildings between 60 and 75 ft tall, provided the project
includes one of the Affordable and Workforce Housing Policy Objectives
is chosen.
• In order to approve a Use Permit for a tall building the Planning
Commission must make a finding that the public benefits of the project
significantly outweigh any detrimental impacts from the additional height.
c. Application Requirements
• The ordinance includes Application Requirements to ensure that staff, the
public and decision makers have enough information to evaluate proposed
projects. These application requirements include items such as the
submittal of a digital model of the proposed building to be integrated into
the City's Baseline 3D Computer Model of the Downtown Core, a parking
management plan, a solar shading analysis, and an emergency services
access plan.
Below is a flow chart showing how the three sections of the proposed ordinance standards
and the proposed design guidelines influence the review process:
Council Agenda Report
Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limits(C-D Zone Amendments) Page 5
Application.for Tell
Building
Application
Requirements
-Yewshed,solar,
Parking Mgmt,etc. Performance
Standards-2a
dulacre,upper
story sethadcs.
historic protection.
energy erndency
etc.
plication has
minimum
information
Proposed Building is 50-
60 It
0-
601t OR 60-75 it
50-60 Ft Bldg 60-75 Ft Bldg
ARC Review Path PC Review Path
reject meets at least 2 Project meets at least 2
Policy Objectives Policy Objectives
ctuding workforce hmsi
ARC Review
compliance with
Desigq.
Guidelines
C makes finding that public
beneflt outwelgha Impacts due to
Increased height
Project is approved,
conditionally approved or
denied
An option involving mandatory City Council approval for building height above 60 feet is
offered under the Alternatives section of this report.
2. How Do the Design Guidelines Work?
General Plan policies are also implemented by the Community Design Guidelines.
During the entitlement process, the Zoning Regulations and the Community Design
Guidelines work together to insure that projects are consistent with the General Plan. The
Design Guidelines incorporate graphics and use more specific language to provide design
cues for project designers.
Council Agenda Report
Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limits(C-D Zone Amendments) Page 6
The Architectural Review Commission uses the Design Guidelines to determine if the
design of a project meets the desired goals of compatibility, quality, and appropriate
physical form and layout or whether changes are necessary. The proposed Community
Design Guidelines update is intended to aid in the implementation of the following
General Plan policies:
• New buildings shall fit within the context and vertical scale of existing
development... (LUE4.16.4)
• New buildings ... should be set back above the second or third level to
maintain a street fagade that is consistent with the historic pattern of
development. (LUE 4.16.4)
• New buildings should maintain the historic pattern of storefront widths.(LUE
4.16.5)
• New downtown development nearby publicly-owned gathering places such as
Mission Plaza ... shall respect views of the hills, framing rather than
obscuring them. (LUE 4.13)
During the Planning Commission's review of the draft ordinance amending the Zoning
Regulation, some items were moved from the ordinance to the Design Guidelines update.
Some of these items include:
• Utility boxes for phone, cable, electricity, natural gas, information systems
and/or other services should be located along service alleys, within the
building, or in a sub-grade vault.
• Location of backflow prevention devices and the fire sprinkler riser must be
identified on project plans submitted for Architectural Review and shall be
located inside the building, consistent with County Health Department
requirements.
• Minimum sidewalk width should be 8-feet clear of obstructions for
pedestrians (furniture, news racks, street trees etc.) across 100% of the project
frontage.
• Service access to the building for loading and maintenance functions should
not exceed 20% of the project frontage on any facing street.
Staff is working with a consultant, the Wallace Group, to customize graphics associated
with the new guidelines to illustrate some of these key design concepts.
The Design Guidelines update is scheduled to go back to the Cultural Heritage
Committee in September and to the Architectural Review Commission in October for
review and comment. Based on this tentative schedule, City Council review of the
Design Guidelines could occur in early November.
�o
Council Agenda Report
Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limits(C-D Zone_Amendments) Page 7
General Plan Policy Analvsis
A sample of the key policy statements in the General Plan that would be implemented by
the recommended ordinance include:
• New commercial developments in the downtown core (C-D zone) shall
include housing...(LUE 4.2.1)
The ordinance requires housing at a minimum density of 24 units per acre.
• Generally, new buildings should not exceed 60 feet in height. (LUE 4.16.4)
The ordinance requires use permit approval for buildings taller than 60 feet.
• Tall buildings (50 to 75 feet) shall be designed to achieve multiple policy
objectives, including design amenities, housing and retail land uses. (LUE_
4.16.4)
All buildings over 50 feet tall must meet at least two of the twelve listed policy
objectives.
• 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 that receive transfer
of development credit for either open space preservation or historic
preservation, or that receive a density bonus for affordable housing. (LUE
3.1.6)
The ordinance establishes FAR requirements consistent with this recently revised
policy.
• To invite exploration, mid-block walkways, courtyards, and interior mall's
should be integrated with new and remodeled buildings, while preserving
continuous building faces on most blocks. (LUE 4.5)
The ordinance provides height as an incentive for these types of pedestrian
features and preserves continuous building faces by limiting new driveway
approaches.
Key Policy_Obiectives Discussed by-the Planning Commission
The Planning Commission has suggested that the public benefits of proposed tall
buildings, affordable and workforce housing, economic vitality and historic preservation
should be considered especially important. These issues are discussed in more detail
below.
1. Housing and Economic Vitality
In 2004, a new General Plan Housing Element was adopted including new policy
language that requires all new downtown development to include housing. The policy
reflects significant concern over the loss of downtown housing that has occurred over the
past 50 years.
Council Agenda Report
Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limits(C-D Zone Amendments) Page 8
Specifically, there were 800 people living downtown in 1950, making up 5% of the city's
total population. By 1995, the number of residents downtown fell to 190 (living in 163
units), or .4% of the population. And since 1995, 24 additional units have been removed
from the downtown core area, resulting in the current population of 161 people, or just
.3% of the total city population.
A memo prepared by Alan Kotin in 2006 provides more background information on this
issue (Attachment 5). The memo indicates that three or four levels of housing are
necessary to create an economically viable, workforce housing project (rental units
affordable to a wide range of downtown employees), and that successful downtown
development "almost requires that much of the housing built accommodate some of these
employees."
Two of ten General Plan policy objectives in LUE 4.16.4 adopted by the City Council
encourage the inclusion of affordable and workforce housing in tall buildings downtown,
as follows.
Tall buildings (between 50 and 75 feet) shall be designed to achieve multiple
policy objectives ... such as:
• Housing affordability in excess of the Inclusionary Housing
Requirement;and
• High residential density(e.g. above 24 units per acre) achieved by a
concentration of smaller dwelling units
The proposed ordinance implements these policy objectives in two ways. First, the
performance standards in the ordinance set the minimum density for tall buildings at 24
units per acre, with a maximum floor area average of 1,500 square feet per unit (although
if 60% of the project is housing the floor area limitation would not apply). Second,
density bonuses through the city's existing Affordable Housing Incentives (SLOMC
17.90, Attachment 6) are necessary to achieve higher density residential development
(e.g. three or four stories of dwellings above storefront retail). Density bonuses are only
permitted when at least 20% of the units in a project are deed-restricted for affordability
to low or moderate income households or if 10% of the units are restricted for very low
income households.
The Planning Commission recommended that the floor area average of 1,500 square feet
per unit would not be required if 60% of the floor area of a proposed building is dedicated
to housing. The reason the Commission included this change was to recognize that all
types of housing (large and small units) provided downtown will benefit the economic
vitality of the area and a mix of units will result in a mix of tenancy opportunities. There
was a concern expressed during public testimony that limiting the average unit floor area
size might discourage some developers from providing more housing than the required
minimum.
Further analysis of the Commission's recommendation indicates that without some floor
area limitation on residential units, excessively large units may result. For instance, on a
10,000 square foot lot downtown, the new ordinance would allow a building with up to
Council Agenda Report
Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limits(C-D Zone Amendments) Page 9
37,500 square feet of floor area. If the entire first floor is used for retail, then there would
be about 27,500 square feet (73% of the building) left for residential uses above the first
floor. The minimum density requirement is 24 units per acre, but development up to 36
units per acre can be expected, resulting in 8 two-bedroom units. Without a limit on the
average unit square foot size, the average floor area of these units could be over 2,500
square feet and in-lieu fees could be paid to meet the Inclusionary Housing Requirement.
If the 60% qualification is eliminated, then the 8 units would only occupy 12,000 square
feet leaving additional floor area potential. In this case, the developer of the project has
the option to include more revenue-producing uses or to propose affordable housing in
order to qualify for a density bonus and be entitled to additional market rate units.
If a density bonus is pursued, the 10,000 square-foot project site could accommodate 25
units with an average floor area of 1,100 square feet. Some of these units could be
around 2,000 square feet if a comparable number of smaller units were provided. At least
five of the units would be deed-restricted as affordable to moderate or low-income
households. The developer would also benefit from 12 additional market rate units in
exchange for building the affordable housing.
Staff recommended modification: Staff is recommending that the City Council not
adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation on this matter and instead include the
proposed limitation of unit size to a 1,500 square-foot floor area average for all projects.
This change would encourage additional affordable housing and would result in a
desirable mix of housing sizes while preventing potential projects that are made up
exclusively of very large units.
o Modify the second sentence of Section 17.42.020.C.1.a to require a 1,500
square-foot average floor area for tall buildings downtown, as follows:
The average floor area of dwellings within the project shall be 1,500 square
feet or less, or-at least 60% of the Reer-aFea of the building shall be deveted te
2. Historic Preservation
As previously discussed, the proposed ordinance includes Performance Standards that are
required of every building taller than 50 feet and a menu of 12 Policy Objectives. Every
tall building must include at least two Policy Objectives in order to qualify for height
above 50 feet. During the August 1"meeting, the Planning Commission decided to make
one of the historic preservation Policy Objectives into a Performance Standard contained
within the ordinance, as follows:
The project provides for preservation or adaptive reuse of all buildings in
the City's Inventory of Historic Resources located on the project site in a
manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Resources.
Council Agenda Report _ —
Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limits(C-D Zone Amendments) Page 10
The Planning Commission felt that as a Performance Standard, the effect of this
requirement is to eliminate the incentive for property owners or developers to remove
historic buildings in order to build taller.
As discussed in the Initial Study of Environmental Impact (Attachment 7), the proposed
allowable height increase may result in more requests to demolish or relocate historic
buildings for the purpose of redevelopment than would be the case without the height
limit increase. This is due to increased opportunities for a greater economic return from
more possible floor area. If the City Council accepts the Planning Commission's
recommendation, the intent is that developers would be motivated to avoid sites with
historic buildings or find ways to incorporate historic buildings into projects, rather than
remove them.
The Secretary of the Interior's Standards do provide guidance for acceptable alterations to
historic buildings. New buildings can be constructed around historic buildings and
additions can be approved where the addition is compatible, but does not convey a false
sense of historic significance. While avoidance is normally the preferred approach for
sites with historic resources, the City has several examples of historic buildings that have
been successfully incorporated into new projects, including the Manse on Marsh, the
Judge's Townhomes project on Johnson Avenue, the Righetti House renovation and the
DeVaul Ranch House addition. In any case, determining consistency with the Secretary
of the Interior's Standards is subject to the discretion of City decision makers, normally
the Architectural Review Commission would make this decision based on a
recommendation from the Cultural Heritage Committee.
An overview of historic resources downtown shows that 81 of 190 parcels in the C-D
zone are designated historic resources (43%). 33 of these parcels are on the Master List
(17%) and 48 are listed as contributing properties. In terms of site area, there are 45 acres
of land zoned C-D and 17 acres are occupied by historic resources (38%). 8.5 acres of
the total are occupied by Master List buildings (19%). A map that illustrates this
information is attached(Attachment 8).
An option to return historic preservation to Policy Objective status is offered under the
Alternatives section at the end of this report.
Staff recommended modification: CEQA requires Environmental Impact Reports for
projects that result in adverse changes to the significance of historic resources. This
requirement applies to both Master List and Contributing properties.
Master List properties are those that are registered with the State as significant historic
resources, have identifying placards and generally have not been altered from their
original form to a significant degree. Contributing properties are those that contribute to
the sense of place of a historic district because their street appearance and scale contribute
to the character of the district. The City's General Plan draws a distinction between
changes permitted to Master List and Contributing list buildings. For example:
Council Agenda Report
Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limits(C-D Zone Amendments) Page 11
COSE Policy 3.3.4: 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.
From the standpoint of City policy, modifications to contributing historic buildings are
permitted to a greater degree than modifications to Master List buildings. Demolition of
any historic resource is always discouraged (COSE Policy 3.3.2), but modifications to
contributing buildings are generally permitted through the Architectural Review process
if the street appearance of the building is maintained. Therefore, staff is recommending
the following modification to the Planning Commission's recommendation.
• Modify Section 17.42.020.C.1.d as follows:
The project provides for,preservation or adaptive reuse of all buildings on the
City's Nventery Master List of Historic Resources located on the project site
in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Resources.
Other Key Building Heisht Policies Addressed
1. Solar Access and"Canyonization"
The new General Plan policies adopted by the City Council in February specify that new
buildings will not cast shadows on downtown sidewalks at noon on the Winter solstice,
when the sun is lowest in the sky. This requirement applies to Marsh, Higuera and
Monterey Streets, which are the main pedestrian routes through downtown. This policy
effectively mandates an upper floor setback for buildings on the southwest sides of these
three streets.
The proposed Design Guidelines update also says, "In no case may the height of a
building at the back of sidewalk exceed the width of the adjoining right-of-way." The
purpose of this guideline is to set a maximum 1:1 ratio between building height and street
width in order to avoid "canyonization."
The Planning Commission took this issue a step further with a recommendation for the
following Performance Standard.
The project provides upper story setbacks for front yards consistent with
LUE Policy 4.16.4. At a minimum, portions of the building above 50 feet
shall be set back sufficiently so that these upper building walls are
generally not visible to pedestrians on the sidewalk along the building's
frontage.
Council Agenda Report
Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limits(C-D Zone Amendments) Page 12
The effect of this requirement is illustrated in Attachment 9 and results in upper floor
setback requirements of up to 16 feet depending on the height of the building and the
location of the initial setback. These illustrations will be incorporated into the
Community Design Guidelines to insure proper implementation of the standard.
2. Pedestrian Orientation
Section 17.42.020.G of the draft ordinance includes a prohibition on new driveway
approaches in the C-D zone, unless specific findings are made. The prohibition works in
conjunction with other components of the ordinance that seek to limit pedestrian/vehicle
conflicts on downtown sidewalks by centralizing parking opportunities, promoting
shared driveways, and allowing for a limited number of driveways in areas without heavy
pedestrian circulation needs.
As proposed in the draft ordinance, new driveway approaches would require approval of
an Administrative Use Permit. However, when new driveway approaches are proposed
in conjunction with a new building, consideration of the request will occur with the
permit process required of the overall project rather than through a separate planning
application.
3. Measuring Height on Sloped Sites
Another issue addressed by the Planning Commission concerns the height of buildings on
sloped sites. The City's standard height measurement allows height to be measured from
the average grade below a proposed building footprint. In many cases, this restricts
building height on topographical highs, but allows additional building height on the
topographical lows because the base point is measured from the average of the highest
and lowest points.
The standard recommended by the Planning Commission is written and illustrated below.
For projects on sloping sites, the height limit on the downhill portion of
the site shall be defined by a line 75 feet above the average between the
highest and lowest points of the site grade prior to development, and 75
feet above the lowest point.
'ls
LpJ
i4yera�� bt,#wee,�
To��ifs
Council Agenda Report
Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limits(C-D Zone Amendments) Page 13
The standard recommended by the Planning Commission and illustrated above insures
that no portion of the building exceeds the 75-foot height limit, and reduces allowable
building height on topographical low points per the existing standard.
Public Outreach Efforts
The proposed ordinance was made public through e-mail notification and by posting on
the City's website on May 30`h, 2007. Since the draft ordinance was released, City staff
has made presentations on the ordinance to the following groups.
• Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Committee,June 7, 2007
• Downtown Association Board, June 12, 2007
• Downtown Association Parking Committee, June 15, 2007
• Chamber of Commerce Sustainability Committee, June 19, 2007
• American Institute of Architects, Central Coast Chapter Luncheon,June 20, 2007
• Downtown Association, Economic Activities Committee,June 21, 2007
• Downtown Association Breakfast,July 6, 2007
Public outreach during the first phase of the project was also substantial. These efforts
focused on providing relevant background information to the public. The public was also
informed of opportunities to provide written and/or oral testimony to influence the
decision-making process.
Finally, there were three public hearings before the Planning Commission on the
proposed language of the Zoning Regulations amendments, held on June 27, July 25 and
August 1, 2007.
The following is a list of public hearings that focused on policy issues relating to building
height and intensity limits downtown, concluding with the City Council's approval of the
General Plan policy amendments in February, 2006:
• City Council Study Session, March 6, 2006
• Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting, August 28, 2006
• Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting, September 25, 2006
• Architectural Review Commission Meeting, October 2, 2006
• Planning Commission Meeting,December 13, 2006
• Planning Commission Meeting, January 10, 2007
• City Council Meeting, February 6, 2007
Throughout the process City staff has maintained an e-mail list of people who have asked
for notification, and has been providing this group of 78 individuals with updates and
copies of draft documents on a regular basis. In addition, a web page was created to
provide up to date information on all related building height discussions. Press coverage
has featured cover stories in the New Times and Tribune, as well as concise updates
published after various public hearings were held. The City has also published display
ads in the Tribune prior to public hearings on the topic.
Council Agenda Report -�
Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limits(C-D Zone Amendments) Page 14
Some written public testimony on this topic was submitted to the City in time to be
included in this agenda report. Letters from Bruce Silverberg, the SLO Chamber of
Commerce, Devin and Astrid Gallagher and the SLO County Archeological Society
Board are attached to this agenda report (Attachment 10). Written correspondence
submitted before the Council meeting will be distributed to Council members under
separate cover.
Modeling and Visualizing Proposed Development
City staff and the College of Architecture and Environmental Design at Cal Poly have
recently completed work on a joint project to create a three-dimensional computer model
of the downtown core area. One of the purposes 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. Another purpose is to provide staff
with an independent too] to analyze the effects of proposed buildings on solar access and
views. This tool is intended to serve as a baseline (existing conditions) model and will
be updated as new development is approved and constructed. The staff presentation
during the City Council meeting will include a demonstration of the model's capabilities.
Environmental Review
When the City Council approved amendments to the General Plan in February, 2007, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was also adopted for the
project. The mitigation measures approved by Council Resolution 9872 (Attachment 1)
include new planning application requirements such as submittal of a viewshed analysis
and an emergency response plan for all buildings over 50 feet tall. These programs and
application requirements are necessary to insure that the impacts of the project are
mitigated to less than significant levels, as required by CEQA. A complete evaluation of
the environmental issues and proposed mitigation measures is included in the Initial
Study under each related issue heading.
CONCURRENCES
The Planning Commission voted 6-1 to forward these recommendations to the City
Council (Commissioner Multari voted no because he thought that the Performance
Standards provided sufficient requirements for buildings up to 60 feet tall, whereas the
recommendation requires the ARC to evaluate two Policy Objectives for these buildings
in addition to the required Performance Standards). The Planning Commission's
recommendation has been developed as part of a public process that has included City
staff meetings, stakeholder meetings, public hearings and environmental review. The
recommended Zoning Regulations amendments and the project's environmental review
have been reviewed by all City departments involved in the development review process.
Comments and issues raised through this process have been incorporated into the
analysis and addressed in the Ordinance and Design Guideline provisions.
Council Agenda Report -
Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limits(C-D Zone Amendments) Page 15
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 ordinance
is expected to have a neutral to positive fiscal impact because it is intended to reinforce
existing policy structure.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue for More Information/Evaluation
The Council can continue the project if additional information is needed or if
more time is needed to fully evaluate the proposal.
2. Denial with Direction
The Council can deny the proposed project, if they determine that the proposed
ordinance is not consistent with the General Plan. In this case, direction should be
given to staff on changes that would make the ordinance consistent with General
Plan policy.
3. Restore Earlier Height Policy
The Council can determine that although the Council previously acted to modify
the building height policies to improve clarity and allow some added flexibility,
new information has surfaced during the ordinance review process which
indicates that the previous General Plan policy language was largely adequate ("a
few taller, landmark buildings 50-75 feet tall may be developed..."). If this
conclusion is reached, the Council should reject the proposed ordinance and give
staff specific direction to return with a proposed amendment to General Plan LUE
Policy 4.16.4 to largely restore the previous policy language with additional
clarification. For example, staff suggests that direction be provided to include
definitions of"a few" and"landmark buildings".
4. Redesignate Historic Preservation as a Policy Obiective
Performance Standard d. requires projects proposed on sites containing historic
resources to be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. These
standards include guidelines that are implemented through the City's Architectural
Review process. An alternative to including d. as a Performance Standard would
be to make this a Policy Objective, or one of many options that a project applicant
may choose in order to be eligible for approval of building height greater than 50
feet. This was staff's recommendation to the Planning Commission. However,
the Planning Commission opted for a stronger recommendation, feeling that this
would be more consistent with the General Plan.
L
Council Agenda Report
Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limits(C-D Zone Amendments) Page 16
5. Establish a Pipeline Provision
The Community Development Department is currently processing two
development applications that propose building height greater than 50 feet. These
are the Chinatown and Garden Street Terraces projects. The recommended
amendments to the Zoning Regulations are necessary to provide an entitlement
process for these projects, since the current regulations establish 50 feet as the
maximum height,however,these projects conflict with some of the recommended
Performance Standards, including historic preservation and setback requirements.
In light of the fact that the City has accepted these projects for processing, and
with considerable financial investment made by the applicants,the Council could
include a `pipeline" provision in the Performance Standards section of the
ordinance that would exempt them from some of its provisions. For example,the
Council could add Section 17.42.020.C.Li the Performance Standards,as follows:
i. Planning Applications accepted by the City for processing prior to
September 0, 2007, shall be exempt from these performance
standards.
Both of these projects are currently being evaluated through preparation of
Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs). The EIRs for these projects will evaluate
consistency with the General Plan and will include a thorough evaluation of the
historic resources located on the project sites, some of which are proposed for
demolition. Where significant and unavoidable impacts are identified, the
Council will be required to evaluate the project's benefits compared to its impacts
and make"findings of overriding consideration"in order to approve the projects.
The "pipeline" provision would provide no guarantee to the developers that their
projects will be approved, or that substantial modifications to the projects'
respective designs will not be required. For example, the EIRs for both projects
include an alternative that would modify the projects to maintain all historic
resources on the project sites. Ultimately,the Council may choose this alternative
and direct the applicants to revise project plans accordingly.
However, the "pipeline" provision would allow the Council to exercise greater
discretion with respect to these two projects. This level of discretion may be
appropriate in this instance because, as landowner, the City Council may want to
maintain as much flexibility as possible.
6. Elevate Approval Level for Buildings Taller than 60 Feet
The Council can require that all buildings taller than 60 feet be subject to Council
approval of the required use permit, as opposed to Planning Commission
approval. This alternative is not recommended because most projects for tall
buildings will require Council approval of subdivision maps or affordable housing
density bonuses providing the Council with approval authority over the entire
project All projects can also be appealed to the City Council.
J—/!o
Council Agenda Report
Downtown Building Height and Intensity Limits(C-D Zone Amendments)_ Page 17
ATTACHMENTS
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5486-07 and meeting minutes
2. City Council Resolution No. 9872
3. Progress report on the Community Design Guidelines update
4. Legislative draft of recommended C-D Zone amendments
5. Economic Impacts of Height Limitations in Downtown SLO,Alan Kotin, 2-9-06
6. Affordable Housing Incentives, SLOMC 17.90
7. Initial Study of Environmental Impact (ER attachments available in the
Community Development Department, 919 Palm Street, and in the Council
Reading File)
8. Map illustrating the location of historic resources in the C-D zone
9. Upper floor setback requirements, illustrated
10. Written public testimony
11. Recommended ordinance approving increased building height and intensity limits
in the C-D zone.
AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFICE
• Planning Commission Agenda Report and Meeting Update with written public
testimony attached (6-27-07)
• Planning Commission Agenda Report and Meeting Update with written public
testimony attached (7-25-07 and 8-1-07)
• Complete Initial Study of Environmental Impact with Attachments
• The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties
Additional background information and all of the documents listed above may be
downloaded from the following website:
http://www.slocity.oriz/communit de�velgpment/downtown.asp
GAMPLAMMCODRONOMDHO Recent Files\DHO\bading,height(CAR-ordv3).doc
(- ; Attachment 1
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 5486-07
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 17.42 OF THE
ZONING REGULATIONS REGARDING BUILDING HEIGHT AND
INTENSITY LIMITS IN THE DOWNTOWN-COMMERCIAL ZONE.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted public
hearings in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
June 27, July 25, and August 1, 2007, for the purpose of considering Planning Application TA
50-06, a project to amend Section 17.42 of the Zoning Regulations regarding downtown building
height and intensity limits; and
WHEREAS, said public hearings were for the purpose of formulating and forwarding
recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the project; 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 City Council adopted General Plan amendments to clarify City policies
regarding downtown building height and intensity limits on February 6, 2007; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed amendments to the Zoning
Regulations will effectively implement the new policies adopted by the City Council in Council
Resolution No. 9872; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission 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 ordinance
amendments; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the
testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff,
presented at said hearing.
v
Attachment 1
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5486-07
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
San Luis Obispo as follows:
Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following
findings:
1. The proposed ordinance 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 affordable and workforce
housing, pedestrian amenities, view access and preservation, economic vitality, historic
preservation, open space preservation and energy efficiency, while maintaining the
downtown core area's sense of place.
2. The proposed ordinance 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 ordinance amendments will provide for additional housing and economic
development opportunities in the downtown core area, which furthers General Plan
Housing Element goals that envision a variety of housing types in the City.
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. Recommendation. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend that
the City Council introduce an ordinance amending Chapter 17.42 of the Zoning Regulations as
shown in Exhibit A.
On motion by Ashbaugh, seconded by Stevenson, and on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commrs. Carpenter, Ashbaugh, Brodie, Gould-Wells, Stevenson and Christianson
NOES: Con=. Multari
REFRAIN: None
ABSENT: None
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 1st day of August, 2007.
YY wV
Kim Murry, Secretary
Planning Commission
Attachment 1
� It Is oil o
auGust 2007 (Omit amenamentsl zonmG ReGulations
Chapter 17.42: DOWNTOWN-COMMERCIAL (C-D) ZONE
Sections:
17.42.010 Purpose and application.
17.42.020 Property development standards.
17.42.010 Purpose and application.
The C-D zone is intended to provide for a wide range of retail sales, service,
entertainment uses meeting community-wide and regional market demands and a variety
of housing types including affordable workforce housing. The C-D zone is intended to be
applied within the City's pedestrian-oriented central business district, where the historical
pattern of development creates limitations on building form and the ability for individual
businesses to provide on-site parking. Ground floor, street-fronting uses are intended to
be generally limited to those that attract frequent pedestrian traffic. The C-D zone is
intended to maintain, enhance, and extend the desirable characteristics of the downtown,
and also to accommodate carefully integrated new development. The. C-D zone is
consistent with and implements the General Retail land use category of the General Plan..
17.42.020 Property development standards.
The property development standards for the C-D zone are as follows:
A. Maximum density: 36 units per acre, including dwelling units in hotels and motels,
but not including other hotel or motel units (see also Section 17.16.010).
B. Yards: See Section 17.16.020.
C. Maximum height: 50 feet (see also Sections 17.16.020 and 17.16.040). Additional
building height up to 75 feet may be approved as provided under 17.42.020.C.1 and
C.2 and C.3 below.
1. Performance Standards for Buildings Taller Than 50 Feet(All Required).
a. The project must include housing at a minimum residential density unit value
of 24 units per acre. The average floor area of dwellings within the project.
shall be 1,500 square feet or less, or at least 60% of the floor area of the
building shall be devoted to housing (excluding parking). (Group housing
projects must show that the proposed building meets or exceeds the
population density that would otherwise be achieved by this standard.)
b. For projects on sloping sites, the height limit on the downhill portion of the
site shall be defined by a line 75 feet above the average between the highest
and lowest points of the site grade prior to development, and 75 feet above
the lowest point.
c. The project provides upper story setbacks for front yards consistent with LUE
Policy 4.16.4. At a minimum, portions of the building above 50 feet shall be
set back sufficiently so that these upper building walls are generally not
visible to pedestrians on the sidewalk along the building's frontage.
d. The project provides for preservation or adaptive reuse of all buildings on the
City's Inventory of Historic Resources located on the project site in a manner
consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Resources.
pace i
/`Clo
Attachment 1
city of san tuts oslspo
august 2007 (omit amendments) zoning Regulations
e. The applicant shall demonstrate that the project will exceed Title 24
California Energy Efficiency Requirements by a minimum of 15%; or
The project is designed to achieve at least a Silver rating on the LEED-CS or
NC checklist (or equivalent measure) (LEED Certification is not required but
is encouraged); or
The project is designed to achieve a minimum value of 50 points on the SLO
Green Build Multi-Family GreenPoint Checklist.
f. No more than 33% of the site area at the storefront level may be used for
private parking facilities.
g. Lots shall conform to the minimum size and dimension requirements
provided in the Subdivision Regulations.
e. The Planning Commission may grant minor exceptions to the specific
requirements listed in this section, subject to a Planning Commission Use
Permit and provided a finding is made that, despite the exception, the project
is consistent with the intent of the ordinance and LUE Policy 4.16.4.
2. The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) may approve building height up to
60 feet if the ARC determines that the project includes at least two of the
following policy objectives (lettered a. through I.).
The Planning Commission may approve a use permit allowing maximum building
height of 75 feet upon determining that at least two of the following policy
objectives are met, one of which must be an Affordable and Workforce Housing
Objective.
To approve a use permit the Planning Commission must make the following
finding:
The public benefits associated with the project significantly outweigh any
detrimental impacts from the additional height. (In weighing potential public
benefits, the Planning Commission shall consider objectives related to affordable
and workforce housing, economic vitality, historic preservation and open space
preservation to be especially important.)
Policy Objectives
Intent: The intent of the following Policy Objectives is to'insure that buildings
taller than 50 feet proposed in the C-D zone include_ features that meet the
specific policy objectives outlined for tall buildings in the City's General Plan
(including, but not limited to, Land Use Element, Chapter 4.0). A variety of
objectives are listed to insure that proposed project features are appropriate for
the site and surroundings, and to allow for a wide range of possible project types.
Regardless of the number of objectives proposed, the decision making body
must determine that the overall project is consistent with the General Plan,
including goals and policies for view preservation, historical resource
preservation,solar access and architectural character.
Affordable and Workforce Housing
a. The project provides affordable housing, per City standards, at the rate of 5%
for low income households, or 10% for moderate income households, as a
percentage of the total number of housing units built(no in-lieu fee option).
b. The project qualifies for, and utilizes, a density bonus per the City's
Affordable Housing Incentives (SLOMC Chapter 17.90).
page 2
�l
Attachment 1
city of san Luis omspo
auGust 2007 tonaft amenbmentsj zonmq REGulatlons
c. The project includes residential density greater than or equal to 36 units per
acre and the average floor area of units is 1,100 square feet or less. (Group
housing projects must show that the proposed building meets or exceeds the
population density that would otherwise be achieved by this objective.)
Pedestrian Amenities
d. The project provides a major pedestrian connection between Higuera Street
and the Creekwalk, Monterey Street and the Creekwalk, Higuera Street and
Marsh Street, or at another acceptable mid-block location.
e. The project incorporates a significant public plaza, where the public art
requirement is met by providing the art on-site (no in-lieu fee option).
View Access and Preservation
f. The project provides a public viewing deck or decks, or similar feature, to
provide significant free public access to views of surrounding natural features
such as, but not limited to, Cerro San Luis.
g. The project improves and dedicates land within the downtown core for
publicly-owned open space with street-level views of hillside resources,
consistent with Land Use Element Policy 4.7 and Program 4.20.
Economic Vitality
h. The project provides additional economic benefit to the City by providing
retail sales or hospitality uses (subject to the City's transient occupancy tax)
on multiple levels. Total floor area dedicated to retail or hospitality uses must
exceed 120%of the building footprint.
Historic Preservation
i. Where there are no historic resources on the project site, the project will
provide for the permanent preservation of a building off-site within the
Downtown Historic District or Chinatown Historic District that is listed in the
city's Inventory of Historical Resources through the recordation of a Historic
Preservation Agreement.
Open Space Preservation
j. The project provides for the permanent preservation of open space land in
the City's greenbelt through land dedication, the recordation of a
conservation easement, or other recognized preservation method to the
approval of the City's Natural Resources Manager.
Energy Efficiency
k. The project is designed to meet the fossil fuel reduction standards
established by the Architecture 2030 Challenge.
I. The project is designed to exceed the Title 24 energy efficiency requirements
by a minimum of 30%.
Other Policy Objectives
m. The project 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 or other key policy document, to the approval of the
Planning Commission. (Sub-section n. may be used to meet one policy
objective.)
pace 3
oti'—
Attachment 1
city of san Luis oi3ispo
auGust 2007 [6"ft amen6mentsi zonmG Reclinations
3. Application Requirements: Planning applications submitted for new buildings
over 50 feet tall shall include the following additional items to assist the City in
the analysis and decision making process.
a. Viewshed Analysis: A written and graphic viewshed analysis from various
perspectives. The analysis shall identify visual resources within the
viewshed of the project and indicate how the design of the project addresses
those views from each perspective. Specific attention shall be given to views
from adjacent publicly-owned gathering spaces, such as Mission Plaza.
b. Solar Shading Analysis: A written and graphic solar shading analysis
showing the effects of shading on its surroundings between 10 a.m. and 3
p.m. on the winter solstice, summer solstice and vernal or autumnal equinox.
The analysis shall compare shading caused by the project to the City's Solar
Access Standards(Conservation Open Space Element Table 2).
c. Parking Demand Management/Trip Reduction Programs: A verifiable
parking demand management program and a trip reduction program to
reduce residentlemployee dependence on single-occupant vehicle trips, to
the approval of the Public Works Director.
d. Three-Dimensional Digital Model: A. complete three-dimensional digital
model of the proposed building, consistent with the specifications for the
City's Baseline 3-D Digital Model of the Downtown Core and suitable for
display on the City's internet site.
e. Solid Waste Management Plan: A solid waste management plan to show
how the project meets or exceeds the City's Solid Waste Guidelines, to the
approval of the Utilities Director. If any exceptions to the Solid Waste
Guidelines are requested the plan shall include a written explanation and
justification.
f. Green Building Plan: A written Green Building Plan shall be provided to
indicate how the project complies with performance standards for energy
efficiency.
g. Emergency Services Access Plan: A written and graphic plan -created in
consultation with the City's Fire Marshal to show how access to upper floors
for emergency response personnel will be provided.
h. Public Safety Plan: A security plan - created in consultation with the Police
Department for all proposed buildings that include publicly accessible areas
such as parking garages, courtyards, public stairways, elevators and decks.
The security plan will identify the locations of 911 capable phones in parking
areas and will establish rules and regulations for public use of courtyards and
decks, and establish timeframes for private security patrols to be in place.
i. Utilities Infrastructure Analysis` An engineer's evaluation of existing utilities
infrastructure and recommendations to insure 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.
j. Building Code Analysis: A building code analysis specifying the building's
allowable area, occupancy class, occupancy load, and construction type.
D. Maximum coverage: 100%.
Paoie 4
Attachment 1
city of San lues ostspo
august 2007 (dealt amendments) zoning Regulations
E. Maximum Floor Area Ratio(FAR):
1. 3.0-maximum allowed for buildings up to 50 feet tall;
2. 3.75-maximum allowed for buildings approved above 50 feet tall;
3. 4.0 - maximum allowed for approved buildings over 50 feet tall with transfer of
development credits for open space protection or historic preservation; or if a
density bonus for affordable housing is granted.
F. Standard Lot Dimensions:
Minimum lot area:3,000 square feet
Minimum lot width: 25 feet
Minimum lot depth: 50 feet
Minimum street frontage: 15 feet
G. Vehicle Access: Although residential uses are encouraged in the C-D Zone, it is not
the intent of the City to ensure that parking is provided on-site for residential uses.
Therefore, there is no guarantee of parking availability, either on-site or off-site, for
downtown residential projects. On-site parking may be considered inappropriate at
certain downtown locations where the pedestrian experience would be harmed by
vehicle ingress and egress across the sidewalk. In order to maintain pedestrian
orientation and the continuity of sidewalks within the C-D Zone, an Administrative
Use Permit must be approved to permit the installation of new driveway approaches
proposed after the effective date of this ordinance. When new driveway approaches
are proposed in conjunction with an application for Architectural Review, a separate
Planning Application shall not be required. In order to approve the new driveway
approach, the approving body must make at least one of the following findings:
1. The proposed driveway approach will not harm the general health, safety and
welfare of people living or working in the vicinity of the project site because the
number of vehicles expected to use the driveway is limited (less than 10 spaces)
and there are no other alternatives, such as service alleys, to provide vehicle
access to the site.
2. The proposed driveway approach is located along a non-arterial street and will
not significantly alter the character of the street or pedestrian circulation in the
area in consideration of the characteristics of pedestrian flow to and from the
project site and surrounding uses.
3. The proposed driveway approach is a shared facility and provides efficient
access to more than a single project in a way that eliminates the need for
additional driveways.
4. The proposed driveway approach provides access to public parking.
H. Parking: Other sections of this Title notwithstanding, the Parking Requirements in the
C-D zone shall be as follows:
1. Restaurants, sandwich shops, take-out food, bars, taverns, night clubs, other
food service or entertainment establishments, theaters, auditoriums, convention
halls, and churches: one-half that required in Section 17.16.060 provided,
however, that in no case the requirement shall exceed one space per 350 square
feet gross floor area.
2. Dwellings, motels, hotels and bed and breakfast inns: One-half that required in
Section 17.16.060.
3. All other uses: One space per 500 square feet gross floor area.
page 5
�"�T
Attachment 1
city of san Luis oBispo
auqust 2007 (ORart amenOments7 zoning ueGulations
4. In determining the total number of required spaces, all fractions shall be rounded
to the nearest whole number. Fractions of 0.5 or greater shall be rounded to 1;
fractions less than 0.5 shall be rounded to 0.
5. For existing buildings, only the parking needed for additions thereto or for
changes in occupancy which increase parking requirement relative to prior uses,
shall be required.
6. Parking space reductions allowed by Section 17.16.060 shall not be applicable in
the C-D zone, as the reduced parking rates established in 17.42.020.H.1-3 are
intended to provide flexibility in meeting parking requirements and rely on the
consolidation of parking.
7. The parking space requirement may be met by:
a. Providing the required spaces on the site occupied by the use;
b. Providing the required spaces off-site, but within 500 feet of the proposed
use, in a lot owned or leased by the developer of the proposed use;
c. Participating in a commonly held and maintained off-site parking lot where
other businesses maintain their required spaces;
d. Participating in a parking district that provides parking spaces through a fee
or assessment program. (This subsection may be satisfied by participation
of the underlying property in a parking district by January 1, 1988. If by that
date the underlying property is not participating in such a district, the parking
requirement shall be otherwise met);
e. Participating in an in-lieu fee program as may be established by the City
Council. Any parking agreement approved prior to adoption of the parking
standards contained in Sections H.1-3 above, may be adjusted to conform
with those standards, subject to approval by the Community Development
Director and City Attorney; or
f. Any combination of subsections H.4.a.through H.4.e of this section.
The Community Development Department shall be notified of the expiration
or termination of any agreement securing required parking. The Department
shall schedule a public hearing before the planning commission to consider
revocation of the use authorization where no alternative location for required
parking is provided. (Ord. 1101 - 2, 1987; Ord. 1074-2, 1986: Ord. 1050- 1
(part), 1985: Ord. 1023 - 1 1984; Ord. 1006- 1 (part), 1984; Ord. 1941 - 1
(part), 1982: prior code-9203.10(8))
I. Maximum Building Size: No retail establishment (commercial building) shall exceed
60,000 square feet of gross floor area, unless excepted by subsection J and Section
17.16.035.
J. A retail establishment may be allowed up to 140,000 square feet of gross floor area, if
the Planning Commission determines that it meets the following standards:
1. The proposed use will serve the community, in whole or in significant part, and
the nature of the use requires a larger size in order to function.
2. The building in which the use is to be located is designed in discrete-elements
that respect the scale of development in the surrounding area.
3. The new building is designed in compliance with the City's Design Guidelines for
Large-Scale Retail Projects. (Ord. 1405—2001 Series)
page 6
1�S
Attnhment 1
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 25, 2007
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Amanda Brodie, John Ashbaugh, Michael Multari,
Diana Gould-Wells, Dan Carpenter, Vice-Chair Charles Stevenson and
Chairperson Carlyn Christianson
Absent: None
Staff: Deputy Community Development Director Doug Davidson, Associate
Planners Phil Dunsmore and Michael Codron, Assistant City Attorney
Christine Dietrick, and Recording Secretary Jill Francis
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Commissioners or staff may modify the order of items.
The agenda was accepted as written.
MINUTES: Minutes of July 11, 2007. Approve or amend.
The minutes of July 11, 2007 were approved as amended.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Bruce Loeffler, 670 Woodbridge St., SLO, would like to see the neighborhood around
Meadow Park preserve its historic character.
Richard Ferris, SLO business owner for 35 years; voiced concerns with parking at peak
retail times. He felt that lack of parking is detrimental to local merchants.
Boz Schrage, SLO, voiced concerns with Chinatown EIR and strongly objects to the
construction of the Chinatown project.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. Downtown Core. R/TA 50-06; Review of Zoning Regulations amendments
recommended to implement new General Plan policies and programs relating to
building heights and intensity limits in the downtown core; City of San Luis Obispo,
applicant. (continued from 6-27-07) (Michael Codron)
Associate Planner Michael Codron provided a brief presentation describing some
changes proposed to the draft Zoning Regulations amendments, based on public
testimony and Commissioner comments during the June 27, 20 • hearing. He noted
that staff is recommending that the City Council introduce an ordfiance amending the
Zoning Regulations to implement new policies relating to downtown building height and
intensity limits.
o2C�
Planning Commission Minutes �ttalchment 1
July 25, 2007
Page 2
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
The Commission re-opened the continued hearing for additional public testimony.
Ken Haggard, Santa Margarita, local architect and member of SLO-Greenbuild board,
was very concerned that equal emphasis is given to energy efficiency. He was
dismayed by input from architects, noted in the staff report, regarding the cost of
reducing greenhouse gases by 2030. He reiterated that AB32 mandates that we reduce
greenhouse gas production by half.
Tom Jones, SLO, suggested that staff be explicit about maximum density set at 36 if
there are no affordable units. He supported the notion that the City needs smaller units
somewhere in our community. He recommended that.we get as many units as possible
downtown. Mr. Jones was opposed to the strict limits of 800 square feet and 1100
square feet. He suggested that the best thing we can do for the environment is to get
people to live downtown and reduce parking requirements.
Mark Rawson, SLO, opposed the 1100 square foot average unit size mandate. He felt
that flexibility should be allowed in order to facilitate creative projects with larger units to
accommodate all types of interested parties. Mr. Rawson suggested that the 1100
square foot limit should only apply to half of the units; or perhaps there should be a
graduated unit average.
John Ewan, SLO, representative of SLO Greenbuild, suggested that goals for energy
conservation should be more substantial than 15% over Title 24. He would like to see
staff move towards a goal that really makes a difference like the 2030 standard.
Hamish Marshall, 895 Aerovista Place, SLO, Westpac investments, opposed the 1100
square foot restriction. He suggested that the City not try to dictate what the housing
market demands. He felt 1100 square feet is too small, and offered supporting evidence
about the lack of sales of recent 800 square foot mixed-use units at Broad Street.
Luther Bertrando, 267 Foothill Blvd., SLO, suggested a pedestrian crosswalk with a
stoplight instead of a countdown light. Because his comments did not address the
agenda item, his comment time was ended by the Commission.
Bob Lucas, 1831 San Luis Drive., SLO, was concerned that the new buildings reaching
heights upwards of 60 and 75 feet will not maintain the city's character. He called
attention to the City Council meeting held in early February that approved amending the
General Plan for a "moderate increase" in downtown building heights and asked staff to
be clearer on the definition of "moderate".
Barry Williams, SLO Chamber of Commerce subcommittee for height, licensed architect
and Cal Poly professor, supported increasing heights because it increases density
downtown. He suggested that the City deal with the FAR in the downtown core instead
of dwellings-per-unit, which may increase housing downtown. He cautioned that smaller
sized units do not mean cheaper units. He opposed the fixed limit of 1100 square feet,
and suggested that the City utilize tools like the Cal Poly 3D map in conjunction with
/�� 7
Planning Commission Minutes Attachment I
July 25, 2007
Page 3
potential building overlays to address key issues like viewsheds, sun shading and
shadowing.
Diane Diamond, 2864 Victoria, SLO, was concerned that increasing density may affect
walkability of downtown. She suggested that more attention be given to buildings at the
pedestrian level. She also expressed concern with vacant buildings on Broad Street and
increased urban sprawl.
Debbie Highfill, Morro Bay, suggested that language should be added to downtown core
amendment regarding stepping back buildings to include a "wedding cake" stepping
effect like the new building in Cayucos. She suggested that there should be step back
provisions for buildings with more than two stories, and strongly encouraged staff to
give more attention to workforce housing and rentals. She would like to see the limit
lowered to 900 square feet average unit size.
William H. Geiger, 138 Ramona Dr., SLO, withdrew his public comment.
Betty Winholtz, Morro Bay City Council member, was concerned about height limits,
noting she would like to see stronger regulations through amendments, like the
"wedding cake" setback. She addressed a study in NYC about tall buildings and
detrimental affects of shadowing, and strongly suggested that the number of high
buildings should be limited. She encouraged protection of historic buildings. Finally, she
suggested that the City needs more rental opportunities to accommodate burgeoning
workforce.
Rachel Kovesdi, SLO, opposed the 1100 square foot limit, and strongly opposed the
800 square foot average limit. She cautioned that exceeding Title 24 by 30% will be
difficult for storefronts, especially those stores that are not solar facing. She encouraged
staff to consider excluding other non-habitable areas in FAR calculations such as decks,
covered atriums and balconies.
Stanley Richenberg, 2410 Cima Court, SLO, suggested that story poles should be
utilized in advance of new construction downtown to help residents visualize building
height.
Boz Schrage, SLO, alluded to 140 California cities he has been to that are under four
stories. He cautioned that staff should consider every project carefully so as not to leave
a city and a legacy that nobody will enjoy.
Pete Evans, SLO, voiced that it is inappropriate for the Commission or staff to
discourage public input. He was concerned that the staff report was confusing regarding
affordable units. Mr. Evans suggested that new buildings should not leave their doors
locked in an open position because it wastes energy.
Joseph Abrams, 335 San Miquel Ave, SLO, questioned the policy objectives of the
Planning Commission. He challenged the Commission to not rubber stamp the City
Council and encouraged that each project should be vigorously evaluated. He
_IZ2_001"
Planning Commission Minutes J Attachment 1
July 25, 2007
Page 4
supported the addition of viewing platforms and open space plazas in the new height
ordinance.
Elizabeth Abrams, 335 San Miquel Ave, SLO, suggested that a physical model should
be constructed and story poles should be utilized to give citizens-the impression of
proposed height limits.
Richard Krejsa, 189 San Jose Court, SLO, was concerned that increased heights will
"channelize" the city streets creating "canyonization". He cautioned that high buildings
may impact solar collectors and diminish viewsheds.
Sharon Dobson, 1839 Corralitos Ave., SLO, would like to see the Commission take care
when reviewing applications and plans in the "control phase" because developers don't
always proceed as planned.
Bruce Loeffler, 670 Woodbridge St., suggested that the City should be reluctant to
approve high buildings on topographic high points.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
The Commission asked questions of staff and determined by consensus that the
revised amendments were responsive to the concerns expressed by the public and the
Commission during the previous meeting. The Commission determined, by consensus,
that the ordinance amendments were sufficiently developed and that with sufficient time
for discussion, they could move forward and develop a recommendation to the City
Council.
On motion by Commr. Brodie tocontinuediscussion of this item to a special meeting of
the Planning Commission on Wednesday. August 1St, with the proposed. Zoning
Regulations amendments being the only item on the special meeting agenda.
Seconded by Commr. Stevenson.
AYES: Commrs. Multari, Gould-Wells, Stevenson, Ashbaugh, Carpenter, Brodie
and Christianson
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: None
The motion carried on a 7 :0 vote.
2. 2321 Broad Street. FH 59-07; Appeal of the Director's denial of a Fence Height
Exception request to allow a 5 foot fence where a 3 foot fence is allowed along the
street yard property line; R-2 zone; Matthew Frakes, applicant. (Brian Leville)
Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore provided a comprehensive presentation of the
requested fence exception, recommending the Commission deny the appeal and uphold
Attachment 1
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Adjourned Meeting
August 1, 2007
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners, Amanda Brodie, John Ashbaugh, Michael Multari,
Diana Gould-Wells, Dan Carpenter, Vice-Chair Charles Stevenson,
and Chairperson Carlyn Christianson
Absent: None
Staff: Community Development Director John Mandeville, Deputy
Community Development Directors Doug Davidson and Kim Murry,
Associate Planner Michael Codron, Assistant City Attorney Christine
Dietrick and Recording Secretary Jill Francis
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Commissioners or staff may modify the order of items.
The agenda was accepted as written.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
There were no comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. Downtown Core. R/TA. 50-06; Review of Zoning Regulations amendments
recommended to implement new General Plan policies and programs relating to
building heights and intensity limits in the downtown core; City of San Luis Obispo,
applicant. (Continued from 7-25-07) (Michael Codron)
Associate Planner Michael Codron explained that this is the third Planning Commission
meeting on the height ordinance, and that during the previous two meetings, the
Commission heard public testimony from approximately 50 speakers and received
written comments from over 30 individuals. Staff recommended that the Commission
consider revisions to the Zoning Ordinance and formulate a recommendation to the City
Council to implement new policies relating to downtown building height and intensity
limits.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
The public comment period was closed during the previous meeting (7-25-07), and was
not re-opened.
/r3�
Attachment 1
Planning Commission Minutes -
Adjourned meeting of August 1, 2007
Page 2
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Stevenson discussed some changes to the Purpose and Intent section of the
ordinance, which included adding the language "affordable workforce housing
opportunities". He expressed his uncertainty that all projects over 50 feet can meet all
policy objectives but agreed that all projects should come before the Planning
Commission. He felt that a pedestrian connection or public plaza/gathering place should
be a performance standard; after some discussion, it was determined that was more
appropriate as policy objective.
Commr. Ashbaugh requested the term "shared housing" be changed to the already
defined "group housing", and discussed the need for "free public access" to views decks
in proposed tall buildings. He felt a three dimensional model of prospective projects
should be on the City's internet site to make it publicly accessible.
Commr. Carpenter felt that all buildings/projects over 50 feet should meet all policy
objectives and standards, and should come before the Planning Commission. He felt
the wording on the Historic Preservation objective needed to be clarified to distinguish
between buildings located on-site versus off-site.
Commr. Multari recommended a set of performance standards for buildings over 50 feet
tall. He suggested adding language to the housing performance standard that would
eliminate the unit size limitations if 60% of the building floor area, excluding parking, is
devoted to housing; and suggested raising the average unit size to 1,500 square feet
max. instead of 1,100 square feet, as proposed. He presented a drawing to describe a
proposed definition of building height on sloped sites, as well as a drawing to depict the
upper story setbacks needed to screen views of upper floor building walls from
pedestrians on the fronting sidewalk.
Commr. Brodie agreed that a basic set of performance standards that all projects over
50 feet would have to meet is necessary, as well a specific number of standards and
objectives that each project over 50 and 60 feet would have to meet.
Commr. Christianson discussed going through the performance standards one by one
to see which ones may fit in as objectives and which as performance standards, as
suggested by Commr. Multari. She supported the energy objectives that the builders
would have to meet: 15% above Title 24, LEED silver rating, or SLO GreenBuild rating.
In discussing historic preservation, it was noted that the number of buildings downtown
that were designated on the Master List of Historic Resources was approximately 41.
Commr. Gould-Wells agreed with a need for a new baseline survey of historic buildings.
The subject of trip reduction plans and their incorporation as a possible performance
standard was discussed.
The Commission expressed agreement with Commr. Multari's comments the objectives
that are particularly valuable for future large projects and a suggested finding to insure
that public benefits outweigh the negative impact of increased building height.
The Planning Commission's recommendation reflects the public testimony, the
1-31
Planning Commission Minutes Att3ChP71Erlt
Adjourned meeting of August 1, 2007
Page 3
recommendations of staff and the consensus-building approach employed by
Chairwoman Christianson to work through each section of the ordinance and develop
agreement before moving on to the next. The results are summarized below:
1. Performance Standard a. was modified to increase the average floor area
maximum from 1,100 square feet to 1,500 square feet. If at least 60% of the
floor area of the building is devoted to housing (excluding parking) there would
be no floor area limitation.
2. A new Performance Standard was added to address building height limitations.
3. A new Performance Standard was added to specify a minimum setback for the
upper story generally not be visible to pedestrians on the sidewalk along the
building's street frontage.
4. A Policy Objective for historic preservation was made into a Performance
Standard. As recommended by the Planning Commission (and previously
recommended by the Cultural Heritage Committee), projects on sites with
historic buildings must provide for the preservation or adaptive reuse of those
buildings in a manner consistent with City policy to be eligible for increased
building height.
5. The Planning Commission added LEED and SLO Green Build ratings as
alternatives to meeting the requirement for tall buildings to exceed California
energy efficiency requirements (Title 24) by 15%.
6. After augmenting the Performance Standards as described above, the Planning
Commission reduced the number of Policy Objectives required for approval of
buildings between 60 and 75 feet to "at least two," where four objectives had
previously been recommended. The Commission is also recommending a finding
for approval of buildings between 60 and 75 feet that would require the
Commission to determine that the "public benefits associated with the project
significantly outweigh any detrimental impacts associated with additional
height." The Commission also recommended that in weighing potential public
benefits the Commission shall consider objectives related to affordable and
workforce housing, economic vitality, historic preservation and open space
preservation to be especially important.
7. Policy Objective c. was modified to require residential density greater than or
equal to 36 units per acre with average floor area not to exceed 1,100 square
feet, increased from 800 square feet.
8. Additional minor changes were made to the formatting and content of the
proposed ordinance.
On motion by Commr. Ashbaugh to introduce an ordinance to the City Council
amending the Zoning Regulations. Seconded by Commr. Stevenson.
Planning Commission Minutes
Attachment 1
Adjourned meeting of August 1, 2007
Page 4
AYES: Commrs. Stevenson, Ashbaugh, Gould-Wells, Carpenter, Brodie and
Christianson
NOES: Commr. Multari
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: . None _
The motion carried on a 6:1 vote.
It was noted that the City Council is tentatively scheduled to consider the Planning
Commission's recommendation on Tuesday, September 4th.
The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. to the regular meeting of the Planning
Commission scheduled for Wednesday August 8, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council
Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street.
Respectfully submitted by
Jill Francis
Recording Secretary
Approved by the Planning Commission on August 22, 2007.
Marlo Pritchard for lane R. Stuart, CM
Management Assistant
Attachment 2
RESOLUTION NO.9872(2007 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF T 1 E CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS REGARDING
DOWNTOWN BUILDING HEIGHT AND INTENSITY LIMITS AND A .
NUTIGATED 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 Iand 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:
R 9872
��y
C' —1 Attachment 2
Resolution No.9872(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 Council Member Carter, seconded by Council Member Brown, and on
the following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Members Brown and Carter, and Mayor Romero
NOES: Council Member Settle and Vice Mayor Mulholland
ABSENT: None
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 6`s day of February 2007.
Attachment 2
Resolution No. 9872 (2007 Series)
Page 3
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
Audrey HoWer
City Cle
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jona ian well
City Attorney
1X34
Attachment 2
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 a street fagade that is consistent
with the historic pattern of development. Generally, new buildings should not exceed 60 feet in
height. Tall buildings (between 50 and 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
• 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
/-3�
Attachment 2
Planning Commission Resolution No.XXXX-06 Exhibit A
Page 2
• 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 M'above sidewalk grade.
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.
2/15/2007
1-3e
r Attachment 2
Planning Commission Resolution No.XXXX-06 Exhibit A
Page 3
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.
2/15/2007
Attachment 3
Community Design Guidelines Update
' LUE Program 4.21 - Status Report
On February 6, 2007, the City Council approved Resolution No. 9872 (Attachment 1),
amending the Land Use Element of the General Plan to clarify policies relating to
downtown building heights. These amendments included a new Land Use Element
(LUE)program, as follows:
LUE Program 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.
A sub-committee of Architectural Review Commission (ARC) members and the
chairman of the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC), Chuck Crotser, met five times
beginning February 21, 2007, and developed a working draft Community Design
Guidelines update. The working draft and several sample graphics were provided to the
CHC and ARC for review and comment.
Exhibit 1 includes the minutes from the CHC meeting on April 23, 2007. Exhibit 2
includes the minutes from the ARC meeting on May 21, 2007. The following is a brief
status report regarding the changes requested by the CHC and ARC and a summary of the
work that still needs to be accomplished as part of the update.
Next Steps
The fmal draft will be reviewed by the CHC and.ARC before the City Council is asked to
consider adoption of the proposed revisions. No date is set for Council review at this
time.
The proposed update involves only one section of the Community Design Guidelines, as
follows:
4.2.B. Height, scale. Multi-story buildings are desirable because they can provide
opportunities for upper-floor offices and residential units1, and can increase the
numbers of potential customers for ground floor retail uses, which assists in
maintaining their viability. Multi-story buildings should be set back above the
second or third level to maintain a street fagade that is consistent with the
historic pattern of development, maintaining the general similarity of building
heights at the sidewalk edge. Different building heights may be appropriate as
follows:
IOne goal of the Housing Element of the General Plan is to encourage mixed use projects in the
downtown that provide housing on upper floors above the commercial street frontage.
1�yd
Attachment 3
Community Design Guidelines Update— Status Report Page 2
The ARC accepted the text above and no further changes are proposed.
1. The height and scale of new buildings and alterations to existing buildings shall
fit within the context and vertical scale of existing development and provide
human scale and proportion. Some tools to achieve this include:
The ARC accepted the above text and no further changes are proposed.
a. The height of a building at the back of sidewalk should not exceed the
width of the adjoining street;
The ARC modified the language above to read, "In no case may the height of a building
at the back of sidewalk exceed the width of the adjoining right-of-way." A graphic will
also be provided to illustrate this guideline. The following example was provided to the
ARC, but will be customized to fit the San Luis Obispo context.
THE SCALE OF BUILDINGS SHOULD RELATE O
TO THE WIDTH OF THE STREET
b. Building height may not exceed 60 feet in height without the approval
of a Planning Commission Use Permit; and
The ARC accepted the above text and no further changes are proposed.
c. New buildings that are significantly taller or shorter than adjacent
buildings shall provide appropriate visual transitions.
The ARC did not request any changes to the above text.
A graphic will be provided to illustrate two different types
of architectural transitions. One will show architectural
elements that align or relate adjacent buildings of
different heights to each other, the second illustration will
show examples of massing in buildings that would step up
to taller portions of a new building. The example at right
was provided to the ARC, but a new graphic specific to
the San Luis Obispo context will be provided.
Attachment 3
Community Design Guidelines Update— Status Report Page 3
d. For new projects adjacent to buildings included on the City's Master
List of Historic Resources there shall be a heightened architectural and
contextual sensitivity.
The ARC modified the language above to read, "For new projects adjacent to buildings
included on the City's Master List of Historic Resources there shall be a heightened
sensitivity to the mass and scale of the significant buildings."
2. New buildings shall not obstruct views from, or sunlight to, publicly-owned
gathering places including, but not limited to, Mission Plaza, the Jack House
gardens, and YCLC Cheng Park.
The ARC discussed this guideline in reference to Land Use Element Policy 4.13, New
Buildings and Views. The ARC directed staff to revise the language to better reflect the
specific policy language, which says that new buildings "shall respect views of the hills,
framing rather than obscuring them. " This language and guidance on how to achieve
the intended view preservation will be added to the draft guideline before returning to the
ARC.
3. New buildings should not shade the northerly sidewalk of Marsh, Higuera or
MontereyStreets at noon on December 21st. Information demonstrating this
objective shall accompany all applications for architectural review as detailed
on application checklists.
The ARC accepted the above text and no further changes are proposed. A graphic
providing specific information regarding the sun angle in San Luis Obispo will be
provided to assist designers in responding to this requirement.
The buadM should brimWed back to allow sunshine to nosh
sidewalk.
4. Tall buildings (between 50 and 75 feet) shall be designed to achieve multiple
policy objectives, including design amenities, housing and retail land uses.
Appropriate techniques to assure that tall buildings respect the context of their
setting and provide an appropriate visual transition to adjacent structures
include, but are not limited to:
Attachment 3
Community Design Guidelines Update— Status Report Page 4
a. For large projects that occupy several lots, variable roof heights and
architectural features such as tower elements are encouraged to diminish
the mass and scale of the taller structure;
The ARC modified the above language to read, "For large projects that occupy several
lots, variable roof heights and architectural features that penetrate the bulk of the roof
plan are encouraged to diminish the mass and scale of the taller structure;"
b. Reinforce the established horizontal lines of facades in adjacent buildings;
The ARC accepted the above text and no./urther changes are proposed.
c. Maintain the distinction between the first and upper floors by having a
more transparent ground floor. On upper floors, consider using windows
or other architectural features that will reinforce the typical rhythm of
upper story windows found on traditional commercial buildings;
The ARC modified the above language to read, "Maintain the distinction between the fust
and upper floors by having a more transparent ground floor. On upper floors, consider
using windows or other architectural features that will reinforce the typical rhythm of
upper story windows found on traditional commercial buildings and provide architectural
interest on all four sides of the building;"
d. Larger buildings should be designed to appear as a collection of adjacent
structures when street frontages exceed 50 feet, and this should be clearly
expressed at the street by changing material or setback to respect the
historic pattern of downtown development;
The ARC modified the above language to read, "Larger buildings when frontages exceed
50 feet should be clearly expressed at the street frontage by changing material or setback
to respect the historic lot pattern and rhythm of downtown development;" A graphic with
photographic examples of existing buildings downtowns will also be provided to
illustrate this guideline.
e. Abrupt changes in building heights and/or roof orientation should be
diminished by offsets of building form and mass;
The ARC accepted the above text and no further changes are proposed.
f. Use roof overhangs, cornices, dentals, moldings, awnings, and other
decorative features to decrease the vertical appearance of the walls;
The ARC accepted the above text and no./urther changes are proposed.
g. Use recesses and projections to visually divide building surfaces into
smaller scale elements;
The ARC accepted the above text and no further changes are proposed.
/-7�
Attachment 3
Community Design Guidelines Update—Status Report Page 5
h. Use color to visually reduce the size, bulk and scale of the building;
The ARC accepted the above text and no further changes are proposed.
i. Use planter walls and other pedestrian-oriented features on the ground
floor such as windows, wall detailing, and public art;
The ARC accepted the above text and no further changes are proposed.
Attachment 4
city of San Luis OBISPO
,lune 2007- xhisit a zoning 12egul4ions
Chapter 17.42: DOWNTOWN-COMMERCIAL (C-D) ZONE
Sections:
17.42.010 Purpose and application.
17.42.020 Property development standards.
17.42.010 Purpose and application.
The C-D zone is intended to provide for a wide range of retail sales, service, and
entertainment uses meeting community-wide and regional market demands and a variety
of housing types including affordable workforce housing.. The C-D zone is intended to be
applied within the Citys pedestrian-oriented central business district, where the historical
pattern of development creates limitations on building form and the ability for individual
businesses to provide on-site parking. Ground floor, street-fronting uses are intended to
be generally limited to those that attract frequent pedestrian traffic. The C-D zone is
intended to maintain, enhance, and extend the desirable characteristics of the downtown,
and also to accommodate carefully integrated new development. The C-D zone is
consistent with and implements the General Retail land use category of the General Plan.
17.42.020 Property development standards.
The property development standards for the C-D zone are as follows:
A. Maximum density: 36 units per acre, including dwelling units in hotels and motels, but
not including other hotel or motel units (see also Section 17.16.010).
B. Yards: See Section 17.16.020.
C. Maximum height: 50 feet (see also Sections 17.16.020 and 17.16.040). Additional
building height up to 75 feet may be approved as provided under 17.42.020.C.1 and
C.2 and C.3 below.
1. Performance Standards for Buildings Taller Than 50 Feet(All Required).
a. The project must include housing at a minimum residential density unit value
of 24 units ber acre. The average floor area of dwellings within the project
shall be 1.500 square feet or less. (Group housing projects must show that
the proposed building meets or exceeds the Population density that would
otherwise-be achieved by this standard.)
b. For projects on sloping sites,the height limit on the downhill Portion of the site
shall be defined by a line 75 feet above the average between the highestand
lowest points of the site grade prior to development. and 75 feet above the
lowest point.
c. The project provides upper story setbacks for front yards consistent with LUE
Policy 4.16.4. At a minimum, portions of the building above 50 feet shall be
set back sufficiently so that these upper building walls are generally not
visible to pedestrians on the sidewalk along the building's frontage.
d. The proiect provides for preservation or adaptive reuse of all buildings on the
City's Master List of Historic Resources located on the Project site in a
Pace I �-ys
Attachment 4
city of san Luis oslspo
zonmc, Recutations ,lune 2007-aRaft Revisions
manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Resources.
e. The applicant shall demonstrate that the project will exceed Title 24 California
Energy Efficiency Requirements by a minimum of 15%; or
The project is designed to achieve at least a Silver rating on the LEED-CS or
NC checklist (or equivalent measure) (LEED CerWication is not required but
is encouraged); or
The project is designed.to achieve a_minimum value of 50 points on the SLO
Green Build Multi-Family GreenPoint Checklist.
f. No more than 33% of the site area at the storefront level may be used for
private parking facilities.
g. Lots shall conform to the minimum size and dimension requirements
provided in the Subdivision Regulations.
e. The Planning Commission may grant minor exceptions to the specific
requirements listed in this section, subject to a Planning Commission Use
Permit and provided a finding is made.that, despite the exception, the project
is consistent with the intent of the ordinance and LUE Policy 4.16.4.
2. The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) may approve building height up to
60 feet if the ARC determines that the project includes at least two of the
following policy objectives (lettered a. through I.).
The Planning Commission may approve a use permit allowing maximum building
height of 75 feet upon determining that at least two of the following policy
objectives are met,and at least one Affordable and Workforce Housing Objective
must be chosen.
To approve a use permit the Planning Commission must make the following
finding:
The Public benefits associated with the Proiect significantly outweigh any
detrimental iMnacts from the additional height. (In weighing Potential Public
benefits. the Planning Commission shall consider obiectives related to affordable
and workforce housing, economic vitality, historic Areservation.and open space
preservation to be especially important.)
Policy Objectives
Intent: The intent of the following Policy Objectives is to insure that buildings
taller than 50 feet proposed in the C-D zone include features that meet the
specific policy objectives outlined for tall buildings in the Citv's General Plan
(including, but. not limited to, Land Use Element, Chapter 4.0). A variety of
objectives are listed to insure that proposed project features are appropriate for
the site and surroundings and to allow for wide range of possible project types
Regardless of the number of objectives proposed the decision making body
must determine that the overall Droiect is consistent with the. General Plan,
including goals and policies for view preservation, historical resource.
Preservation, solar access and architectural character.
pace 2
I
Attachment 4
city of san Luis ogispo
duns 2007- xhlslt a zonmq Requl4ions
Affordable and Workforce Housing Projects
a. The project provides affordable housing, per City standards, at the rate of 5%
for low income households, or 10% for moderate income households, as a
percentage of the total number of housing units built (no in-lieu fee option).
b. The project qualifies for, and utilizes, a density bonus per the City's
Affordable Housing Incentives(SLOMC Chapter 17.90)
c. The project includes residential density greater than or equal to 36 units per
acre and the average floor area of units is 1.100 square feet or less. (Group
housing proiects must show that the Proposed building meets or exceeds the
Population density that would otherwise be achieved by this objective.)
Pedestrian Amenities
d. The project provides a maior pedestrian connection between Higuera Street
and the Creekwalk. Monterey Street and the Creekwalk, Higuera Street and
Marsh Street, or at another acceptable mid-block location.
e. The project incorporates a significant public plaza, where the public art
requirement is met by providing the art on-site (no in-lieu fee option).
View Access and Preservation
f. The project provides a public viewing deck or decks, or similar feature, to
provide significant free public access to views of surrounding natural features
such as,but not limited to, Cerro San Luis.
q. The project improves and dedicates land within the downtown core for
Publicly-owned open space with .street-level views of hillside resources.
consistent with Land Use Element.Policy 4.7 and Program 4.20.
Economic Vitality
h. The proiect providesadditional economic benefit to the City by providing retail
sales or hospitality uses (subject to the City's transient occupancy tax) on
multiple levels. Total floor area dedicated to retail or hospitality uses must
exceed 120%of the building footprint.
Historic Preservation
L Where there are no historic resources on the proiect site, the proiect will
provide for the permanent preservation of a building off-site within the
Downtown Historic District or Chinatown Historic District that is listed in the
city's Inventory of Historical Resources through the recordation of a Historic
Preservation Agreement.
Open Space Preservation
i. The proiect provides for the permanent preservation of open space land in
the City's greenbelt through land dedication,the recordation of a conservation
easement, or other recognized preservation method to the approval of the
City's NaturalResourcesManager.
PAGE 3 /_��
Attachment 4
city of san Luis oBispo
zoninc, uequlations ,funE 2007-aAaft Revisions
Enengy Efficiency
k. The project is designed to meet the fossil fuel reduction standards
established by the Architecture 2030 Challenge.
I. The project is designed to exceed the Title 24 energy efficiency requirements
by a minimum of 30%.
Other Policy Objectives
m. The project directly implements specific and identifiable City obiectives as set
forth in the General Plan, the Conceptual Plan for the City s Center, the
Downtown Stratedic Plan or other key policy document, to the approval of the
Planning Commission. (Sub-section m. may be used to meet requirements
for up to two Policy obiectives.)
3. Application Requirements:. Planning applications submitted for new buildings
over 50 feet tall shall include the following additional items lo assist the.City in the
analysis and decision making process.
a. Viewshed Analysis:. A written and graphic viewshed analysis from various
perspectives. The analysis shall identify visual resources within the viewshed
of the project and indicate how the design of the project addresses those
views from each perspective. Specific attention shall be given to views from
adiacent publicly=owned:gatherino spaces, such as Mission Plaza.
b. Solar Shading Analysis: A written and graphic solar shading analysis
showing the effects of shadind on its surroundings between 10 a.m. and 3
p.m. on the winter solstice, summer solstice and vernal or autumnal equinox.
The analysis shall compare shading caused by the project to the City's Solar
Access Standards (Conservation Open Space Element Table 2).
c. Parking Demand Management Trip Reduction Programs: A verifiable parking
demand management program and a _trip reduction program to reduce
residentlemployee dependence on single-occupant vehicle. trips, to the
approval of the Public Works Director. -
d. Three-Dimensional Digital Model: A complete three-dimensional digital
model of the proposed building, consistent with the specifications for the
City's Baseline 3-D Digital. Model of_the_Downtown Core and suitable for
display on the City's internet site.
e. Solid Waste Management Plan: A solid waste management plan to show
how theproject meets or exceeds the City's Solid Waste Guidelines, to the
approval of the Utilities Director.._ If any exceptions to the Solid Waste
Guidelines are requested the plan shall include a written explanation and
iustification.
f. Green Building Plan: A written Green Building Plan shall be Provided to
indicate how the project complies with performance standards for energy
efficiency.
g. Emergency Services Access Plan: A written and graphic plan -created in
consultation with the City's Fire Marshal to show how access to ubper floors
for emergency response personnel will be provided.
pace 4 <!
C
Attachment 4
city of san Luis osispo
dune 2007— xhisit_a zoning uequit4lons
h. Public Safety Plan: A.security plan - created in consultation with the Police
Department for all proposed buildings that include publicly accessible areas
such as parking garages, courtyards, public stairways, elevators and decks.
The security plan will identify the locations of 911 capable phones in parking
areas and.will establish rules and regulations for public use of courtyards and
decks and establish timeframes for private security patrols to be-in place.
i. Utilities Infrastructure Analysis: An engineer's evaluation of existing utilities
infrastructure and recommendations to insure 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
proiect's impact.
i. Building Code Analysis: A building code analysis specifying the building's
allowable area, occupancy class, occupancy load,and construction type.
Q hftaximum height; 50 feet (see aI69 ge--t6n.ng 17.1.6,020 and 17.16.040).
D. Maximum coverage: 100%.
E. Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR):
1. 3.0 - maximum allowed for buildings up to 50 feet tall:
2. 3.75- maximum allowed for buildings approved above 50 feet tall:
3. 4.0 - maximum allowed for approved buildings over 50 feet tall with transfer of
development credits for open space protection or historic preservation: or if.a
density bonus for affordable housing is granted.
F= AUxem-m flnmF groa raton- tht; rat;n of wess building flner area to rite area ANal, Ant
e*Geed 3.0, exGept that a site whin--h reroiver Wa
6paG9 PFGt8GtiGR shall have a Fatie Ret to exa-e-ed 4.0. (Ord. 4 365 (299 680e64
FHL
F. Standard Lot Dimensions:
Minimum lot area:3,000 square feet
Minimum lot width:25 feet
Minimum lot depth:50 feet
Minimum street frontage: 15 feet
G. Vehicle Access: Although residential uses are encouraged in the C-D Zone, it is not
theintent of the City to ensure that parking is provided on-site for residential uses.
Therefore, there is no guarantee.of parking availability, either on-site or off-site, for
downtown residential oroiects. On-site parking may be_considered inappropriate at
certain downtown locations where the pedestrian experience would be harmed by
vehicle ingress and egress across the sidewalk. In order to maintain pedestrian
orientation and the continuity of sidewalks within the C-D Zone. an Administrative Use
Permit must be approved to permit the installation of new driveway approaches
Proposed after the effective date of this ordinance. When new driveway approaches
are proposed.in conjunction with an application for Architectural Review, a separate
Planning Application shall not be._reguired. In order to approve the new driveway
approach,the approving body must make at least one ofthefollowing findings:
pace 5 � �<
- _� Attachment 4
city of San Luis OBISPO
zoning Requlations ,)unE 2007—aRaR peyisions
1. The proposed driveway approach will not harm the general health, safety and.
welfare of people living or working in the vicinity of the project site because the
number of vehicles.expected to use the driveway is limited (less than 10 spaces)
and there are no other alternatives, such as service alleys,.to provide vehicle
access to the site.
2. The proposed driveway approach is located along a non-arterial street and will
not significantly alter the character of. the street or pedestrian circulation in the
area in consideration of the characteristics of pedestrian flow to and from the
project site and surrounding uses.
3. The proposed driveway approach is a shared facility and provides efficient access
to more than a single proiect in a way that eliminates the need for additional
driveways.
4. The proposed driveway approach provides access to public parking.
GH.Parking: Other sections of this Title notwithstanding, the Parking Requirements in the
C-D zone shall be as follows:
1. Restaurants, sandwich shops, take-out food, bars, taverns, night clubs, other
food service or entertainment establishments, theaters, auditoriums, convention
halls, and churches: one-half that required in Section 17.16.060 provided,
however, that in no case the requirement shall exceed one space per 350 square
feet gross floor area.
2. Dwellings, motels, hotels and bed and breakfast inns: One-half that required in
Section 17.16.060.
3. All other uses: One space per 500 square feet gross floor area.
4. In determining the total number of required spaces, all fractions shall be rounded
to the nearest whole number. Fractions of 0.5 or greater shall be rounded to 1;
fractions less than 0.5 shall be rounded to 0.
5. For existing buildings, only the parking needed for additions thereto or for
changes in occupancy which increase parking requirement relative to prior uses,
shall be required.
6. Parking space reductions allowed by Section 17.16.060 shall not be applicable in
the C-D zone, as the reduced parking rates established in 17.42.020. H.1-3 are
intended to provide flexibility in meeting parking requirements and rely on the
consolidation of parking.
7. The parking space requirement may be met by:
a. Providing the required spaces on the site occupied by the use;
b. Providing the required spaces off-site, but within 500 feet of the proposed
use, in a lot owned or leased by the developer of the proposed use;
c. Participating in a commonly held and maintained off-site parking lot where
other businesses maintain their required spaces;
d. Participating in a parking district that provides parking spaces through a fee
or assessment program. (This subsection may be satisfied by participation of
the underlying property in a parking district by January 1, 1988. If by that date
the underlying property is not participating in such a district, the parking
requirement shall be otherwise met);
pace 6 1-5-6
L
Attachment 4
city of San Luis OBISpo
_=6 2007— Oft&k QeV1S1eH&exhiBrt a zomnG uEGulakions
e. Participating in an in-lieu fee program as may be established by the City
Council. Any parking agreement approved prior to adoption of the parking
standards contained in Sections €H.1-3 above, may be adjusted to conform
with those standards, subject to approval by the Community Development
Director and City Attorney; or
f. Any combination of subsectionsH.4.a.through t=H.4.e of this section.
The Community Development Department shall be notified of the expiration
or termination of any agreement securing required parking. The Department
shall schedule a public hearing before the planning commission to consider
revocation of the use authorization where no alternative location for required
parking is provided. (Ord. 1101 -2, 1987; Ord. 1074 2, 1986: Ord. 1050- 1
(part), 1985: Ord. 1023 - 1 1984; Ord. 1006 - 1 (part), 1984; Ord. 1941 - 1
(part), 1982: prior code- 9203.10(B))
#I. Maximum Building Size: No retail establishment (commercial building) shall exceed
60,000 square feet of gross floor area, unless excepted by subsection H and Section
17.16.035.
U. A retail establishment may be allowed up to 140,000 square feet of gross floor area, if
the Planning Commission determines that it meets the following standards:
1. The proposed use will serve the community, in whole or in significant part, and
the nature of the use requires a larger size in order to function.
2. The building in which the use is to be located is designed in discrete-elements
that respect the scale of development in the surrounding area.
3.. The new building is designed in compliance with the City's Design Guidelines for
Large-Scale Retail Projects. (Ord. 1405—2001 Series)
PaqE 7 �'S�
Aftachment -
'
310.820.0400
RDK&A
213.623.3841
Fax 213.623.4231
Allan D. Win &Associates
Real Estate Consulting for Public Private Joint Ventura
949 S. Hope Street Suite 200, Los Angeles,CA 90015 akotin@adkotln.com
Memorandum
TO: Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer,City of San Luis DATE:January 13, 2006
Obispo
CC: Shelly Stanwyck,Assistant City Administrative Officer
FROM: Allan D. Kotin
RE: ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF HEIGHT LIMITATIONS IN DOWNTOWN SAN LUIS OBISPO
At your request, I have prepared this memo outlining what I perceive to be some of the economic
issues associated with the limitation of building height in downtown San Luis Obispo. Although I
am not an urban planner, .I have given considerable thought to those ingredients that make for
successful downtowns, mixed-use and effective revitalization where revitalization is needed. In that
capacity I have studied in some detail the revitalization of Pasadena, Santa Monica, Santa Barbara
and, not at all irrelevantly, San Luis Obispo. In addition, I teach at the graduate School of Policy,
Planning,and Development at the University of Southern California. The two classes I teach are the
Development Approval Process and Public Private Joint Ventures. In both classes, I deal with the
issue of successful downtown revitalization and the interaction of developmental economics and
land use regulation.
I think there are three critical aspects of height limitations and their possible relaxation as they apply
to downtown San Luis Obispo. The three items are:
1. The land use impacts of height limitation;
2. Examples of articulated downtowns and their use of different height buildings;
3. The likely impacts of a relaxation of height limitations in downtown San Luis Obispo.
Before going into great detail and elaborating on the three thoughts, it is useful to talk about the
whole issue of height limitation. Many successful downtowns have buildings of five to seven stories
in height without having skyscrapers, and I will be discussing, in this brief memo, primarily
situations in which heights of perhaps 75 to 80 feet are tolerated, accommodating, depending on the
type of building, anywhere from six to eight stories at a maximum.
Impacts of Height Limitation on Land Use
One of the most interesting things about successful downtowns, whether they are continuously
successful or successful in revitalization, is that to survive you must grow. All the downtown
patterns that I have studied have to be seasoned with some level of new development. The new
development can, as it is in both.SLO and Santa Barbara, be very heavily regulated, but new
Attachment 5
RD-K&R
Memorandum
RE: ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF HEIGHT LIMITATIONS IN DOWNTOWN 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
&R Attachment 5
ADK
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 forms 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. Kotin&Associates Page 3 2/9/2006
i�y
ADK&A A�taci�ment 5
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.
documents and Settines\tkeelan\Mv Documents\ADK1ADKMemo.dot
Allan D.Kotin&Associates Page 4 219!2006
1-5
Attachment S
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
Chapter 17.90
AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES
Sections:
17.90.010 Purpose.
17.90.020 Definitions.
17.90.030 Standard incentives for housing projects.
17.90.040 Standard incentives for conversion of apartments to condominium projects.
17.90.050 Alternative or additional incentives.
17.90.060 Relationship to other city procedures.
17.90.070 Agreements for affordable housing.
17.90.080 Fees.
17.90.090 Affordability standards.
17.90.100 Occupant screening.
17.90.010 Purpose.
The purpose and intent of this chapter is to encourage housing projects which incorporate units
affordable to very-low, lower, and moderate income households, and qualifying seniors, and which
conform to city development policies and standards, by providing density bonuses, or other equivalent
incentives, as required by California Government Code Section 65915,et seq. (Ord. 1282 § 2, 1995; Ord.
1035 § 1 (part), 1985)
17.90.020 Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter;the following words and phrases shall have the meaning set forth below:
A. "Density"means residential density as defined in Section 17.16.010 of this code.
B. "Density bonus" means a density increase of at least twenty-five percent over the maximum
density otherwise allowable under the zoning regulations.
C. "Director"means the community development director or his or her authorized representative.
D. "Lower income households" shall have the meaning set forth in California Health and Safety
Code, Section 50079.5; provided the income of such persons and families shall not exceed eighty
percent of the median income within the county.
E. "Very-low income households" shall have the meaning set forth in California Health and Safety
Code, Section 50105.
F. "Moderate income households" shall include those persons and families whose incomes exceed
eighty percent but are less than or equal to one hundred twenty percent of the median income
within the county.
G. "Affordable" shall mean residential rent costs or sales prices which conform to the standards
issued by the director and updated periodically to reflect state and/or federal housing cost
indices. (Ord. 1282 § 2, 1995; Ord. 1035 § 1 (part), 1985)
17.90.030 Standard incentives for housing projects.
A. This section shall apply only to housing projects consisting of five or more dwelling units.
Printed from Folio Views Pagel
/_16�4
Attaalment G
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
B. When a developer agrees to construct at least twenty percent of the units otherwise allowable
under the zoning regulations for persons or families of lower or moderate income, the director
shall grant the developer, upon the developer's request, a density bonus equivalent to an increase
in density of at least twenty-five percent over the density otherwise allowed by the zoning
regulations; and the developer shall be eligible to receive at least one of the development
incentives described in Section 17.90.050.
C. When a developer agrees to construct at least ten percent of the units otherwise allowable under
the zoning regulations for very-low income households, the director shall grant the developer,
upon the developer's request, a density bonus equivalent to an increase in density of at least
twenty-five percent over the density otherwise allowed by the zoning regulations; and the
developer shall be eligible for at least one of the development incentives described in Section
17.90.050.
D. When a developer agrees to construct at least fifty percent of the total dwelling units in a
residential project for qualifying senior residents; as defined in Section 51.3 of the Civil Code,
the director shall grant the developer; upon the developer's request, a density bonus equivalent to
an increase in density of at least twenty-five percent over the density otherwise allowed by the
zoning regulations; and the developer shall be eligible to receive at least one of the incentives
described in Section 17.90.050.
E. If a developer agrees to construct housing for two or more of the categories listed in Section
17.90.030.(B), (C), and (D) above; the developer shall be entitled to a density bonus of at least
twenty-five percent and shall be eligible to receive at least one of the development incentives
described in Section 17.90.050. The city may, upon the developer's request, negotiate additional
incentives in exchange for the increased provision for affordable housing.
F. The developer may submit a preliminary proposal for the development of affordable housing
prior to the submittal of any formal requests for general plan amendments,zoning amendments or
subdivision map approvals. The city council shall, within ninety days of receiving a written
preliminary proposal, notify the housing developer in writing of the procedures under which the
city will comply with this chapter:
G. Any request for a density bonus or other incentives shall be in writing, and shall include the
following information,as well as any additional information required by the director;
1. The name of the developer;
2. The location of the proposed project;
3. The density allowed under the zoning regulations,as well as the proposed density;
4. The number and type (bedroom count) of dwellings and identification of those dwellings
which are to be affordable to each.household income category;
5. Whether the dwellings will be offered for sale or for rent;
6. The proposed sales price; financing terms, rental rates or other factors which will make
the dwellings affordable to very-low, lower and moderate income households. (Ord.
1282 § 2, 1995; Ord. 1035 § 1 (part), 1985)
17.90.040 Standard incentives for conversion of apartments to condominium projects.
A. When an applicant for approval to convert apartments to condominium units agrees to provide at
least thirty-three percent of the units of the proposed condominium project to households of
lower or moderate income,or fifteen percent of the units of the proposed condominium project to
Printed from Folio Views Page2
J007
L Attachment o^
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
very-low income households,and agrees to pay for the reasonable,necessary administrative costs
incurred by the city pursuant to this section, the director shall grant a density bonus equivalent to
an increase in the units of twenty-five percent over the number of apartments, to be provided
within the existing structure or structures proposed for conversion; provided, the director may
place such reasonable conditions on the granting of the density bonus as he or she finds
appropriate including, but not limited to,conditions which assure continued affordability of units
to the targeted income groups or qualifying seniors.
B. Nothing in this section shall be construed to require the city to approve a proposal to convert
apartments to condominiums.
C. An applicant shall not be eligible for a density bonus under this section if the apartments
proposed for conversion constitute a housing development for which a density bonus or other
incentives were provided under Sections 17.90.030 or 17.90.050.
D. The city shall grant the developer's request for development incentive(s) unless the city council
makes written findings of fact that the additional incentive(s) are not required to achieve
affordable housing objectives as defined in Section 50062.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or to
ensure that rents for the targeted dwelling units will be set and maintained in conformance with
city affordable housing standards. (Ord. 1282 § 2, 1995;Ord. 1035 § 1 (part), 1985)
17.90.050 Alternative or additional incentives.
A. When a developer agrees to construct housing for households of very-low, lower or moderate
income households, or for qualifying senior households, and desires an incentive other than a
density bonus as provided in Section 17.90.030 of this chapter, or when an applicant for approval
to convert apartments to a condominium project agrees to provide housing for households of very
low, lower, or moderate income, or for qualifying senior households, and desires an incentive
other than a density bonus as provided in Section 17.90.040, the developer or the applicant shall
submit a proposal for consideration by the council.
B. If the proposal is submitted by a developer of a housing project, the proposal shall include
information set forth in Section 17.90.030 (G), as well as a description of the requested
incentive, an estimate of the incentive's financial value in comparison with the financial of the
density bonus allowed in Section 17.90.030, as well as the basis for the comparison estimate.
Alternative incentive proposals may include but are not limited to one or more of the following:
1. Density bonus in excess of that provided in Section 17.90.030;
2. Waiver of application and processing fees;
3. Waiver of utility connection or park land in-lieu fees or park land dedication
requirement;
4. City funded installation of off-site improvements which may be required for the project,
such as streets or utility lines;
5. Write-down of land costs;
6. Direct subsidy of construction costs or construction financing costs;
7. Approval of exceptions to subdivision or zoning property development standards, but
only to the extent that such exceptions would be authorized by relevant provisions of this
code; provided, that any proposal for an incentive which requires a direct financial
contribution from the city shall also include provisions for assuring continued
availability of designated units at affordable rents or sales prices for a period of not less
Printed from Folio Views Page3
Attact; e
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
than thirty years, or as otherwise required by State law.
8. Provide other incentives of equivalent financial value to a density bonus based upon the
land cost per dwelling unit.
C. If the proposal is submitted by an applicant for approval to convert apartments to a condominium
project, the proposal shall include those relevant items set forth in Section 17.90.030 (G), plus
the requested incentive, an estimate if the incentive's financial value in comparison with the
financial value of the density bonus as set forth in Section 17.90.040, and the basis for the
comparison estimate. Nothing in this section shall be construed to require the city to provide cash
transfer payments or other monetary compensation. The city may reduce or waive requirements
which the city might otherwise apply as conditions of conversion approval.
D. Nothing in this section shall be construed to require the council to approve any alternate
incentive. The developer or applicant has the standard incentive of a density bonus under
Sections 17.90.030 and 17.90.040 if the council fails to approve an alternative incentive.
E. The council action on any alternative incentive proposal shall be by resolution. Any such
resolution shall include findings relating to the information required in subpart B or C of this
section.
F. The council shall respond to a proposal within ninety days after submittal of a complete
proposal. The city clerk shall notify the developer or the applicant of the council's response.
Should the council fail to approve a proposal for alternative incentives within ninety days after
submittal of a complete proposal, the proposal shall be deemed denied, and the city clerk shall so
advise the developer or applicant in writing, (Ord. 1282 § 2, 1995; Ord. 1035 § 1 (part), 1985)
17.90.060 Relationship to other city procedures.
A. Projects incorporating affordable housing and receiving density bonuses, incentives, or
alternative incentives as provided in this chapter shall receive high priority processing, to the
extent allowed by law. Operation of Sections 17.90.030 or 17.90.040, or approval of alternative
incentives as provided in Section 17.90.050 shall not be construed as a waiver of standard
development review procedures or an exemption of the project from city development standards
other than those explicitly listed in the approving resolution: Should a project fail to receive any
required city approval, the density bonus or alternative incentive granted under this chapter shall
be null and void.
B. Applications of Sections 17.90.030 and 17.90.040 to projects shall be ministerial acts for
purposes of environmental review. Environmental documents need not be filed solely for
recordation of agreements concerning the density bonus and provision of affordable housing.
Normal environmental review procedures shall apply to the project applications.
C. If the council approves an alternative incentive as provided in Section 17.90.050, such approval
shall be subject to and conditioned upon an environmental determination being made for the
project in the usual manner. The community development department shall outline for the
council any probable, significant environmental effects which would result from the proposed
incentive. (Ord. 1282 § 2, 1995; Ord. 1035 § 1 (part), 1985)
17.90.070 Agreements for affordable housing.
Prior to the issuance of construction permits for any project incorporating a density bonus or other
incentive as provided in this chapter, the city and the project owner(s) shall enter into an agreement in a
Printed from Folio Views Page4
�os 7
L. Attachm, ent G
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
form acceptable to the city attorney, to be recorded in the office of the county recorder. The agreement
shall specify mechanisms or procedures to assure the continued affordability and availability of the
specified number of dwelling units to very-low, lower, and moderate income households and/or
qualifying seniors. The agreement shall also set forth those items required by Section 17.90.030 (G) of
this chapter or any alternative incentives granted pursuant to Section 17.90.050 of this chapter. The
agreement shall run with the land and shall be binding upon all heirs, successors or assigns of the project
or property owner, and shall ensure affordability for a period of not less than thirty years, or as otherwise
required by State law. (Ord. 1282 § 2, 1995; Ord. 1035 § 1 (part), 1985)
17.90.080 Fees.
A. No fee in addition to normal project application fees shall be charged fora request for a density
bonus pursuant to the provisions of Sections 17.90.030 or 17.90.040, except for reasonable,
necessary administrative costs incurred by the city pursuant to Section 17.90.040.
B. A fee not to exceed the amount charge for "preapplication concept review" may be charged for
proposals submitted pursuant to the provisions of Section 17.90.050. (Ord. 1282 § 2, 1995; Ord.
1035 § 1 (part), 1985)
17.90.090 Affordability standards.
A. The community development department shall publish and revise as needed a schedule of rental
rates and sales prices for dwellings which will be affordable to households with incomes as
provided in this chapter. The schedule shall substantially conform with the affordability
standards as established by state or federal law.
B. The maximum rental rates and sales prices as revised,generally on an annual basis, shall remain
in effect for projects receiving density bonuses or additional incentives under this chapter as
provided in the affordable housing agreement, but in no case less than the minimum term
required by state law. (Ord. 1282 § 2, 1995;Ord. 1035 § 1 (part), 1985)
1790.100 Occupant screening.
A. The affordable dwellings developed pursuant to this chapter shall be available to qualified
occupants without regard to race, religion, national origin, sex, occupation or other affiliation.
Occupants may be screened on the basis of age only to qualify those occupants seeking housing
designed for the elderly.
B. The city housing authority shall screen prospective occupants so that dwellings developed
pursuant to this chapter shall be occupied by households with the appropriate qualifying incomes
or ages. Owners of projects shall enter into agreements with the housing authority for such
screening services.
C. Preference in occupant screening shall be given to those employed within or residing within the
city or the immediately surrounding area, to the extent that this provision does not conflict with
state or federally funded housing assistance programs which may apply to a particular project, or
other applicable law. This section is to insure that those households having the greatest difficulty
obtaining housing at market rates within the city shall be able to occupy affordable housing trade
available pursuant to this chapter. (Ord. 1282 § 2, 1995; Ord. 1035 § 1 (part), 1985).
Printed from Folio Views Page5
Attachment 7
city of san tins ompo
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
City's downtown core are clarified through General Plan amendments, then specific ordinance
revisions will be proposed to implement the new policies.
CRY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 1 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
/—lel
Attachment 7
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 Chorro 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 CHEcKusT 2006
/- ez
Attach
- ment 7
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
Significance
Energy and Mineral Population and Housing
Resources
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 minims 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
/-Z3
i
Attachment 7
DETERNIINATION:
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 ROPACT 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 RVIPACT 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.
Sigaanue Date
f"'f l y I 'L• �U r'T"7
Printed Name For:John Mandeville,
Community Development Director
ONO Cm OF SAN Luis OBISPO 4 WmAL Srwv ENmoNMENTAL C►EcKun r 2006
Attachment 7
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
I. 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 CNECKusT 2006
/--45
Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources PotentiahyPotentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#50-06 Downtown Building Heightlintensity 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,track outcroppings,open space,and historic X
buildings 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 comer
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 OBISPO 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#50-06 Downtown BuildingHeight/Intensity ht/Intens' Limits Issues Unless Impact
9 Ih' Mitigation
Incorporated
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 minimised 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 use/view 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 1 I 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:
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKuST ZOOS
/—1 7
Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially" Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#50-06 Downtown Building Height/Intensity Limits issues unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
• 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 sun 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 11'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;
3) Providing a sequence of public spaces and walkways that are linked to the street grid;
CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEcKussr 2006
/_/ r
-� Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#50-06 Downtown Building Height/Intensity Limits Issues unless Impact
Mitigation
Inco rated
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
facade 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 terns 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.
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
`r CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
/-z� 9
AttachmAem 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
.Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#50-06 Downtown BuildingHeight/Intensity hUlntensi Limits Issues unless Impact
g � Mitigation
Incorporated
cross streets (buildings face southwest) receive afternoon and evening sun. 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 a premium 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 I 1 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 LUE 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 defining 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 pattem 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..
Conclusion
The proposed project involves changes to the City's General Plan, to be implemented by an amendment to the Zoning
Crrr OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
1-70
Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources SourcTSigaiificant
ly Potentially Less Than xo
Significant Significant Impact
ER#50-06 Downtown Building Height/Intensity Limits. Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inco orated
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 X
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 X
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.
c) The proposed project would not change the environment in a way that could result in conversion of farmland to non-
agricultural uses.
CITY OF SAN Luis Osispo INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKusT 2006
71
Attachpz, 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Les5'than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#50-06 Downtown Building Heightlintensity Limits Issues unless tmpact
Mitigation
Incorporated
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 ill 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 plan? 6
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an X
existing or projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment
under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard X
(including releasing emissions 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 PMI ll(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.
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
�� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBI$vo 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEt KusT 2006
Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting lhformation Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#50-06 Downtown Building Heightlintensity Limits Issues unless Impact
Mitigation
incorporated
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 substantial adverse effect,either directly or through X
habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive;or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect,on any riparian habitat or X
other sensitive natural community,identified in local or regional
plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected X
wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including,but not limited to,marsh,vernal pool,coastal,etc.)
through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or
other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident X
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting X
biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation X
Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved
local,re conal,or state habitat conservationplan?
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. ro`ect:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of 1,7,8 X
historic resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines§15064.5.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 9 X
archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
§15064.5)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource 9 }{
CRY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEcKusT ZOOS
/-73
Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#50-06 Downtown Building Height/Intensity Limits Issues unless Impact
Mitigation
incorporated
or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of 9 X
formal cemeteries?
Setting
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 Obispeho Chumash, the northernmost of the Chumash people of
California. The Obispeho 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 fust 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 patten 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 20`h 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
structure. The site contains extensive remains from the Mission period to the present. Recent investigation of this site at the
city-owned Kozak parkin 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).
Historical Resources
Proposed projects within the Downtown Historic District would be near or next to several of the City's most historically and
�� Crry of SAN Luis CBISPo 14 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
(/ ', K--N\, AftachMent7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#50-06 Downtown BuildingHeight/Intensity hUlntensi Limits Issues unless Impact
g ry Mitigation
Incorporated
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 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 is 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 3.21.1 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 refect 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 the project 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.
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.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 15 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEcKusT 2006
/`7Y—
- -� Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Supportinglfiformation Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#50-06 Downtown BuildingHei htlIntensi Limits ISSues unless Impact
g � Mitigation
Incorporated
COSE Program 3.30.10 Cultural Heritage Committee Whitepaper. The City will implement the
recommendations of the Cultural Heritage Committee's "Whitepaper," 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 25", 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 mandatoryfording 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.
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 Palm Street Garage involved significant mitigation
CRY OF SAN LUIS Omspo 16 INRUIL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECHusT 2006
1,76
AttachmPnt 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#50-06 Downtown BuildingHeight/Intensity ht/Intensi Limits Issues unless Impact
g � Mitigation
Incorporated
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:
1. 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.
II. Strong seismic ground shaking? 10 X
III. Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? 10 X
rV. Landslides? 10 X
b) Result in suibstantial.soil erosion orthe loss of topsoil? X
c) Be located on a geologic tint or soil that is unstable,or that
would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially X
result in on or off site landslide,lateral spreading,subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 17 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CNECKusT2006
1-7
/06
Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#50-06 Downtown BuildingHeight/Intensity hUlntens' Limits Issues unless Impart
g � Mitigation
Incorporated
Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life X
or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers X
are not available for the disposal of waste water?
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 a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine use,transport or disposal of hazardous X
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions X
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter 9 X
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section X
65962.5 and,as a result,would it create a significant hazard-to
the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an aiiport land use plan or,where
`ate CITY OF SAN LUIS OBispo 18 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Soames potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#50-06 Downtown BuildingHei ht/Intens' Limits Issues. Unless Impact
g � Mitigation
Incorporated
such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public 9 X
airport or public use airport,would the project result in asafety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of aprivate airstrip;would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working 9 X
in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an X
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose,injury,
or death involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are X
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed. 10
with wildlands?
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 project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level(e.g.the production rate of pre-existing X
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage patter of the site or
area,including through the alteration ofthe course of a stream 11 X
or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on or off site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream X
or river,or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface 11
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo 19 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEcKusT 2006
—7
Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting-information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#50-06 Downtown Building Height/Intensity Limits Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainagesystems or 11 X
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped
on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate 12 X
Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which 12 X
would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to significant risk of loss,injury or
death involving flooding,including flooding as a result of the X
failure of a levee or dam?
') Inundation by seiche,tsunami,ormudflow? 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
Works Department.
Compliance
om liance with standards contained in the Flood Damage Prevention Guidelines and the Waterways Management Plan is
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 20 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
/-- F6
r Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting information Sources Sources Potentially' Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Sigiificant Impact
ER#50-06 Downtown Building Height/Intensity Limits Issues unless Impact
Mitigation
Inco rated
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 patterns
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 adopted
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, X
local .coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmentaleffect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural X
community conservationplan?
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. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
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 Iocal general plan, X
specific plan or other land use plan?
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.
Conclusion
CIT'OF SAN Luis OBISPO 21 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
/-ill
Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting lriformation Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant .Significant Impact
ER#50-06 Downtown BuildingHei htllntensi Limits Issues unless Impact
9 ty Mitigation
Incorporated
The project will have no impact on mineral resources.
11.NOISE. Would theproject result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise 13, 14 X
ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome X
vibration or groundbome noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the 13,14
project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise 13,14
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the X
project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan,of where
such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public X
airport or public use airport,would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
fj For a project within the vicinity ofa private airstrip,would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to X
excessive noise levels?
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 l OdB 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 LDN. 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 30dB.
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 70dB. 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 Obispo has a Noise Ordinance that includes standards for maximum noise levels across property lines. The
CITY OF SAN Luis Oatspo 22 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKusT ZOOS
/_ ?4;?
Attachment
Issues, Discussion and Supporting-Information Sources Sources Potentially" Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#50-06 Downtown BuildingHeight/intensity hUlntensi Limits Issues Unless Impact
g Mitigation
Incorporated
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 elsewhere?
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.
Conclusion
The proposed project will have less than significant impacts in the area of population and housing.
CITY OF SAN Luis CBISPo 23 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEcKusT 2006
/� 4P3
-� Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#50-06 Downtown BuildingHeight/Intensity ht/Intensi Limits Issues Unless Impact
g � Mitigation
Incorporated
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 (136 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 II fire resistive construction, which means that
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
CIT'OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 24 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
/—4f
- � Attach sant 7
Issues, Discussion and Supportinglriformation Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#50-06 Downtown BuildingHeight/IntensityLimits Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
"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 plamring 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 are required to pay school fees, which are used to offset increased demand for school facilities caused by new
development.
Illllf>V
CITY OF SAN Luis OwsPO 25 INITIAL STLDy ENVIRONMENTAL CHEcKusT 2006
/-9�
- Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#50-06 Downtown Buildin Hei ht/Intensi Limits Issues unless Impact
9 9 tY Mitigation
Inco orated
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. Planning applications submitted for new buildings between
50 and 75 feet tall within the downtown cote 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 X
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse X
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
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
CITY OF SAN LUIS Oeisro 26 .INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
/—V Co
r�
Attachment 7
S
Issues, Discussion and Supporfing Information Sources Sources Potentially-" Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#50-06 Downtown Building Height/Intensity ht/Intens' Limits Issues unless Impact
g g Mitigation
Inco rated
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 is substantial in relation to-
the
othe existing traffic load and capacity of the street system(i.e.,
result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle X
trips,the volume to capacity ratio on roads,or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service
standard established by the county congestion management X
agency for designated roads and highways?
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 hazards due to design features(e.g.,sharp
curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g. X
farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X
g) Conflict with adopted policies,plans,or programs supporting X
alternative transportation(e.g.,bus turnouts,bicycle 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 Planprovides 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 7.1 and other Circulation Element policies.
CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 27 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEcKusTT 2006
/_ V
-, K�1 Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#50-06 Downtown BuildingHei ht/Intens' Limits Issuer unlet: Impart
9 � Mitigation
Incorporated
The traffics impacts of downtown development, including the construction of additional parking garages, was evaluatedin
the draft Final Environmental Impact Report 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 turning 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 1 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 supports parking 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-
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
CITY OF SAN LUIS Omspo 26 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
/-re
Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant .Significant Significant Impact
ER#50-06 Downtown BuildingHeight/Intensity ht/Intensi Limits Issues unless Impact
g � Mitigation
Incorporated
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 minimized 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 with 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.
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
CRY OF SAN LUIS Omspo 29 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CNEcKusT 2006
/—PF
Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially " Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#50-06 Downtown BuildingHeight/Intensity ht/Intensi Limits Issues unless Impact
g � Mitigation
Incorporated
developed location and is served by 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 theproject:
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;signifrcant
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
effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources,or are new and X
expanded entitlements needed?
CrrY OF SAN LUIS Owspo 30 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEt KusT.2006
/—
Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting lntormation Sources Sources PotentiallyPotentially Less Than No
Significant Significant .Significant Impact
ER#50-06 Downtown Building HeighUlntensity Limits Issues unless Impact
Mitigation
incorporated
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 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 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 run-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 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
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 31 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
/-I /
- Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Inrormation Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impart
ER#50-06 Downtown Building Height/Intensity Limits
Issues unless Impact
Mitigation
Inco orated
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.
f), 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.
Mitigation 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 aplant or X
animal 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.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 32 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKusT 220006
Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Inrormation Sources So7esPotentially ` Potentially Less Than No
gnificant Significant Significant Impact
ER#50-06 Downtown Building Height/Intensity Limits Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
means that:the incremental effects of a project are considerable X
when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects,
the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable
futureprojects)
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
c) Does the project have environmental effects-Which will cause _T X
substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or .
indirectly? J T
The project does not involve environmental effects that will cause adverse effects on human beings.
18.EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR, or other CEQA process,one or more effects have
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion
should identify the following items:
a Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are'available for review.
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 Report.Parking and Downtown Access Plan,City of San Luis Obispo, 1999.
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 miti ation.measures based on the earlier analysis.
No effects identified we addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,"describe the mitigation
measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions of the project.
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 Mapping
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. Cir
y of San Luis Obispo Safety Element,July 2000
11. Cityof 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
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 33 INMAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKUsT 2006
Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#50-06 Downtown Building Heightlintensity Limits sues unless impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
14. 1 City of San Luis Obispo,Noise Element;May 1996
15. 1 City of San Luis Obispo,Parks and Recreation Element,June 2001
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 34 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
/-�;Y
C,, Attachment 7
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 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.
`/ CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 35 INITIAL STUDyENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
Attachment 7
L%
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.
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.
• 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 CHECKusT 2006
/_- 1&
Attachment 7
• 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.
�r CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 37 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
/^ ?7
♦ AWM
•
t �
/ Of
. v
:zo
0
1 ♦ `�,,,
♦ : =
- - : �� �
OR . ♦
ID
dw CL
i ♦ ♦ i
♦ G ♦I
.: ..Z5 2 ca i
► �
1
CO Co LL 0 cts
Co o v (D
CL ca cc
.1
1 0 0 —0
. .o ;
CY)
_� k .��� I
i
Attachment 9
0
0
a"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
000n o000 000 o000
CV O O N N 6 6 C CV In O 1C CV O6 {p
N T T LO T N CO r T N LO T y+ CO r
T
3 ? .3., -.� N m ttZ •O .C .`CZ � ttt a ttt �
n 3 m
ew 3 a) °' 3 c y 3z �' 3 mct to
m
3 t LO
Cri O 6
3 3 3
m y c N o a o a o a o E
y _
(s)ly6iay Aspuooas m y y y
v Q
� a 1 `m
o E
u �
h Q
Y '
u
ro `
*.. '
Qj
a
'` ro
a
a
.y
a
y
Y
U
R
a
m
t
.a
e
a
m
3
0
3
O
Attachment 9
,
,
,
10'
,
,
,
r
,
,
,
,
,
50•
,
,
7
' setback= w x s
p-5.0
' sidewalk width (w) 12.0'
r secondary height(s) 10.0'
primary height(p) 50.0'
setback 2.7'
6
Downtown Building Height Setback Study 8/22/2007
Attachment =
I,
/
/
25'
,
,
/
/
/
/
I 1
I S
35'
/
setback= NI x s
p-5.0
A
' sidewalk width (w) 12.0'
secondary height(s) 25.0'
{ primary height(p) 35.0'
setback 10.0'
Downtown Building Height Setback Study 8/22/2007
Attachment 9
,
,
r
t
f
,
,
,
f
!
f
25'
f
f
7
! j
I i
f
7
I }
f s
I �
50'
J
/ Y
- i
I
a
1
setback= P 5.0
E
r I
sidewalk width (w) 12.0'
secondary height(s) 25.0'
primary height(p) 50.0'
setback 6.7'
12'�
Downtown Building Height Setback Study 8/22/2007
Attachment 9
,
,
45'
,
,
,
,
3
, 1
' I
I 35'
setback= w x s
p-5.0
sidewalk width(w) 12.0'
i secondary height(s) 40.0'
primary height(p) 35.0'
setback 16.0'
6
12' T
Downtown Building Height Setback Study 8122/2007
CuEsrA
GCOLLEGE Attachment 10
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
Wh6re L�e 119J Le"KiHy fan
21 August 2007
San Luis Obispo City Council
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
Members of the Council:
I teach architecture at Cuesta College and live in San Luis Obispo,and I write as one who has been,and remains,an
ardent and vocal proponent of efforts to add critical mass—that is, height and density—to our downtown. Executed
property,the zoning changes that are the centerpiece of the"Downtown Height and Intensity Initiative will help our
city thrive in the face of this century's many profound challenges.At once local and global,these challenges are -
fiscal,economic,social,and environmental;moreover,they are all interconnected.
Attached please find my review comments on the most recent draft of the ordinance for the Downtown-Commercial
(C—D)Zone,which incorporated a number of highly problematic amendments from the Planning Commission. I am
urging you to reject some of these changes outright and modify others, lest the potential of the new ordinance be
squandered.
Among my various comments, let me highlight two of particular concern. First is the amendment that effectively
reduces the intended population density and,concomitantly,decreases affordability by increasing the maximum
average floor area of residential dwelling units.The Planning Commission wants to raise these averages from 1,100
to 1,500 square feet for buildings up to 60 feet in height,and from 800 to 1,100 square feet for buildings up to the 75-
foot height limit.Those larger numbers are really suburban sizes—remember,these are averages—that betray either
a failure to grasp the nature of urban living or a lack of conviction in its merits.
Even more troubling—morally reprehensible,realty—are the incredibly low set-asides for affordable or inclusionary
housing.Placing this housing downtown,in proximity to both jobs and the hub of our transit system, is putting it
exactly where it should be, not somewhere on the periphery. Five percent for low-income and 10 for moderate?
Although the Planning Commission wisely bumped these up from the original 3 and 5 percent,they remain grossly
inadequate.These should be tripled to, respectively, 15 and 30 percent.
We have an opportunity to lay the groundwork for a more compact,vibrant,diverse,and equitable San Luis Obispo,
the kind of city we will need as we face the economic shocks of climate change and resource depletion.We must
spend a little less time looking in the rearview mirror and instead look forward to becoming a progressive and
inclusive exemplar of what a 21"century community can be. We could do with a little less view and a lot more vision!
Let's be smart,but let's also be bold!I urge you to consider the points I have raised on the pages that follow.
Sincerely,
Bruce A.Silverberg
Instructor, Department of Architecture
SAN LUIS OBISPO Campus P.O. Box 8106, San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8106 (805) 546-3100 /^/6
NORTH COUNTY Campus 2800 Buena Vista Drive, Paso Robles, CA 93446 (805) 591-6200
Si/ erg Review Comments 1 of 2
Attachment 10
Review Comments on Draft Amendments to Zoning
Regulations, Ch. 17.42
17.42.020 Property development standards.
17.42.020.C.1.a.
The project must include housing at a minimum residential density unit value of 24 units per acre. The average floor
area of dwellings within the project shall be 1,500 square feet or less, or at least 503K of the floor area of the
building shall be devoted to housing(excluding parking). (Group housing projects must show that the proposed
building meets or exceeds the population density that would otherwise be achieved by this standard.)
A housing density of 24 units per acre on prime URBAN land remains very low. This should be
increased to 36 units per acre for all projects above 50 feet.
The Planning Commission's recommendation to increase the average unit size to 1,500 square feet
not only effectively guts the affordable housing component of the proposed zoning changes, but also
severely undercuts the goal of adding the population density that will adequately support the retail core
and, ultimately, promote better mass transit, etc. Average unit sizes should REMAIN unchanged at
1,100 square feet for buildings up to 60 feet in height, and be further reduced to 1,000 square feet for
buildings higher than 60 feet.
The exemption from the stipulated maximum average dwelling unit sizes given to projects devoting
60%or more of their floor area to housing should be deleted in its entirety.
The zoning ordinance should, explicitly and in perpetuity, enjoin initial and future owners of
downtown dwelling units smaller than 1,500 square feet from combining adjacent units to form larger
ones. In other words, the certificates of occupancy for the residential portion of these downtown
buildings could not be changed, and the intent of the ordinance could thus not be circumvented.
17.42.020.C.1.b.
For projects on sloping sites, the height limit on the downhill portion of the site shall be defined by a line 75 feet
above the average between the highest and lowest points of the site grade prior to development, and 75 feet above
the lowest point.
Relating building heights to average grade is reasonable and consistent with common practice in
many municipalities, but in the downtown core, that average should apply to the frontage along each
street. Moreover, in the context of this subsection, the definition of what constitutes a"project" needs
clarification, as large ones sometimes consist of multiple buildings•or elements. Where a large project is
comprised of, or articulated as, a series of individual buildings,this provisions of this paragraph should
be applied separately to each identifiable building and not treat the project as one monolithic entity.
17.42.020.C.1.c.
The project provides upper story setbacks for front yards consistent with LUE Policy 4.16.4.At a minimum,portions
of the building above 50 feet shall be set back sufficiently so that these upper building walls are generally not visible
to pedestrians on the sidewalk along the building's frontage.
Change "generally not visible"to read "generally not obvious,"and after"sidewalk," add "on the
same side of the street, along the building's frontage."
17.42.020.C.1.e.
The applicant shall demonstrate that the project will exceed Title 24 California Energy Efficiency Requirements by a
minimum of 153K.-
Change
5%Change minimum to 30 percent.
17.42.020.C.2.
The Architectural Review Commission(ARC)may approve building height up to 60 feet
Projects up to 60 feet in height should be built as of right, subject to compliance with the other
provisions of the downtown ordinance. The ARC should not have discretion in this area.
The language in this subsection seems to attach regulatory authority to both the ARC and the
Planning Commission that extends well beyond their current, advisory function.This should be
scrutinized carefully.
• Attact fnent 10
Sil vrg Review Comments 2 0
17.42.020.C.2.a.
The project provides affordable housing, per City standards, at the rate of 5%for low income households, or 10%for
moderate income households, as a percentage of the total number of housing units built(no in-lieu fee option).
These set-asides are WAY TOO LOW. Moderate income should be increased to 30%, low income to
15%. Let's get serious! This kind of housing, placed near the Osos Street Transit Center,would add an
enormous public benefit to the City that would justify the additional heights and, in some instances, the
conversions of public land to private uses currently being contemplated for the largest projects. One
alternative to accommodating mixed income housing on prime downtown land might be to require
CONCURRENT development of a comparable amount of affordable housing on a separate site within a
1/2 mile radius of the Osos Street Transit Center, also with no in-lieu fee option.
17.42.020.C.2.c.
The project includes residential density greater than or equal to 36 units per acre and the average floor area of units
is 1,100 square feet or less.
"Greater than or equal to"appears to conflict with Paragraph 17.42.020.A, which sets 36 du/a as a
maximum. The average floor area of units should be reduced to 1,000 square feet or less.
17.42.020.C.2.f.
The project provides a public viewing deck or decks, or similar feature, to provide significant free public access to
views of surrounding natural features such as, but not limited to, Cerro San Luis.
This "benefit" is, frankly,just plain SILLY and should be deleted in its entirety. There is no reason to
presume that such public viewing decks would provide any useful or worthwhile public amenity. More
likely, this would just open the door to height bonuses being granted in return for providing something
utterly token and useless.
That said, nothing should preclude, for example, some enterprising restaurateur from deciding to
capitalize on a gorgeous rooftop view or other amenity, but that really should remain a private
development decision, not a provision of public policy.
17.42.020.C.2.1.
The project is designed to exceed the Title 24 energy efficiency requirements by a minimum of 30%
This 30%should be the baseline (see above)for ANY new development, not a criterion for
determining additional height bonuses.
17.42.020.F.
F.Standard Lot Dimensions:Minimum lot area:3,000 square feet
Reduce to 2,500 square feet.
17.42.020.G.
Therefore, there is no guarantee of parking availability, either on-site or off-site, for downtown residential projects.
While this is good,,it appears to conflict with Subsection H.2 that follows it,which seems to
mandate half the parking required in Section 17.16.060. This subsection on parking needs further
clarification to make sure its intentions are clear and consistent.
- Attachment 1
MEETING AGENDA RECEIVED
DATE ITEM #
AUG 2 0 2001
San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce SLO CITY CLERK
01
1039 Chorro Street• San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3278
August 15, 2007 (805) 781-2777 • FAX (805) 543-1255
David E. Garth, President/CEO
RZ
E
Ejl6COUNCIL ii; CDD D> R
Honorable Mayor and Council members $ CAO 'Fe FIN DIR
ACAO
City of San Luis Obispo ®ATTORNEY F'FIRE CHIEF
Fe PW DIR '
990 Palm Street ig CLERK/ORIGPOLICE CH'
❑ DEPT HEADS 5i REC DIR I
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 9 d90 R LtTIL DIR
61 M!ZiAAR19 � HR DIR
Dear Mr. Mayor and Council members: lyf. ocv�ru�
X C�4 0
ti CG��
As you may know, the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce believes that increasing
the building height limit in downtown will encourage economic revitalization, create
higher building density, and provide additional housing, while discouraging sprawl.
We strongly supported your resolution of February 6w that provided a moderate
increase to downtown building height and intensity limits.
We now find ourselves in the unusual position of opposing an ordinance that was
supposed to implement a resolution that we supported. The Downtown Building
Height Ordinance forwarded to you by the Planning Commission is fatally flawed, as it
would not increase the feasibility of creating moderately taller buildings. In fact, it
would do the exact the opposite. Building 50 to 60-foot structures would become much
more difficult, time consuming, and expensive than they would be under current
regulations. This greatly diminishes the likelihood that any building of 50 to 60-feet in
height will be built.
How did this happen? Recognizing that two controversial 65 to 75-foot buildings are in
the approval process, the Planning Commission tried to please everyone and protect the
public interest by adding new layers of regulation. Unfortunately, the Council's original
desire to moderately increase the building height limit from 50 to 60-feet was swept up
in this regulatory zeal.
We strongly feel that current regulations should now apply to all buildings up to 60-feet
in height. Most of the issues that concerned the Planning Commission-such as massing,
sight lines, housing inclusion, and architectural quality-are already reviewed by the
Architectural Review Commission and other commissions.
email: slochamber@slochamber.org • websites: www.slochamber.org www.visitsio.com
Attachment 10
Consequently, we feel that having additional requirements for buildings of 60 to 75 feet
is not unreasonable. However, the draft ordinance contains provisions that have not
been well thought out.
For instance:
• The new minimum set back requirement would actually reward buildings that
have no set back up to the 50-foot level. Because of the new sight line
measurement, buildings that are set back below 50 feet would have to set back
the portion over 50 feet even further. Wider sidewalks would also penalize the
developer by forcing greater upper level set backs.
• The proposed height limit on sloping sites means that many 50-foot buildings
would be allowed to be taller than 75-foot buildings on the downhill side.
• The new historic preservation requirements would make it nearly impossible to
create a building taller than 50-feet in downtown.
In summary, if 50 to 60-foot buildings cannot be removed from these new regulations,
we oppose the ordinance and urge you to rescind your resolution of February 6th. If
these buildings can be removed, we believe that the ordinance needs an additional
revision (as it pertains to 60-75-foot buildings) in order to adequately accomplish the
Council's goals and reflect economic reality.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
f Buckingham
Chair, San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce
- MEETING AGENDA
A RECEIVED 10
DA a-7 ITEM # AUG 2 0 2007
San Luis Obispo County Archaeological Society
P. O. Box 109 SLO CITY CLERK
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
L
August 19, 2007 NC!L
r LAS FIND.,4
Luis Obi Ci Council PPACAO f FIN DIS
�City
®'FIRE
FIRE Crich
990 Palm Street R PW Divi I
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 11 CLERK/ORIG POLICE C� I
DEPT HEADS REC D!;rl_ I
-,G�� r UTIL D a
Dear Council Members: HR � =
The San Luis Obispo County Archaeological Society(SLOCAS)endorses the historic d C.40
preservation recommendations of the Planning Commission with regard to the Height Ordinance 4-cam'
for the Downtown-Commercial (C-D)Zone, specifically Section 17.42.020 C.l.d. In addition,
the City of San Luis Obispo(City),per Resolution No. 6157(1987 Series), states:
It is in the public interest to protect and preserve historical, architectural, and cultural
resources, including monuments, sites, objects, structures, buildings, and other designated
areas(Section 1).
The City's rich historical record also contains prehistoric and historical archaeological sites that
future development projects would be built upon that have the potential to add value to those
projects and the City as a whole. While this presents a challenge to future development, it also
presents an opportunity to infuse those projects with unique value; much like San Luis Creek—
once ignored—adds value to the downtown core area.
CEQA Guidelines §15064.5 and the City's Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines
support procedures and mitigation measures when prehistoric and historical archaeological
remains are encountered. SLOCAS and the City have an agreement for the archival storage of
the archaeological collection generated by the Palm Street Parking Structure Project(dated May
16, 2001). Item 5 from that agreement states that SLOCAS will assist the City with their future
curation needs. However, based on the Palm Street Parking Structure Project and the size of the
resulting archaeological collection, SLOCAS is concerned that proposed developments in the
downtown district will generate a quantity of archaeological material that would far exceed our
storage capacity. Materials that cannot be preserved in place or publicly exhibited,but retain
educational and research value, would need to be housed in a facility designed for that purpose
and staffed from City funds. SLOCAS is ready to cooperate in consultations with the Council
regarding solutions to the likely challenge of curation posed by future development.
Thank you for your time and consideration on these matters,
e Board of the San Luis Obispo County Archaeological Society
Attachment 10
MEETING AGENDA RECEIVED
DAT7ITEM # AUG 2 0 2001
SLO CITY CLERK
Re: SLO Height Ordinance and Historic Preservation COUNCIL L
San Luis Obispo If CAO g CDD Dip
te
ACRO le FIN Dip
August 14, 2007 EfATTORNEY FIRE CHIEF
UP CLER ORIG R PW DIR
❑ DEPT HEADS 'J POLICE CHF
Dear Mayor Romero and Members of the City Council: ® er PEC Dip
,gyp]�pIi UTIL Dip
iG HR Dip
Recently, the SLO County Grand Jury Report commended the City of San Luis Obispo O1`AZM*
for our historic preservation guidelines and suggested that the County, and the other cities C144
should follow our example.
-Over the last thirty years,countless city councils, hundreds of staff members, and
thousands of volunteers spent hundreds of thousands of hours formulating these historic
preservation guidelines. Preservation cuts across boundaries,it's not a single site issue.
They are in place for everyone.
Infill projects are more complex and generally cost more money. Developers often
request the right to do what is least expensive for their investors and not necessarily for
the benefit of the whole community. Thus they create a counter productive eyesore. It's
like saying, "I don't want to do a good job."
They're not building ina,vacuum.Infill must occur in the context of the neighborhood. A
building in context has more long term value. Smart infill projects preserve the existing
historic resources in creative ways to enhance and improve the future of the entire city.
The height of certain buildings is not the issue here. Good decisions result from a
common sense approach. Good planning is for everyone. Someone has to push the
envelope of good taste and good quality.
Anyone creating a new project wants it to be successful, and there is no better way than
to make it appear in a unique or different style. San Luis Obispo is a"community"with a
unique style: one that has found a balance between historic preservation and quality
growth.
Devin Gallagher Astrid Gallagher
Sari Luis Obispo Gallagher Properties
1680 La Finca Ct
Arroyo Grande,CA
549-9283
Attachment 11
Council Resolution No. (2007 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 17.42 OF THE
ZONING REGULATIONS RELATING TO BUILDING HEIGHT AND
INTENSITY LIMITS IN THE DOWNTOWN-COMMERCIAL ZONE..
(Downtown Core; File No. TA 50-06)
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing
in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
September 4`h, 2007, for the purpose,of considering Planning Application TA 50-06, a project to
amend Section 17.42 of the Zoning Regulations regarding downtown building height and
intensity limits; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted public
hearings in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
June 27, 2007 and July 25, 2007, for the purpose of formulating recommendations to the City
Council on the proposed amendments; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended approval of an ordinance to
increase the height and intensity limits of buildings in the Downtown Commercial Zone provided
proposed projects are determined to be consistent with the intent of the ordinance and comply
with specific performance standards and meet a minimum number of policy objectives; 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 City Council adopted General Plan amendments to clarify City policies
regarding downtown building height and intensity limits on February 6, 2007; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed amendments to the Zoning
Regulations will effectively implement the new policies adopted in Council Resolution No.
9872; 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 ordinance
amendments; and
Attachment 11
City Council Resolution No. (2007 Series)
Page 2
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 ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following
findings:
1. The proposed ordinance 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 affordable and workforce
housing, pedestrian amenities, view access and preservation, economic vitality, historic
preservation, open space preservation and energy efficiency, while maintaining the
downtown core area's sense of place.
2. The proposed ordinance 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 ordinance amendments will provide for additional housing and economic
development opportunities in the downtown core area, which furthers General Plan Housing
Element goals that envision a variety of housing types in the City.
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. Action. The City Council does hereby approve an ordinance amending
Chapter 17.42 of the Zoning Regulations as shown in Exhibit A.
Section 3. Summary. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council
members voting for an against, shall be published at least five(5) days prior to its final passage,
in The Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into
effect at the expiration of thirty (30)days after its final passage.
INTRODUCED on the 4`h day of September, 2007, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the day of , 2007, on the
following roll call vote:
Attachment 11
City Council Resolution No. (2007 Series)
Page 3
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
City Clerk Audrey Hooper
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Ci orney Jonathan Lowell
1-113
Attachment 11
city of san lues osispo
June 2007-extnsrt a zontnG neGulatlons
Chapter 17.42: DOWNTOWN-COMMERCIAL (C-D) ZONE
Sections:
17.42.010 Purpose and application.
17.42.020 Property development.standards.
17.42.010 Purpose and application.
The C-D zone is intended to provide for a wide range of retail sales, service, and
entertainment uses meeting community-wide and regional market demands and a variety
of housing types including affordable workforce housing.. The C-D zone is intended to be
applied within the City's pedestrian-oriented central business district, where the historical
pattern of development creates limitations on building form and the ability for individual
businesses to provide on-site parking. Ground floor, street-fronting uses are intended to
be generally limited to_those that attract frequent pedestrian traffic. The C-D zone is
intended to maintain, enhance, and extend the desirable characteristics of the downtown,
and also to accommodate carefully integrated new development. The C-D zone is
consistent with and implements the General Retail land use category of the General Plan.
17.42.020 Property development standards.
The property development standards for the C-D zone are as follows:
A. Maximum density: 36 units per acre, including dwelling units in hotels and motels, but
not including other hotel or motel units (see also Section 17.16.010).
B. Yards: See Section 17.16.020.
C. Maximum height: 50 feet (see also Sections 17.16.020 and 17.16.040). Additional
building height up to 75 feet may be approved as provided under 17.42.020.C.1 and
C.2 and C.3 below.
1. Performance Standards for Buildings Taller Than 50 Feet (All Required).
a. The project must include housing at a minimum residential density unit value
of 24 units per acre. The average floor area of dwellings within the project
shall be 1,500 square feet or less. (Group housing projects must show that
the proposed building meets or exceeds the population density that would
otherwise be achieved by this standard.)
b. For projects on sloping sites,the height limit on the downhill portion of the site
shall be defined by a line 75 feet above the average between the highest and
lowest points of the site grade prior to development, and 75 feet above the
lowest point.
c. The project provides upper story setbacks for front yards consistent with LUE
Policy 4.16.4. At a minimum, portions of the building above 50 feet shall be
set back sufficiently so that these upper building walls are generally not
visible to pedestrians on the sidewalk along the building's frontage.
d. The project provides for preservation or adaptive reuse of all buildings on the
City's Master List. of Historic Resources located on the project site in a
pace 1
city of san Luis oslspo Attachment
zoninci Recruldtions jun6 2007—dRa ft Revisions
manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Resources.
e. The applicant shall demonstrate that the project will exceed Title 24 California
Energy Efficiency Requirements by a minimum of 15%; or
The project is designed to achieve at least a Silver rating on the LEED-CS or
NC checklist (or equivalent measure) (LEED Certification is not required but
is encouraged);or
The project is designed to achieve a minimum value of 50 points on the SLO
Green Build Multi-Family GreenPoint Checklist.
f. No more than 33% of the site area at the storefront level may be used for
private parking facilities.
g. Lots shall conform to the minimum size and dimension requirements
provided in the Subdivision Regulations.
e. The Planning Commission may grant minor exceptions to the specific
requirements listed in this section, subject to a Planning Commission Use
Permit and provided a finding is made that, despite the exception, the project
is consistent with the intent of the ordinance and LUE Policy 4.16.4.
2. The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) may approve building height up to
60 feet if the ARC determines that the project 'includes at least two of the
following policy objectives (lettered a. through I.).
The Planning Commission may approve a use permit allowing maximum building
height of 75 feet upon determining that at least two of the following policy
objectives are met, and at least one Affordable and Workforce Housing Objective
must be chosen.
To approve a use permit the Planning Commission must make the following
finding:
The public benefits associated with the project significantly outweigh any
detrimental impacts from the additional height. (In weighing potential public
benefits, the Planning Commission shall consider objectives related to affordable
and workforce housing, economic vitality, historic preservation and open space
preservation to be especially important.)
Policy Objectives
Intent: The intent of the following Policy Objectives is to insure that buildings
taller than 50 feet proposed in the C-D zone include features that meet the
specific policy objectives outlined for tall buildings in the Citys General Plan
(including, but not limited toi Land Use Element, Chapter 4.0). A variety of
objectives are listed to insure that proposed project features are appropriate for
the site and surroundings, and to allow for a wide range of possible project types.
Regardless of the number of objectives proposed, the decision making body
must determine that the overall project is consistent with the General Plan,
including goals and policies for view preservation, historical resource
preservation,solar access and architectural character.
DaGE 2 ����5
Attachment 11
city of sm Luis osfspo
dune 2007—exhtsrt a zontnG uegulations
Affordable and Workforce Housino Projects
a. The project provides affordable housing, per City standards, at the rate of 5%
for low income households, or 10% for moderate income households, as a
percentage of the total number of housing units built(no in-lieu fee option).
b. The project qualifies for, and utilizes, a density bonus per the City's
Affordable Housing Incentives (SLOMC Chapter 17.90).
c. The project includes residential density greater than or equal to 36 units per
acre and the average floor area of units is 1,100 square feet or less. (Group
housing projects must show that the proposed building meets or exceeds the
population density that would otherwise be achieved by this objective.)
Pedestrian Amenities
d. The project provides a major pedestrian connection between Higuera Street
and the Creekwalk, Monterey Street and the Creekwalk, Higuera Street and
Marsh Street, or at another acceptable mid-block location.
e. The project incorporates a significant public plaza, where the public art
requirement is met by providing the art on-site (no in-lieu fee option).
View Access and Preservation
f. The project provides a public viewing deck or decks, or similar feature, to
provide significant free public access to views of surrounding natural features
such as, but not limited to, Cerro San Luis.
g. The project improves and dedicates land within the downtown core for
publicly-owned open space with street-level views of hillside resources,
consistent with Land Use Element Policy 4.7 and Program 4.20.
Economic Vitality
h. The project provides additional economic benefit to the City by providing retail
sales or hospitality uses (subject to the City's transient occupancy tax) on
multiple levels. Total floor area dedicated to retail or hospitality uses must
exceed 120% of the building footprint.
Historic Preservation
i. Where there are no historic resources on the project site, the project will
provide for the permanent preservation of a building off-site within the
Downtown Historic District or Chinatown Historic District that is listed in the
city's Inventory of Historical Resources through the recordation of a Historic
Preservation Agreement.
Open Space Preservation
j. The project provides for the permanent preservation of open space land in
the City s greenbelt through land dedication,the recordation of a conservation
easement, or other recognized preservation method to the approval of the
City's Natural Resources Manager.
PaCIe 3 116
Attachment 11
city of sari furs ompo
zonm_e,Peculations junE 2007—ORaft Revisions
Enerav Efficiency
k. The project is designed to meet the fossil fuel reduction standards
established by the Architecture 2030 Challenge.
I. The project is designed to exceed the Title 24 energy efficiency requirements
by a minimum of 30%.
Other Policy Obiectives
m. The project 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 or other key policy document, to the approval of the
Planning Commission. (Sub-section m. may be used to meet requirements
for up to two policy objectives.)
3. Application Requirements: Planning applications submitted for new buildings
over 50 feet tall shall include the following additional items to assist the City in the
analysis and decision making process.
a. Viewshed Analysis: A written and graphic viewshed analysis from various
perspectives. The analysis shall identify visual resources within the viewshed
of the project and indicate how the design of the project addresses those
views from each perspective. Specific attention shall be given to views from
adjacent publicly-owned gathering spaces, such as Mission Plaza.
b. Solar Shading Analysis: A written and graphic solar shading analysis
showing the effects of shading on its surroundings between 10 a.m. and 3
p.m. on the winter solstice, summer solstice and vernal or autumnal equinox.
The analysis shall compare shading caused by the project to the City s Solar
Access Standards (Conservation Open Space Element Table 2).
c. Parking Demand Management/Trip Reduction Programs: A verifiable parking
demand management program and a trip reduction program to reduce
resident/employee dependence on single-occupant vehicle trips, to the
approval of the Public Works Director.
d. Three-Dimensional Digital Model: A complete three-dimensional digital
model of the proposed building, consistent with the specifications for the
City's Baseline 3-D Digital Model of the Downtown Core and suitable for
display on the City's internet site.
e. Solid Waste Management Plan: A solid waste management plan to show
how the project meets or exceeds the City's Solid Waste Guidelines, to the
approval of the Utilities Director. If any exceptions to the Solid Waste
Guidelines are requested the plan shall include a written explanation and
justification.
f. Green Building Plan: A written Green Building Plan shall be provided to
indicate how the project complies with performance standards for energy
efficiency.
g. Emergency Services Access Plan: A written and graphic plan created in
consultation with the City's Fire Marshal to show how access to upper floors
for emergency response personnel will be provided.
� Attachment 11
city of san lues owspo
June 2007-eXhlBlt d ZoningREGulations
h. Public Safety Plan: A security plan - created in consultation with the Police
Department for all proposed buildings that include publicly accessible areas
such as parking garages, courtyards, public stairways, elevators and decks.
The security plan will identify the locations of 911 capable phones in parking
areas and will establish rules and regulations for public use of courtyards and
decks, and establish timeframes for private security patrols to be in place.
i. Utilities Infrastructure Analysis: An engineer's evaluation of existing utilities
infrastructure and recommendations to insure 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:
j. Building Code Analysis: A building code analysis specifying the building's
allowable area, occupancy class, occupancy load, and construction type.
D. Maximum coverage: 100%.
E. Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR):
1. 3.0-maximum allowed for buildings up to 50 feet tall;
2. 3.75- maximum allowed for buildings approved above 50 feet tall;
3. 4.0 - maximum allowed for approved buildings over 50 feet tall with transfer of
development credits for open space protection or historic preservation; or if a
density bonus for affordable housing is granted.
F. Standard Lot Dimensions:
Minimum lot area: 3,000 square feet
Minimum lot width:25 feet
Minimum lot depth: 50 feet
Minimum street frontage: 15 feet
G. Vehicle Access:-- Although residential uses are encouraged in the C-D Zone, it is not
the intent of the City to ensure that parking is provided on-site for residential uses.
Therefore, there is no guarantee of parking availability, either on-site or off-site, for
downtown residential projects. On-site parking may be considered inappropriate at
certain downtown locations where the pedestrian experience would be harmed by
vehicle ingress and egress across the sidewalk. In order to maintain pedestrian
orientation and the continuity of sidewalks within the C-D Zone, an Administrative Use
Permit must be approved to permit the installation of new driveway approaches
proposed after the effective date of this ordinance. When new driveway approaches
are proposed in conjunction with an application for Architectural Review, a separate
Planning Application shall not be required. In order to approve the new driveway
approach,the approving body must make at least one of the following findings:
1. The proposed driveway approach will not harm the general health, safety and
welfare of people living or working in the vicinity of the project site because the
number of vehicles expected to use the driveway is limited (less than 10 spaces)
and there are no other alternatives, such as service alleys, to provide vehicle
access to the site.
page 5 !�
Attachment 11
city of san Luis osispo
zonmG nerjulatlons JunE 2007-aiza ft peyisions
2. The proposed driveway approach is located along a non-arterial street and will
not significantly alter the character of the street or pedestrian circulation in the
area in consideration of the characteristics of pedestrian flow to and from the
project site and surrounding uses.
3. The proposed driveway approach is a shared facility and provides efficient access
to more than a single project in a way that eliminates the need for additional
driveways.
4. The proposed driveway approach provides access to public parking.
H. Parking: Other sections of this Title notwithstanding, the Parking Requirements in the
C-D zone shall be as follows:
1. Restaurants, sandwich shops, take-out food, bars, taverns, night clubs, other
food service or entertainment establishments, theaters, auditoriums, convention
halls, and churches: one-half that required in Section 17.16.060 provided,
however, that in no case the requirement shall exceed one space per 350 square
feet gross floor area.
2. Dwellings, motels, hotels and bed and breakfast inns: One-half that required in
Section 17.1.6.060.
3. All other uses: One space per 500 square feet gross floor area.
4. In determining the total number of required spaces, all fractions shall be rounded
to the nearest whole number. Fractions of 0.5 or greater shall be rounded to 1;
fractions less than 0.5 shall be rounded to 0.
5. For existing buildings, only the parking needed for additions thereto or for
changes in occupancy which increase parking requirement relative to prior uses,
shall be required.
6. Parking space reductions allowed by Section 17.16.060 shall not be applicable in
the C-D zone, as the reduced parking rates established in 17.42.020.H.1-3 are
intended to provide flexibility in meeting parking requirements and rely on the
consolidation of parking.
7. The parking space requirement may be met by:
a. Providing the required spaces on the site occupied by the use;
b. Providing the required spaces off-site, but within 500 feet of the proposed
use, in a lot owned or leased by the developer of the proposed use;
c. Participating in a commonly held and maintained off-site parking lot where
other businesses maintain their required spaces;
d. Participating in a parking district that provides parking spaces through a fee
or assessment program. (This subsection may be satisfied by participation of
the underlying property in a parking district by January 1, 1988. If by that date
the underlying property is not participating in such a district, the parking
requirement shall be otherwise met);
e. Participating in an in-lieu fee program as may be established by the City
Council. Any parking agreement approved prior to adoption of the parking
standards contained in Sections H.1-3 above, may be adjusted to conform
with those standards, subject to approval by the Community Development
Director and City Attorney; or
PaGE 6 /��!
� Attachment 11
city of san Luis oslspo
June 2007—exhiBit a zontnG ReGulations
f. Any combination of subsections H.4.a.through H.4.e of this section.
The Community Development Department shall be notified of the expiration
or termination of any agreement securing required parking. The Department
shall schedule a public hearing before the planning commission to consider
revocation of the use authorization where no alternative location for required
parking is provided. (Ord. 1101 -2, 1987;Ord. 1074 -2, 1986: Ord. 1050 - 1
(part), 1985: Ord. 1023 - 1 1984; Ord. 1006 - 1 (part), 1984; Ord. 1941 - 1
(part), 1982: prior code-9203.10(B))
1. Maximum Building Size: No retail establishment (commercial building) shall exceed
60,000 square feet of gross floor area, unless excepted by subsection H and Section
17.16.035.
J. A retail establishment may be allowed up to 140,000 square feet of gross floor area, if
the Planning Commission determines that it meets the following standards:
1. The proposed use will serve the community, in whole or in significant part, and
the nature of the use requires a larger size in order to function.
2. The building in which the use is to be located is designed in discrete-elements
that respect the scale of development in the surrounding area.
3. The new building is designed in compliance with the City s Design Guidelines for
Large-Scale Retail Projects. (Ord. 1405—2001 Series)
PdGe 7 ���
Page 1 of 1
Council,SloCity
From: Brett Cross[brettcross@charter.net] Sent: Tue 9/4/2007 3:49 PM
To: Brett Cross, Council,SloCity
Cc: E����
Subject: Re: Building Heights/Airspace Rights/Transferof Development Rights r Q`EC
Attachments: SEP 0 4 101
I thought I'd resend this concept given I didn't receive any responses. The SLO CITY CLERK
City of Los Angeles created a similar concept for the downtown area vis a
vis air space rights above the Staples Center as I recall It was for a
different reason but the concept is applicable to the downtown height issue.
Brett
-----Original Message -----
From: "Brett Cross" <brettcross@charter.net>
To: "City Council" <slocitycouncil@slocity.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 4:54 PM
Subject: Building Heights/Air Space Rights/Transfer of Development Rights
> As the City works through the issues of building heights in the downtown RED FILE
> along with the creation of air space rights the issue of transferring air
> space rights needs to be considered. MEETING AGENDA
> DATE W ITEM #�L
> The concept of transferring air space rights to developments that would
> exceed the current 3 story maximum in the downtown could provide
> significant benefits to community, property owners, and developers. The
> concept is similar to any transfer of development credits. In this case
> the credits are used to potentially allow a developer to build higher than
> the City's current standards.
> An Air Space Transfer Program would allow the City to maintain an average
> 3 story downtown core. Provide equity to owners of buildings who ownj��
> historic structures that cannot be razed or increased in height. Allow N ' OUNCI�
> property owners whose properties, because of size or location, financial Cao DD DIR
> benefits that would otherwise be unrealized. Create value to public owned ACRO FIN DIR
> properties without the requirement that those properties be sold in order ATTORNEY IRE CHIEF
rp
W DIR
> to capture that value. CLERK/ORIG OLICE CHF
> 0 DEPT HEADS J�EC DIR
> Sincerely, �1TIL DIR
(° HR DIR
> Brett Cross a
https:Hmaii.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycounci l/Inbox/Re;%2OBuilding%2OHeights_xF8FF_Air%2... 9/4/2007
_ Di
RECEIVED I
COUNCIL �OIDDIIPR
CAO O A 5 1 5 ,�ACAAO AFIRE CHIEF SEP 0 4 2007
LANDSCAPE FATORNEY .2-'PW DIR SLO CITY COUNCIL
ARCHITECTURE O-CLERK/OPIG Z'P0J.ICE0HF
jN EADStEC DIR .
AND PLANNING ®"UTI6§IA
ZHR DIR
31 August 2007
/ RED FILE
Mayor Dave Romero M ING AGENDA
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DATE ITEM #�
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING REGULATIONS—INCREASED HEIGHT AND
INTENSITY LIMITS IN THE DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL ZONE
Dear M yor Ro r
This office represents the developer of the Garden Street Terraces project currently being
processed through the Community Development Department and the subject of a recently
approved third-party Environmental Impact Report. Since March 2006, the developer and design
team members have diligently followed Council's direction for a moderate increase in height in
the downtown core as it wended its way through the planning process. Our involvement with the
Garden Street Terraces project has provided us an opportunity to analyze the impacts,
implications and practical application of the ordinance's rather extensive and complicated
enabling language. Based upon our analysis we offer the following, hopefully constructive,
criticism.
1. We concur with Alternative no. 4 to redesignate historic preservation and related
consistency with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards ("Standards'), from a
Performance Standard to a Policy Objective. While one may argue that structures
currently on the City's Master List and/or Contributing List were not designated under a
formal or rigorous analysis, we can nonetheless appreciate that these "reminders of the
past" help define the character of San Luis Obispo. We also'Understand that the
Standards are neither technical nor prescriptive, but are intended to promote responsible
preservation practices.
By simply moving historic preservation to a Policy Objective, you will be providing the
requisite flexibility to your decisions to balance a variety of stated goals, policies and
objectives — maintaining and enhancing the role of the downtown core as the cultural,
social and political center of the City; the desire to have the downtown core be
economically healthy; increasing housing opportunities; and preserving and enhancing its
attractiveness to residents and visitors alike.
It is important to note that your ability to balance the City's objectives is supported by
analysis . under• the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). CEQA
acknowledges the fact that determining a project's benefits and the weight to be given
them, when balanced against the project's environmental impacts, is highly discretionary.
The CEQA statute and Guidelines reflect this by referring broadly to "economic, legal,
805.541.4509
FAX 805.546.0525
3427 MIGUEUTO CT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
CALIFORNIA 93401 _
Pl M4•C K7
R
OASIS ASSOCIATES,INC
31 August 2007
INCREASED HEIGHT IN THE C-D ZONE
Page 2 of 3
social,technological or other" project benefits as possible basis for making your ultimate
decision on an individual project. The ultimate decision, project by project, rests solely
on your ability to balance.what at times appear to be competing goals.
2. We would encourage you to add the income limit category of"Workforce" (160% of
the county median income) to §17.42.020 Property development standards — Policy
Objectives — 2. Affordable and Workforce Housing Projects a. Currently, the objective
reads,
a. The project provides affordable housing,per City standards, at the rate of 5%for low
income households, or IO%for moderate income households, as a percentage of the total
number of housing units built(no in-lieu fee option).
We believe that the addition of the Workforce category will broaden the housing
opportunities in the downtown core, while acknowledging the need for housing for an
underserved,yet substantial sector of our community.
3. We encourage you to remove buildings up to 60-feet in height from the proposed
ordinance. In March 2006, you gave staff specific direction to formulate policies and
ultimately enabling language to guide the "moderate" increase of downtown building
height. We believe that a moderate increase equates to 10-feet or approximately one (1)
additional floor— 50-feet to 60-feet. Current regulations should therefore be appropriate
and adequate to evaluate the moderate increase in building height to 60-feet. Buildings in
excess of 60-feet should solely be the subject of the proposed ordinance.
4. Lastly, we request that you consider an interim step in the application process (i.e.,
Architectural Review Commission "Lite"). In addition to preparing a typical
application package (i.e., architecture, landscape architecture, civil engineering plans),
the proposed application requirements include ten (10) new plans and/or analyses. While
certainly comprehensive, this level of work effort and related costs seems premature
without any indication that an applicant's proposal would be acceptable. If this avenue
becomes available to an applicant, it would certainly be appropriate to impose a fee
directly related to both staff and ARC'S time expenditure.
While land use planning regulations typically start with a theoretical basis, we have had the
distinct advantage of applying the proposed height ordinance to a "real world" project. It is with
the utmost respect that we ask you to consider our thoughts, knowing that your charge is to
balance what at times appear to be competing objectives. We appreciate your consideration of our
recommendations and will be available to you to discuss these in greater detail. Thank you in
advance for your time and serious consideration.
OASIS ASSOCIATES,INC
31 August 2007
INCREASED HEIGHT IN THE C-D ZONE
Page 3 of 3
R
IS IATES, INC.
Florence, AICP Agent
GARDEN STREET SLO PARTNERS, L.P.
c: A. Settle,Vice Mayor
A. Carter, Council Member
C. Mulholland, Council Member
P.Brown,Council Member
H. Marshall,GSSLOP, L.P.
G. Garcia,AIA
J. Watts, AIA
K. Hampian, SLO CAO
S. Stanwyck, SLO ACAO
C. Clark, SLO EDM
M. Codron, SLO CDD
O:\Garden Street Terrace Mixed Use\Correspondence\Heightordresp.doc
. RECEIVED
SLO Chinatown, LLC AU6 31 2007
RED FILE P.O. Box 12260 SLO CITY CLERK
Ma
ING AGENDA San Luis Obispo, California 93406(l ITEM # L (805) 593-0200
DA FAX#(805) 593-0109
August 3151, 2007
,E5-COUNCIL �D DDRIR
�CAO ;?'FIRE CHIEF
TTORNEY 7AW DIR
Ci Council ZCLERK/ORIG OLICE CHF
❑ D T DS EC DIR
City of San Luis Obispo �C] � UTIL DIR
990 Palm Street ZHR DIR
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 O.ICIAO,
Re: Building Height and Intensity Limits in the Downtown Commercial Zone
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
We have reviewed the proposed amendments to the zoning regulations regarding
Building Height and Intensity Limits in the Downtown Commercial Zone and would like
to offer the following comments.
In general we feel that the proposed regulations are very aggressive in their goals and will
challenge the feasibility of projects. In some cases there seems to be inconsistent goals.
For example the issue of providing housing downtown is a commonly stated goal,'yet
many of the performance standards and requirements would increase the cost of projects,
which ultimately must be passed on to the buyer. Having the flexibility to adapt to
changing conditions and different project circumstances is in our view necessary and we
have stated this in our correspondence to the city prior to previous discussions and public
hearings on this issue. Ultimately all projects must go through a stringent city review
process where the merits of its specific design are carefully analyzed and evaluated.
Of particular concern is the performance standard regarding Historic Buildings. We
believe that mandating that all historic buildings must be adaptively reused is too broad,
and not realistic.Not all buildings are suitable for reuse. Again we believe that these
issues should be looked at on a case by case basis, as is typically done in any project
review. We support Staffs proposed alternative 4, which would re-designate historic
preservation as a policy objective.
In addition we are in support of Staff's proposed alternative 5,which would establish a
`pipeline provision' for the Chinatown and Garden Street Terraces projects. As pointed
out in the staff report, the EIR's for these projects are evaluating in great detail the
proposed projects, including the historic resources, and again ultimately the City Council
has final discretion with respect to these two projects.
As a point of clarification we also ask that Council include a provision that would
recognize hotel uses as also contributing to the density requirements described under the
performance standards, where a minimum density of 24 units/acre is required. One of the
benefits of providing housing downtown is that it provides a '24 hour' downtown where
people are living and occupying the downtown around the clock, and where the
downtown does not `go dark' after businesses close at night. Hotels certainly meet this
intent and provide this same benefit.
Thank-you for your time and consideration in this matter. Please feel free to contact me if
I can be of assistance in any way, or if you would like to discuss any of the information
submitted further.
Sincer y,
Mark Rawson, AIA, NCARB
Architect
Copelands' Properties
RECEIVED 1
SEP 04 2007 - RECEIVED
LLO
CITY COUNCIL SEP .4 2007
Betsy Bertrando SLO CITY CLERK
OUNLILu CDD DIR 267 Foothill Boulevard
AO OFIN DIR San Luis Obis CA 93405
J
CAO eFIRE CHIEF Po,
0"ATTORNEY 1;?'Pw DIR betsybaa.charter.net
CLERIVORIa ZPOLICE CHF RED FILE ._.
❑ DEPT tlEAOS .TRE0 dim September 3,2007
OL Dis NG AGENDA
UTI
_ DATE/_ ITEM #,Pj
/ Cc7uxu.�0
To: Mayor Romero and the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
As the final hour approaches for the Height Ordinance, I have become very discouraged at the
predicted direction of the City Council. I have a drawer full of unsent responses,that relate to
this issue and the Copeland Chinatown project, but it seems the votes have been firmly in place
to modify the ordinance with the last minute staff changes to the ordinance from the Planning
Commission: Feeling that another point of view has to be at least in the record,please try to
understand this other point of view.
My.issues are strictlyrelated to the historic district and I have felt from the beginning that
raising t}ie,height. structures to the extent proposed would not be appropriate and would
denigrate the purpose of the district. I am not opposed to the ordinance outside the historic
district. Currently the historic district comprises approximately one half of the downtown
commercial district(C-D). The C-D is surrounded by Retail Commercial (C-R), Office(0),
Community Commercial(C-C),Tourist Commercial(C-T),and Public Facility(PF)zones, all of
which are larger than the Downtown Historic District. All are appropriate for taller structures
and all are within our downtown area. There should be a Downtown Historic Commercial
District(H-C-D)zone in place to deal with those issues specific to development within the
historic district.
We now can all agree that the Mission is an historic structure. There have been times in our past
when the majority of-the downtown business community felt that it was not. There have been
times in our past when the business community felt strongly that creek was not an asset. Both
the mission structure and the creek environment have brought more business to the downtown
merchants than any construction project thus far. Ambiance and historic significance are not
clearly defined and changes in taste and through time affect historic properties.
I have been evaluating and researching structures as to their potential significance for many
years. Lately, over ninety percent of my business calls open with the following words,"I need
an historic evaluation report before I can get the demo permit." No matter what is written in my
report the client can promptly go before the city council and override my conclusions if it is not
to the client's liking. The projects come forward in large bunches when the development
community senses a shift to embrace all new construction as a plus to the City of San Luis
Obispo. Lately,this has been the case,and once again large projects are accepted without
hesitation or thoughtful attention to the merits of the proposed projects.
The historic evaluation process is not perfect either. Much depends on the quality of the report.
In the past historic properties have been missed,that is why the historic district designation is an
important component and safeguard to the process. As an example,the Warden Block building
which is within the downtown historic district was not even on a contributing property list
originally. In the recent past, someone sent a photograph of the building to the Central Coast
Information Center and it was placed on the contributing list without any accompanying
documentation. Still,being on the contributing list of historic properties would have given the
building no protection at all in the present form of the height ordinance. The Warden Block
building had no outward appearance of its social and architectural significance because of
various changes to the facade over the years. Currently,the building is being restored and will
once again showcase our history as an elegant addition to the downtown historic district. Under
other circumstances this would never have happened.
The Copeland Chinatown project presents a different kind of example. For example, instead of
restoring the building at the corner of Chorro and Monterey Streets as a Bed and Breakfast, a
high rise hotel is offered,that is totally out of character for the block opposite the mission.
Surely there are better locations for a structure of that scope and size. We have a large tourist
commercial zone to serve that purpose. If we do not develop the historic district with care we
will have nothing different to offer the public. There are plenty of areas along the corridors
outside of the historic district to infill. The streets are usually wider there as well.
More open spaces and plazas for our downtown historic district is what will bring people into
the downtown and encourage them to stay a while. No one has ever mentioned a chain store or
offices as a reason to return to an area,but they will remember and return to the place that has
good restaurants, interesting stores, entertainments, museums, art and architecture and most of
all a place for people to congregate in a pleasant environment. That is the recipe for good long
tern economic stability in our downtown.
Sincerely
Betsy Bertrand /
RECEIVE®
COUNCI L CDD DIR
efCA�t' z'IN DIR - SEP 04 2001
e CAO ZFIRE CHIEF
Z ATTORNEY R!'Pw DIR
HSLO CITY CLERK
�CLERK/ORIG F' POLICE CHF
gDE T FADS EC DIR CITY Of SAN LUIS OBISPO
�_�TIL DIR 1336 Sweetbay Lane.
u HR DIR San Luis Obispo, California 93401
City Council i /C,0a J RED FILE SEP 4 2001
City of San Luis O i6-spo MEETING AGENDA
990 Palm StreetpA- `d� nITEM #�� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
RE: Amendments to increase heights and intensity regulations—TA 50-06
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
The height amendments and ordinance effort are an opportunity to consider the purpose of
downtown, in relation to its surroundings and its existing character. Some regulation is
necessary to allow contemporary building design to succeed, as illustrated by the Chamber of
Commerce. Regulations are needed to guide how very tall buildings, above 60 feet, are to be
allowed. What_has transpired are new opportunities for much taller buildings with many more
residential units, but with more traffic congestion to the point of failure on our streets.
Overall, the city has taken too narrow a view of building heights and has not planned the area in
a holistic way. The result will be a sequence of questionable, compromised projects with luxury
housing and a few tiny studios, and no nearby stores to provide for daily needs due to high
rents. The following is offered as a way to put the heights issue within a more realistic and
sustainable approach:
1. The downtown should remain a small-scale shopping environment, with the building
heights and floor areas matched to the city's realistic planned parking resources and the
traffic capacity of the streets.
2. Housing should not be a primary goal for downtown. The land costs are too great, and
traffic congestion will result from commutes to work and daily-need stores outside
downtown.
a.. .Instead, housing should be encouraged within a quarter to half-mile radius from
downtown. This urban core around downtown should be examined for potential
high-density housing in a mixed use environment. It.should include the flat
terrain north of Pismo Street and from the railroad to Beach Street. This is a
very walkable and bikable area for urban residential living.
b. In this residential core, neighborhood commercial uses should be encouraged to
occupy ground floors, since the rents in the core commercial area will never be
affordable for neighborhood commercial uses.
3. The Upper Monterey Street area should be encouraged to be a larger-scale mixed-use
area next to more offices, as suggested by the Cal Poly planning class project several
years ago. Heights here could be taller than downtown and in a more modem setting.
4. Larger scale department stores should be encouraged within the blocks identified by the
banks that occupy them: Wells Fargo and Bank of America. These blocks provide the
space for anchor stores that will support the continued vitality of downtown. The core
commercial area will then ultimately become the historic mall that downtown property
owners want. But, it will have housing surrounding it with convenient stores for daily
needs, and some office growth that could be in relationship to Cal Poly.
Since it is unlikely that the staff or Council will seriously consider the above comments, I have
the following comments about the staff report and ordinance:
1. The height standard in the ordinance is dysfunctional. Section 17.46.020C states one
standard`=50'feet, then states that the limit is 75 feet with other standards. The height
limit-standard exacerbates this contradiction by stating that the 75-foot limit is measured
from the downhill part of a.site. So, the city is encouraging buildings over 50-feettall,
and it is not addressing the measurement on the uphill side of a site. Standard C needs
to be very explicit that the height limit is 60 feet without a use permit, and it is 75 feet
with a use permit.
2. 1 recommend that three policy objectives be required instead of two, because there are
so many inconsequential ones that do not affect the scale of downtown, such as open
space and energy. And, the open door to"Other Policy Objectives" should be deleted to
limit the playing field.
3. The height limit should be above every point along the site, not just the downhill half, and
it should be at the average height of all proposed buildings. The illustrated attempt on
page 1-12 excludes a height limit.on the uphill half. Contrary to the staff report, buildings
will exceed 75 feet above the half-way or average point if the uphill half is also a 75-foot
height limit. On the downhill side; buildings above 50 feet will not have this contoured
setback, so a 70-foot tall building can thrust out to the edge of a downhill site. All
buildings of any height above 50 feet should be regulated to a point above every
elevation along a site, limited to an average of the proposed building heights.
4. The height of buildings over 60 feet should be constrained to a percentage of a block
area and the distance of a block face. These taller buildings should clearly be an
exception to the two and three story street facades. The reason that the Anderson Hotel
works at all is that it is an exception to its block; the whole block has smaller level
buildings. The ordinance should allow to 75 feet if such building(s) in a project are not
more than 25 percent of the block area and no more than 50 percent of any one block
face (with upper level setbacks).
5. 1 support a smaller 1,200 square foot average floor area for residential units. As an
average, it will put the emphasis on workforce and affordable units, which is the intent of
allowing the taller buildings. Apartments in downtown need not be spacious,
extravagant lofts. The proposed 1,500 square feet is too kind of a trade-off and will
result in more unaffordable units.
6. 1 support staffs proposal to delete the exemption from the average floor area limitation.
7. 1 support the Planning Commission to reference Contributing Historic Buildings, rather
than the less inclusive Master List buildings.
8. A standard is needed to reduce the scale of projects that are next to Historic Buildings
to be very similar in size and massing. We only need to wait awhile longer to regret the
approval of the Ah Louis cloaking with tall buildings. The floor plate height also should_
be similar in scale.
9. The Land Use Element policies should be codified into the ordinance.
10. The City should identify blocks where commercial buildings larger than 20,000 square
feet should be located. Standards I and J are too open-ended.
Thank you for y��consideration.
CLop S�/`��
The Pencil That Draws the Future Look of SLO
Halfway through last Saturday's Tribune editorial the writer rejected the Planning
Commission's requirements of setbacks,because they would not"pencil out"
economically. While economic sustainability is a critical factor, looking at the many
elements that make for economic success is even more critical- We can with reason
compare the Morro Street Garage with the Edsel that Ford erroneously put forth as its
sign of progress.
Let us pencil in the problems created for the Chinatown Project by the original pencil, so
intent on building height, volume,and bottom line. It sketched what would result in
canyonization of Morro Street,architectural domination of Mission Plaza,skimpy
internal walkways and public plaza,and somehow left out a viewing plaza. The pencil's
wielder lacked the public's perspective,perhaps holding that"once we get it built,in time
they'll get used to it!"
That strikes me as risky behavior. Would it not be more rational to creatively include the
public earlier?We have in effect been conducting a workshop on the subject-
Architectural Review Commission,Cultural Heritage Commission,Planning
Commission,and even the City Council. Plus the developers,Chamber of Commerce,the
Downtown Associates, and latterly the Save Our Downtown"fringe."I would
recommend that we take the public spirited elements of all,to form a Future of the
Downtown Workshop. Collaborating instead of contending will save us all time,temper,
and money,and add to our reputation as a progressive city.
Let us all take a hand in guiding that pencil!
Those from commerce and industry,also government,perhaps detect in such a workshop
the philosophy and practice of J Edwards Deming,the great industrial engineer and
innovator.At first spurned by American industry,he turned to Finland and
telecommunications,eventuating in Nokia. Then the Japanese had the sense to welcome
his democratizing quality circlesjespecially in transportation.America is reluctantly
modernizing,in accordance with his simple yet sophisticated ways. But they work!
Thank you
Joseph Abrahams, M.D.
335 San Miguel Avenue
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
805-542-0447
0 77
City, Council Meeting: 23 September 2007
� �O ��
If you would like to see the res Its of the city council's new
height ordinance put into effect, travel to Bainbridge Island,
Washington and try to find the historic town of Winslow.
Not only have the developers torn down historic structures"
in its heart but they have even changed its name to
Bainbridge Island City. People now congregate in the few
blocks of single story buildings amidst huge towering,
expensive modern condos.
I am opposed to the Chinatown project an he Garden
Street Terraces and implementation of the 74 foot height
that is dust short of being called a High-rise. I am also
opposed to the removal of three historic facades from
Garden Street to enhance Edna Valley.
Both of these developments are perfect examples of
Progress as exemplified by Capitalism. When the brook, or
the eagles rest, or the forest glen, is bulldozed but the
developer names the new development Eagles Rest, or
Forest Acres, this is not Progress, but the simple loss of
things that we love and honor. When Chinatown and
Garden Street become what is proposed, the moniker will
announce the loss of what we value.
One of the reasons for the success of downtown SLO is its
sense of human scale. The scale is set by the heights of the
Ficus Street Trees and its varied eclectic storefronts.
Building towers that exceed this height are going to ruin the
human,sense of scale-and cast shadows throughout the
entire day across the buildings, people and streets.
This will be the case for the Garden Street Terraces as they
are planned to be at the south of Garden Street. Our streets
are placed at 45 degrees to North, at noon the shadows will
be cast directly to the north covering all of Garden Street.
With a 30 foot plus change in grade from Monterey Street
up to Palm Street the 75 foot towers planned in Chinatown
will appear well over 100 feet in height from the downtown
area. The precedent of building such a massive structure
forebodes a complete change to the downtown and the
Mission that is now the central focus will appear diminutive.
F
Do we really want the type of structure that hovers over
Court Street? The massive staircase, non-personal big chain
shops and blank walls along the streets? The same architect
that did Court Street has put another huge set of stairs in
the Chinatown project.
The City Council's recent action to allow developers to
build structures six and seven stories in height, is more than
short-sighted, it is beyond comprehension why the Council
would want to deliberately jeopardize the very essence of
our town, the reason that brings people to visit and its
citizens to choose to live their lives here. These actions will
ruin the character of the town, its small town
beauty and our hometown.
COMMENTS ON THE HEIGHT INCREASE FOR SLO
My name is Robert Lucas and I live at 1831 San Luis Drive
I have four points to make.
First, I want to thank the Planning Commission and the Planning and
Development Staff for their work preparing the recommendations before
you.
When the City Council approved the new height for landmark buildings of
75 feet, it asked the Commission for guidance on how best to implement
these new limits. The Commission followed a lengthy and laborious process
incorporating staff as well as public comment into its recommendations. I
commend their hard work.
But now some people seem to be revising history and saying that they asked
the Planning Commission for suggestions about how to make it easy for
these buildings to get approved.
Rather than question the Commission's ability to follow instructions, I
encourage you to applaud their efforts and to pass the resolution as
recommended.
My second point is a concern about the denigration of public input on the
issue. The Tribune gave a brickbat to the Planning Commission for caving in
to public opinion and asking too much of developers.
But public comment can be valuable.
Let me give you an example. This is the draft EIR for the Chinatown
Project—a four-inch thick document prepared by City Staff and a private
consulting firm.
Throughout, the EIR refers to Building A, the largest building, as 75 or
approximately 75 feet high.
Yet City Zoning Ordinance 17.16.040, on the books for over ten years,
clearly defines the manner in which height on a sloping lot should be
measured. That makes the calculation of height for Building A 90 feet—a
huge amount over the 75 feet in your land use guideline.
How could this be missed????
Yet it was. And thus hours of staff time and public time were wasted. A
simple preliminary review could have sent the matter back to the developers
with the comment that the building was too high by 20% and would not be
considered.
What happened instead is that it was considered as submitted, the matter was
overlooked. The EIR concluded, essentially, that the building blocks the
view, but there's nothing we can do about it.
All that had to be done was to invoke the laws on the books.
But, apparently, this mistake was never noticed until public comment was
made about it.
Thanks to that comment, the next time anyone sees a redesign for
Chinatown, there should be at least one floor missing from Building A.
Third: if you plan to vote on this issue tonight, please make sure you're
eligible to do so.
The point here is simple: tonight the city defines when and under what
circumstances certain new landmark buildings can reach 75 feet high.
The law will apply to only a few such instances and in a narrowly
circumscribed area downtown. Who will most profit from this development?
Obviously those closest.
Now if I had a business nearby, and knew that only a few buildings would
meet the qualifications necessary to be designated landmark buildings, and
also knew that two of these very few were already proposed with hotels
totaling 147 rooms, and could imagine at least that many travelers, either in
singles or doubles, there most nights, needing to eat, and I had an almost
unique way of helping them satisfy that need, I would be quick to recuse
myself from voting.
The Fair Political Practices Commission publishes clear guidelines to protect
the public from votes by public officials that are either compromised or have
the appearance of being compromised because of a possible conflict of
interest.
A formal complaint cannot be registered until after a vote has been cast. But
then it's too late to avoid the fine, which can be stiff. Makes you wonder
about previous votes on the issue.
The fourth issue is a question: why pursue this change in height at all?
Ken Hampian is quoted as saying that the city needs the revenue to provide
essential services like fire and police protection.
But in December of last year, a report sent to you called the General Fund 5
Year Forecast, 2007-12, projected a 10% surplus in budget for 2007-08,
which amounts to $5M over this year's city's budget of$47M.
And that surplus margin is projected to widen over the next four years.
So the city doesn't need the money.
The question, then, is, who does?
Thirty years ago Woodward and Bernstein were told to follow the money.
Could make you wonder these days . . .
Thank you.
Bob Lucas
Cell phone: 805 459 4344
Page 1 of 2
( f
Councal,SloCity
From: Bob Anderson [banderso@rain.org] Sent: Tue 9/4/2007 2:55 PM
To: Council,51oCity ��� Y
Cc: LCIVED
Subject: Downtown height and design regulations
Attachments: SEP 0 4 1007
To the City Council: SLO CITY CLERK
I am writing to express in the strongest terms my support for the
Planning Commission recommendations for downtown height and design
regulations. I must also express my puzzlement and concern about what
appears to be a rush to intensify and rebuild downtown at the expense
of its character for, seemingly, the profit of a few individuals. I am
surprised at your apparent disregard for the wishes of—I firmly
believe—a solid majority of the city's residents. RED FILE
As a 33-year resident of San Luis Obispo, I have generally been pleased NG AGENDA
with city actions, with their consistency and their results. The DA ITEM #
seeming rush to make it easy to build large buildings downtown has me
wondering what's going on.
The Garden Street and Chinatown projects seem joined at the hip to this
change in the city's approach.They're discussed as if they're
pre-approved. Those projects are not approved. They have still not
received a full, genuine public airing. And individual proposals
shouldn't drive city policy.
Another assumption that seems to have become gospel is that we have to
build higher downtown to avoid sprawl. ("Sprawl!"with an exclamation
point, like the bogeyman.) More housing downtown is good, yes. And
mixing uses is good. But a couple more stories downtown isn't going to
stop sprawl. You would have to keep building higher and higher forever
to stop sprawl. Want that?We have only one downtown.There are other
ways. Have you considered allowing larger buildings outside of
downtown? Or possibly even designating new areas for such?The LOVR and
airport-areas are already sprawling. What about making them the city's
high-rise zones, if we have to have.some? (We're hardly Paris— France,
I mean, not Texas— but that city did set a pertinent example: They
built one skyscraper in the city center, took one look, and now allow 'OuwCiL CDD DIR
tall buildings only outside the center.) You could build a lot more CAC .��( IN DIR
housing and other things in the larger shopping areas around the city !EU3
CAO 'C1 FIRE CHIEF
'ATTORNEY
center that you can in the center—and you wouldn't be destroying CLERI(iORIG DPW DIR
something we all love. For that matter, you can build a lot more D T . fps , -POLICE CHFhousing and other things downtown without raising the height limits. ZREC OIR
.C'7�JTIL DIR -
One thing I and many others love about the downtown is the funky charm .{_HR DIR
of the older buildings. No, they're not"historic"in the sense of
being important in history. But they're essential for our sense of
place. You don't toss them out just because they're old and expendable.
I don't want to live in Generic California City; we're starting to see
too much of that already.
As for building heights, I personally would like to see them remain as
they are-- and be more closely enforced so we don't have more sights
like the (what? 80-some foot high?) southeast wall of the new Palm
Street parking structure. But it's not more height per se that would
hurt downtown; its how someone walking around downtown, or looking at
hnps://mail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycounciUlnbox/Downtown%20height%20and%2Odesign%2... 9/4/2007
Page 2 of 2
it from the hills, perceives the height. I believe the regulations the
Planning Commission has sent you would allow more height and preserve
downtown's essential character at the same time. And better too careful
than even a little careless; mistakes in this business are permanent
and can be painfully visible. And isn't character more important than
convenience for a builder?
Please think carefully about where you're taking us.
Bob Anderson
1071 Islay St.
San Luis Obispo
541-1844
https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycounci l/Inbox/Downtown%20height%20and%20design%2... 9/4/2007
I
Page 1 of 1
i
Council, SloCity
From: Tim Williams[tim@digitalwest.net] Sent: Tue 9/4/2007 2:45 PM
To: Council,SloCity
Cc:
Subject Building Height increases-please request a change to the proposal RECEIVED
Attachments: a x
SEP 0 4 2007
Good afternoon,distinguished Mayor and Council Members,
SLO CITY CLERIC
I'm in agreement with the council's February 6u'decision to provide a moderate increase to the downtown building height and intensity limits.
I would like to see the council's wishes seen through,and encourage the City to continue a sensible approach to allowing these moderate
increases.
However, I do not feel the current proposed recommendation by the Planning Commission provides.this moderate goal.After review of the
proposed changes, it will create more work,overhead and red tape for businesses,property owners and the City to get even the current 50ft
building heights within the proposed Planning Commissions standards.
I urge the Council to remove the 50—60 ft buildings from the current proposal,and possibly table the proposal until these items have been
reviewed.
None of us want downtown growth that is not controlled. Most of us want a vibrant downtown that provides the City with revenues,safety,
beauty and more awards! Please consider what it will take to allow the moderate increases that you have proposed previously.
Thank you for your time,and for all you do for our City!
RED FILE
Tim ME ING AGENDA.
DATE ITEM #. DIL
Tim Williams
Digital West Networks,Inc. http://www.digitalwest.net OUNCIL E-CDD DIR
�'�AO 2-FIN DIR
tel(805)781-9378 fax(805)781-9379 toll free(888)781-9378 ZrACAO 'FIRE CHIEF
Ja ATTORNEY .2*PW DIR
I�CLERK/ORIG ['POLICE CHF
❑ DEPT HEADS OREC DIR
YUTIL DIR
Cf
https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycounci Ulnbox/Building%20Height%20increases%20-%20p... 9/4/2007
Page 1 of 1
n
Council, SloCity
From: Alex Gough [adoberealty@charter.net] Sent: Sun 9/2/2007 12:31 PM
To: Council,SloCi
tyCc: RECEIVED
Subject:
Attachments: SEP 0 4 1007
Your honor and members of the council: SLO CITY CLERK
Tuesday night you will consider the new height ordinance and the changes
recommended by the Planning Commission.
Reacting to these recommended changes, the.San Luis Obispo Chamber of
Commerce recently made a laundry list of six recommendations of their own,
most of which were seconded by the Downtown Association (with one dissenting
vote), to essentially gut the planning commission changes, in particular
the requirements for setbacks above 50 feet and the ban on demolition of
historic structures. These groups want to make these two important
protections policy objectives rather than program standards.
RED FILE
The problem with this is that it shifts the protection of historic buildings MEETING AGENDA
from a mandate to a possible option, and a political decision at that. With
three affirmative votes any historic building in town could be DATE ITEM1_I
demolished,even the Mission. Its similar to making the Constitution a set 17
of non-binding suggestions. In light of the thrust of recent local
development projects, in my view historic buildings definitely need a "bill
of rights".
Future councils may not have the balance of the present council.
For the future of San Luis Obispo, I urge you to incorporate the changes
recommended by the Planning Commission.
2'COUNCIL .2 CDD DIR
CAO .2'FIN DIR
'CACAO Xi FIRE CHIEF
Alex Gough, owner, Sauer-Adams Adobe 7ATTORNEY ,2 Pw DIR
964 Chorro St., �?CLERK/OFIIG -POLICE CHF
San Luis Obispo CA 93401 ❑ DEPT EADS REC DIR
(805) 543-2693 Ter TIL DIR
HR DIR
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free.Edition..
Version: 7.5.484/ Virus Database: 269.13.2/985 - Release Date: 09/02/2007
4:32 PM
https:Hmail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycounciUlnbox/No%20Subject.EML?Cmd=open 9/4/2007
ME " tiC �,,GENDA 9-�LC;EIVE®
i.,JE I M #�? _-� SEP 0 41007
�IIIIIIIIIII����I�IIIII � CITY CLERK
art. ,. . counc,l memonanbu_ nLO
city of san Luis owspo, community oevslopMent 6epaRtme atrDtF--r�
L5COUNQIL
DATE: September 4, 2007 AO �5iN C
�ACAO SIRE ='
p'AttOANEY Ch�lW 011
TO: City Council OCLERK/OAIQ 9LIOG CM '
❑ DE 99 oREC bit-1
VIA: Ken Hampian, CAO57
rPL(yl_
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Direc e,L¢
BY: Michael Codron, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Additional Questions Answered on Downtown Building Height Issue
On September 2, 2007, Council Member Carter asked staff to provide some additional
information prior to the September 4`s public hearing. The responses are provided below for the
benefit of the Council. The staff response follows each of the information items listed below.
1) What are the right-of-way widths for the following downtown streets?
Marsh - 70 feet; Higuera - 70 feet; Monterey - 70 feet (50 feet southwest of Mission Plaza);
Palm - 60 feet; Nipomo -60 feet; Broad- 55 feet; Garden - 50 feet; Chorro- 50 feet;
Morro—50 feet; Osos—50 feet; Santa Rosa—60 feet
2) Is housing required of ALL new development in the C-D zone, even buildings of less than 50
feet?
Housing Element Policy 3.11.2 says that new commercial developments in the Downtown Core
(C-D zone) shall include housing, unless the City finds that the housing would jeopardize public
health, safety and welfare, or, that the property's shape, size or other physical constraint makes
housing infeasible. No minimum density is required, so a new project can provide a single
dwelling unit to meet this policy objective. For instance, the 50-foot tall Ah Luis building that
was recently approved around the historic Ah Luis Store will include retail on the ground floor,
and office on the second, third and fourth floors. A single dwelling unit is also provided on the
fourth floor, consistent with Policy 3.11.2.
3) Am 1 correct that the normal retail parking requirements outside downtown are 1 space per
300 sq.ft. as opposed to downtown's 1 space per 500 sq.ft?
Most retail stores are required to provide parking at the rate of 1 space per 300 square feet of
floor area (1/300). The exceptions are groceries, liquor, specialty foods (1/200), and large items
such as furniture or hardware stores (1/500).
G:\CD-PLAN\MCODRONICOUNCIUDHO(Cartersinfo2).doc
Council Memorandum (Additional Questions on Downtown Building Height)
September 4, 2007
Page 2
4) Is having the ARC approve buildings from 50 to 60 feet, a departure from the type of
approvals the ARC normally provides?
No, the ordinance allows building height up to 60 feet provided the Performance Standards and
Policy Objectives are met. It is routine for the ARC to review projects to determine consistency
with ordinances and General Plan policy, as well as the Community Design Guidelines.
The Planning Commission is normally only involved in permitting new buildings where a use
permit is required, or as required by the large retail ordinance (over 60,000 square feet). The
Council would be involved when there is a Tentative Tract Map proposal or if there is an appeal.
5) Can you provide average square foot size and ranges for some of the new residential projects
recently proposed, built or approved in town? I'm thinking specifically of the Marsh/Nipomo
project, the Tumbling Waters and WET projects on Orcutt, the residential portion of the Broad
Street project next to Cole Motors, Chinatown (as currently proposed), the residential portion of
the project on Broad between Fire Station 1 and Midstate Bank.
Marsh/Nipomo Project— 1,393 square feet (33 units)
Tumbling Waters— 1,214 square feet (175 units)
WET— 1,332 square feet (86 units)
Cinderella Carpets (Broad & Capitolio)— 895 square feet (6 units)
Chinatown— 1,238 square feet (59 units)
Garden Street Terraces— 1,073 square feet (57 units)
6) LUE 3.1.6 as recently amended by Council says, "The Zoning Regulations will establish
maximum building height, lot coverage, and minimum setbacks from streets and other property
lines as well as procedures for exceptions to such standards in special circumstances." In
focusing on the exceptions clause, does the proposed ordinance provide that mechanism? Does
it need to or is that mechanism defined elsewhere in our zoning regs?
Unless an exception procedure is written into that specific section of the code that is being
excepted, the only mechanism is a variance. Under State law, variances can only be granted
where there is some physical circumstance that warrants the exception because the property
would otherwise not be able to be reasonably developed. In this case, an exception procedure is
written into proposed Section 17.42.020.C.1.h to allow the Planning Commission, or Council, to
make minor exceptions to the Performance Standards.
7) In the application requirements laid out on page 1-23 for buildings over 50 feet, which of
these are actually different from what buildings under 50 feet currently have to do?
None of this information is required in the application requirements for buildings under 50 feet
tall. However, during the environmental review process we typically ask for much of this
information to be provided. The 3-D model, green-building plan and solar-shading analysis for
sidewalks are new requirements based on the policies adopted by Council in February, 2007.
Council Memorandum (Additional Questions on Downtown Building Height)
September 4, 2007
Page 3
Many of the policy objectives existing in various elements of the General Plan would still apply,
such as historic preservation, affordable housing, view protection, solar access and energy
efficiency. The Application Requirements section of the ordinance provides the best method for
notification to developers and property owners of what information is needed by the City to
determine if the project is consistent with the General Plan.
8) The ordinance talks about the ARC or the PC providing use permits. Does "or Council"
needed to be added since Council can presumably provide the use permit on appeal if the ARC
or PC originally denies it?
The suggested text can be added for clarification, but it is not necessary since the Council always
has this authority when the project comes before them, either as part of a subdivision or by
appeal.
9) 1 found the following typos or places where wordsmithing changes to the proposed ordinance
might help for clarity
17.42.010-- missing "and"at the end of the first line.
17.42.020 A -- not a typo, but would it be clearer to add something like "unless a density bonus
is granted" to make it clear how the maximum density noted here is 36 density unitslacre and
then 17.42.020.C.2.c talks about density greater than 36.
17.42.020.0.1 second "e"--this should really be "h"
17.42.020.C.2.in -- The last sentence, in parentheses, uses "n"when "m"is what is meant.
Multiple references to "open space"-- Since most of us think of open space as being places in the
greenbelt on our hills in our watersheds, would it make more since to use something like "public
gathering places"?
We will make these changes and be prepared to make other changes during the meeting, as
directed by the Council. At the Planning Commission meeting we edited the document on the
computer as changes were agreed to. We can use the same process during the Council meeting
so that everyone is clear on the proposed changes.
10) Does "adaptive reuse"allow one to move an historic resource?
Moving a resource is normally considered the same as demolition, but not always. Specifically,
CEQA says "substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means
physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate
surroundings such that the significance of the historical resource would be materially impaired."
Therefore, each proposed relocation needs to be looked at individually to see if it materially
impairs the significance of the resource. For instance, the Pinho House was relocated about 6
feet closer to Marsh Street to make way for new construction. This project was considered an
adaptive reuse of the historic building. However, relocating the building to another
neighborhood (as originally proposed by the applicant) was determined to be inconsistent with
the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and would have resulted in significant impacts under
CEQA.
City of San Luis Obispo C I E E'
Planning Commission AUG 31 2007
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo,Ca.93401 SLO CITY CL UNCIL -2.-CDC) DIR
ZCAC -.;?FIN DIR
2rACAO $'FIRE CHIEF
Re: Garden Street Terraces project. ZTATTORNEY ;Z/Pw DIR
ZCLERK/ORIG P'POLICE CHF
❑ D T HEADS ,G EC DIR
Dear Members, Chi UTIL DIR
HR DIR
My name is Helen Grau and own the property directly across from the
proposed Terrace project...specifically 1110 to 1124 Garden St.
The building plans show great design, good concept, but wrong location and
it is far too high for the area.
By allowing this high type of building we are destroying the charm and
essence of San Luis Obispo. We don't want to be another"Rodeo Drive",
how could tenants afford the shop rent?
I don't:believe a quote"working,person" in SanLuis could possibly buy into
this project. I feel the�only,ones who could afford living there would be
parents or grandparents of College Students...and perhaps ultimately allow
them to live there...just a thought to consider.
Also by selling a floor level of the building, would the "new owner" be
under the same restrictions or will it actually result in perhaps a Time Share
situation. Certainly all these different sources would not be "San Luis
People" or care the way the "locals" do about our town!
The thing that brings it to me personally is the 2 to 3 year plus construction
on Garden Street. My concern is how my tenants would survive the chaos
during this time. We need some positive interaction while the construction is
going on, especially with the Parking Lot taken away for that length of time.
If all this is about more taxes for the City;how can the City afford to pour
TWO MILLION DOLLARS into it and by the way where is the 2 mil
coming from ?
Again, these expensive sand high end buildings will destroy the:charm.and
ambience in SLO Town•that visitors come to�e}ijoy._-
Sincerely, Helen Grau RED FILE _
MEETING AGENDA
DATEfI�� , ITEM #34�—L
RECEIVED
AUG 31 1007
SLO CITY CLERK August 29, 2007
San Luis Obispo COUNCI �CDD DIR
Community Development Department QCAO
AC 0 d!FW DIR
919 Palm St. .0'FIRE CHIEF
[a'A7TORNEY
WDIR
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 2'CLERK/ORIG O p CE CHF
❑j D T EADS 10 AEC DIR
ARIL DIR
RE: Building Heights �'HR DIR
� �o CCa�,
Think how different San Luis Obispo would look and feel if suddenly Bishop's i fru
Peak or Cerro San Luis were not there anymore. That change is how dramatic allowing
buildings as tall as 75 feet would be in the downtown area. The contrast would be
startling and probably unsettling to many residents as well as visitors familiar with our
city. (Recall the construction of the road on Cerro San Luis, anyone?)
My sense is that the mix of these developments to require such heights, which is
total square footage, is for the bottom line of the developers. They are pandering to the
appeal of promising more housing, but not for the average wager earner or families; More
office space,but has anyone noticed the plethora of office rent signs around town? More
retail space, but will it be affordable to the independent business owner and maintain the
charm,appeal, and convenience of shopping downtown? Then there are the proposed
hotel rooms, supplying more low-wage jobs, and I wonder what the occupancy average
will be....
Allowing these monstrous buildings in San Luis Obispo is equivalent of the view
shed ordinance recently passed by our spineless Board of Supervisors. To allow tall
buildings is to not protect the beautiful views, ambience and sense of place that residents
and visitors to San Luis Obispo treasure. To allow such heights is to consider the benefits
to only a few and not for the good of the whole town where we are all stakeholders.
Thank you for your time and for any consideration.
Sincerely,
RED FILE
ME ING AGENDA
DATE ITEM #111L Rebecca Wright
P.O. Box 14104
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
596-0324
rwright@kcbx.net
CC: SLO City Counsel
Page I of I
j? Attachments can contain viruses that may harm your computer.Attachments may not display correctly.
Council,SloCity
From: Pat 0'D [ratline@charter.net] Sent: Sun 9/2/2007 4:21 PM
To: Council,SloCity
Cc:
Subject. Height-setback links RECEIVED
Attachments: D Mission 1950 watercolor.loa(1OSK61 D ATT12576.W(962B) SEP 0 4 2007
Your honor and members of the city council:
SLO CITY CLERK
To help you consider new height ordinances, I've attached a few links
on the subject. Two years ago, a Seattle weekly pointed out that
Vancouver, BC's condo requirements better suited young families
because they required interior courtyards which were a safe place for
children to play. (The Italians discovered this 500 years ago.)
Last month while staying in a downtown Seattle hotel I noted that
most of the newer multi-purpose high rise buildings had setbacks
after the third of fourth level. I don't think anyone disagrees that
Seattle is a great pedestrian town despite it's hills.
RED FILE
http://www.djc.com/news/ae/11173339.htm] MEETNG AGENDA
http://books.google.com/books?id=8YX4- DATEclITEM #�
Akg7s8C&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=downtown+seattie
rT
+setbacks&source=web&ots=nibIewoxdD&sig=mjMOlb6mGPyG-
rdzepUOoSJCbh8#PPP1,Ml
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/235217 vancouver04.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006 06 30
AR2006063001316.html
...and here's a PDF file on Palm Springs' recent downtown development Chd CUN 27ii! Q TV DIR
VLS
proposal: EfCAO -E'FIN DIR
ACRO eFIRECHIEF
htt ://www.ci. alm-s rin s.ca.us/ci tyclerk/Palm%205 rin s%2OInterim% B"ATTORNEY ZrPW
DIR
20Downtown%2OUrban%2ODesign%2OGuidelines%207-25-05.pdfQ'CLERK/ORIG 2 POLICE CHF
?DEP EADS CI REC DIR
I suggest council members walk through the downtown streets where C2'-a ��1� - Z PTIL DIR
projects are proposed and take a look at the existing view corridors. 2 HR DIR
Then ask themselves if the proposed project will enhance or detract
from the existing structure?
The attached water color painting by Elaine Stranahan (now Bagley)
was commission by my aunt Ellen Hughes-Spring in 1950 showing my
grandfather Patrick Hughes' tailorshop at Chorro and Monterey. This
view of the mission no longer exists. Blocked not by buildings, but
by trees. (Also note the location of the pepper tree away from the.
Mission's foundation and the historic 1908 Mission mileage-marker
which was moved to face Chorro St. without the mileage shown to La
Purisima and San Miguel.)
https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycounciUInbox/Height-setback%201inks.ENM?Cmd=open 9/4/2007
J _
Page I of 1
J
r
https://mai1.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycouncil/Inbox/Height-setback%201inks.ENIU 1_multipart_x... 9/4/2007
Page 1 of 1
Council,SloCity
From: Victoria&John Grostick[victoriagrostick@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Tue 9/4/2007 11:02 AM
To: Council,SloCity
Cc:
Subject: Building Heights Ordinance
Attachments:
Dear City Council members,
With tonight's vote,you have the honorable task of shaping the outcome of our city's future. Please vote to either rescind the Feb. vote to go
higher or to implement the Planning Commission's directives.
I implore you to view the city through the eyes of it's residents and not the developers or Chamber's idea of progress. More than money is at
stake here.
Thank you for your time. RECEIVED
Sincerely,
Victoria Grostick
1730 Corralitos Ave. SEP 0 4 2007
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
544-7988 SLO CITY CLERK
COUNCIL CDD DIR
O'CAO , FIN DIR
kCAO .2 FIRE CHIEF
ATTORNEY j7IPW DIR
,aXCLERK/OR!G 'POLICE CHF
r� D� EA�� ZREC DIR RED FILE
_� _ HR DIR MM, AGENDA
# ��
https:Hmail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycounciUInboxBuilding%2OHeights%20Ordinance.EML?C... 9/4/2007
V'+ Page 1 of 1
18 You forwarded this message on 9/6/2007 9:07 AM.
Council,SloCity
From: betsy[betsyb@charter.net] Sent: Wed 9/5/2007 1:33 PM
To: Council,SloCity
Cc:
Subject: Height Ordinance
Attachments:
We may not always agree on everything, but I really appreciate that you listen to the community. Historical Resources
suffered last night partly because of misinformation and partly because hotels are in our future downtown regardless of
the work produced on the ordinance by the community. The sorry part that you expressed so well last night is that at
any time the majority vote by the council can override the wishes of the community. RECEIVED
Betsy Bertrando
SEP 0 6 1007
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. SLO CITY CLERK
Version: 7.5.485/Virus Database: 269.13.6/991 - Release Date: 9/5/2007 2:55 PM
https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycouncil/Inbox/Height%200rdinance-3.EML?Cmd=open 9/6/2007
O'Connor, Julie
From: Codron, Michael
Sent: Tuesday, September 04,2007 5:00 PM RECEIVED
To: O'Connor,Julie; Hooper, Audrey
Subject: FW: Downtown SLO Building Height Ordinance SEP 0 4 2007
Red file below...
SLO CITY CLERIC
Michael Codron
Associate Planner
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department RED FILE
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 MEETING AGENDA
(805)781-7175 DATE_ ITEM #
mcodron@slocity.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Pete Evans [mailto:riki77@gmail.com]
Sent:Tuesday, September 04,2007 4:24 PM 2MAC IL DD DIR
To: Codron, Michael jiYFIN DIR
)CACACA O rt CHIEF
Subject: Re: Downtown SLO Building Height Ordinance O ATTORNEY j?PW DIR
Z'CLERK/0RIa j�®LICE CHF
C Michael,
10 DEPT EC DIR
Can you present this to the council people as part of their package?than SNR e SIR
Pete
September 4,2007
Dear City Council, "
Concerning the proposed new building height ordnance. I am sure others will bring up specifics of the
plan. My note is about public access and just who the Council listens to.
The desires of the development mentality are insatiable,and you know it.The current childish
argument in favor of allowing tall buildings in town is to prevent sprawl. Duh,too late. We have sprawl,all
over.
We have been 'infilling'for decades,as we have been spreading out all over. Only Allen Settle and the Mayor
have seen as many changes in our community as I have, probably to their respective dismay and glee.
Why are we proposing to increase building heights? Gee, wouldn't be to satisfy the needs of a few high
roller developers,would it?
Wouldn't be to satisfy some internal urge to leave a lasting legacy in town, no matter how permanent and
damaging? Perhaps to enhance one's business interests?
I proposed to the Council some months ago that the average citizen had no idea of the scope and
ramifications of these new regulations. I challenged all of you to just take a few moments and ask random
folks on the street if they had the slightest notion of what was planned for their city. I wonder if any of you
saw any merit to the suggestion that you actually find out what your constituents want. What they feel,what
their hopes for the future are.
Throughout this ordeal you have had benefit of paid 'experts'to advise you how to make these
changes to our existing development plans. You give my tax money to the Chamber of Commerce to hire
i
���I�j UIP I '
peo u h our to o eth1 IWdnThis sub g grgr a t r h ial ubut ve usis3 0 So m f lah' y.
We m
best y`obithB�IksvV1I0fk6wvftft&m&%MUffiW4uent large developments
downtown. How many volunteers do they have,putting in their own time and money to advance something
they believe in? I have made efforts to contact them and been ignored. In public documents we have been
called a 'fringe group' in some snide effort to minimize our legitimacy.
The Chamber of Commerce and Downtown Association don't represent downtown,they represent big
corporate interests over locals. The plans before you benefit the big players, not the mass of residents.
It's the same old tired story. Wheeler-dealers who try to manipulate the situation;tricking small town
politicians into thinking they have the best interests of all in mind. Filling up our town with big town corporate
interests will lessen our appeal, not enhance it.
I really think you should go beyond the usual and/or mandated notification process when planning
such large scale changes to our environment. I think you should reach out in any and every way to the
citizens to educate them honestly and find out what they want. In fact many feel the'powers that be' would
like these things to be done in secrecy without the complication of ordinary people having their say.
And that say being weighted at least as much as those who stand to benefit economically..
Have you heard from one person who isn't a shill for development who favors these changes?You
have certainly heard from many others who oppose them. Why have we been discounted and often ignored?
Pete Evans
EThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the'disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
�` Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410.
RECEIVED
�Ilri�iulllllllllllllj°aff ilCounCi1L memoRanOu AUG 29 2007
_S.LO._CQY ,CLERK
e,ty of san
is ot;)spO, community development R autment
DATE: August 29, 2007 RED FILE ����••11,�
(APL/ M
TO: City Council - MEET1W AGENDAAa
°CDD DIR
"ITEM # � FIN DIR
�FIRE CHIEFVIA: Ken Hampian, CAO �v PW DIRPOLICE CHFREC DIRFROM: John Mandeville, Community Development DirecRECLITIL DIR
;;-HR DIR
BY: Michael Codron, Associate Planner ,� a oc��
r 04 40
SUBJECT: Council Member Carter's Questions on Downtown Building Height Issue
On August 7, 2007, Council Member Carter provided staff with a short list of informational
items to include in the agenda packet for the downtown building height item scheduled for
review on September 4t'. Although some of the information is provided in the agenda report, we
wanted to provide the Council with a more complete response via this memo, which will also be
quicker to reference. The staff response follows each of the information items listed below.
1) A list of all buildings in the downtown area which are on the City's "master
list"or "contributing list"of historic properties. I'm assuming that
performance standard 17.42.020.C.1.d refers to both lists.
Attachment 8 to the Council Agenda Report includes a map of the contributing and Master List
properties located downtown. This map and a listing of all of the City's historic properties are
also attached to this memo.
2) An explanation of what "preservation or adaptive reuse"means, in particular
"adaptive reuse."
The Council Reading File includes a copy of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties, with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and
Reconstructing Historic Buildings.
According to the Standards, preservation means: "The act or process of applying measures
necessary to sustain the existing form, integrity, and materials of an historic property. Work,
including preliminary measures to protect and stabilize the property, generally focuses upon the
ongoing maintenance and repair of historic materials and features rather than extensive
replacement and new construction. New exterior additions are not within the scope of this
treatment; however, the limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing
systems and other code-required work to make properties functional is appropriate within a
preservation project."
G:SCD•PLAN\MCODRONICOUNCIL\DHO(Canersinfo).da
Council Memorandum (Downtown Building Height)
August 29,2007
Page 2
"Adaptive reuse" is another term for rehabilitation, which is defined by the Standards as: "The
act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and
additions while preserving those portions or features (of a building) which convey its historical,
cultural, or architectural values."
The City's Historic Preservation Program Guidelines establish the Cultural Heritage Committee
as the advisory body that makes recommendations to the Community Development Director, or
to the Architectural Review Commission, on.whether or not a project is consistent with the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards. The Standards are interpreted relative to the values
expressed by the City's historic preservation policies.
Excerpts from the Secretary of the Interior's Standards summarizing the standards for
preservation and rehabilitation are attached to this memo for Council's review.
3) A comparison of current affordable housing requirements downtown,
elsewhere within "existing City limits,"and in the expansion areas to the
higher policy objective threshold in 17.42.020.C.2.a
Every project that proposes building height greater than 50 feet must meet at least two of the
Policy Objectives listed in the proposed amendments to the Zoning Regulations. One of these
objectives requires the developer to build affordable housing on-site at the rate of 5% for low
income households, or 10% for moderate income households. These percentages would exceed
the Inclusionary Housing Requirement for other locations in the City where affordability is
required at the rate of 3% for low income, or 5% for moderate income households. In the City's
expansion areas, affordability is required at a much higher rate: 5% for low income and 10% for
moderate income households.
Many projects downtown are expected to include even greater affordability to achieve density
bonuses (20% low or moderate income is necessary to qualify). However, for smaller projects
that do not pursue density bonuses, the objective will be an attractive option for both meeting the
City's Inclusionary Housing Requirement and the minimum number of objectives required by
the ordinance..
4) A cheat sheet with heights of existing tall buildings currently existing in the
city or already approved(for instance, Orcutt Road WET project). I'm
interested in the tallest height above existing grade as a comparison to the
proposed "75'above the lowest point"rule. Specifically, what's the height
above grade of the downhill tower on the 919 garage?
Here is a list of building heights around town:
• Anderson Hotel, 955 Monterey Street: 65 feet to parapet, 90 to top of finial
• Pacific Bell Building, 872 Morro: 64 feet to lower roof deck, 80 feet to upper deck
Council Memorandum (Downtown Building Height)
August 29, 2007
Page 3
• Palm Street Parking Garage/City Offices: 54 feet to parapet, 77 feet to top of elevator
tower downhill on Morro Street
• Manse on Marsh Expansion,497 Marsh Street: 45 feet to mezzanine ridgeline
• WET Project on Orcutt Road near Broad Street: 57 feet for the loft buildings, although
the buildings will be set back over 150 feet from the surrounding public sidewalks.
(Project not constructed.)
S) Discussion on why the PC moved from 1100 to 1500 sq.ft. as a maximum
average floor area in most circumstances and why they recommend no
maximum if more than 60% housing?
The Planning Commission believed that the 1,100 square ft. average floor area was too
restrictive to apply as a Performance Standard to all tall buildings downtown. Using Table 2a of
the Housing Element, the Planning Commission supported a floor area range consistent with the
concept of "affordable by design." Table 2a includes a range of 1,100 to 1,500 square feet
average, at a minimum density of 24 units per acre, to be considered affordable by design.
The 1,100 square foot average is encouraged as a Policy Objective. As a Performance Standard,
the maximum average floor area is recommended at 1,500 square feet. This range of floor
average floor areas is consistent with City policy and provides flexibility. Housing projects
downtown can still include units with large floor areas, but these projects will need to include a
complementary number of smaller units to improve affordability and the variety of housing types
available downtown.
The Planning Commission also is recommending no floor area limitation if at least 60% of the
floor area of a building includes housing. The purpose of this recommendation is to recognize
the value of housing of any type and to promote all projects that contribute a majority of building
floor area to housing.
As discussed in detail on pages 8 and 9 of the Council Agenda Report, the CAO
recommendation eliminates this 60% provision to promote affordable housing and avoid projects
that would provide very large units, exclusively. The proposed 1,500 square-foot average
promotes affordability by encouraging developers to seek affordable housing density bonuses to
increase both the number of market-rate and affordable units in a project. Without the floor area
limitation, developers would instead build very large units (averaging over 2,500 square feet) to
occupy 60% of a proposed building's floor area.
Attachments
1. Map and listing of historic properties downtown
2. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Preservation and Rehabilitation (Adaptive Reuse)
N.
PAP
MR,
►� � � ♦ ♦1 . ��,.. ♦fit
W.WN cc
♦ ��
� ♦
.
.
,. � . i ♦I
•.
1
.1
Ca
► � CDco
0 _ ca
-a EL ,I
. . cu 0
n
O
c
N
aG
C C C C C CC C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
V O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
cn
L O O O O O O O O O L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0000 D O 000000000000000 000000
S 2
Z SSSS SS cn = cbM: mm SSSS = SSS S2S22
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
z 0
Q Z_
W 0 w
SZ J U
U m Z O Z O
Q
� Z
D O U w d a W -i > 0 O }
�- 0n f_A S J
Omm S LU
¢ O m m Z cn co m S
aCLL
0 Om } � W 0 ¢ mC7Zc < WLUo C7 LL
QSD Lu L) ¢ — HELI J mwzQLLC7U -jm ¢
LU w _ 0 DO JLLID ¢ S } 0 CD - U — < - 0
a � � < o � mwzoz LU � W � o � � omaow � � ozoZm
U Otcw7wZw � vai � c¢n � m ¢ w � ppmv � � ¢ � � — O — � L1i
a Q W � mapOGOzcnZZ ? m W .mOUC WSW ¢ °� LLU = SmQmQ
OC cn8SO - 00 m w zOz
_O
Z-) a: =)� - Zu) 0->- Er -j
i S t¢n � QaU- -50 < � ngWQ < Cn � < oUpUYom � E � fAtZngC'3
i�
J
} } w }
,n
0 < < o
¢ ¢ O (r a: W � c r c r— ¢ Q Q Q Q W W W W W
e n 0 = DOQDLU DLU QOZZZ _iZZ0
mmmuj.D.DDDU <.S < 0QQ
¢w SC.'3C7UQC_� C7QSO02 < 000C7C7C.'3C_7C7{JC7QC7C7C < 00
U 2 S G) 2 S S 2 U 2 2 LO (L :? m 2 S = S S = _ O W N
0 V NNNr (O W COrQNM
oO O OCOTN00000NnnQrCON V Nr
00 V Ln O LO CA V CO V CO OD O V V LO V C7 CA N n CD LO r r r n r N
,� �, ¢ rnaoao .- rnnao �nrnaonraoa000rmnnnnnncorrrnrr
r
' J
E � COV Ln NCO IOrNmOCO ChCD O) NrCO nCO V V Nrm (On rOb tnN
dJ �"( Z
2 w cbL) Lbc; 6N' rvccvv �ncc �nu� �nc+� chcoc%� cOco � vtovcOvin
r N N N V N N r r r r C'7 r r N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
U V a V V V V an V et V V V V V V V V V V V V 0 V V V V V Cn
cc:< N NN N N N N M N N N N N N N N N N N N. N N N m N N N N N M
H c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
U 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 .3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
o 0 0 _0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C f0 C C C C C C C C C IC C C C C C C C c c C c c c C c C c
D) O t' 0 0 0 O O O O O O L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 2
w 2 2 2 2 = 2 fn 2 !A 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
ON UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
zO
¢ _Z
W ❑ w
2 J
U' C7 U Z = C7
} zz j O O m Z Z z O }
w oo v w a a w � } o o ;
i
� J
U U 3 c c c c 3 c 3 c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
0 3 3 3 3 0 3 0 3 3 3 3 3 .3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Q H0 0 0 0 H OI- _O 0 0 0 0 0 0 _0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CQ C C C C f0 C Cd C C C c C C C C C c c c C C C C C C C C C
L O O O O L O L O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
LU w
Z ❑ O
0 U N
LU LLJ w
D
Z Z
U -1 U
LU cr
0 N 0
F-
w
x � x
w LU LU r } }
+-' OOOwW owc 0000 ¢ a ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ OZ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢
x �[ arxxHH w aawxxxwxxa. xxx °Cwxxxa` If (f
cn U U (n MXXzZ � Fgx � araaw � wwwwwwx ❑ wwwwU) ww
Cl) x U OOOOO � z � Oz0O � Z » » » ca » �
05.Z) a_ Z)
LU ¢ w 1: m 7: < 0 ¢ x0 � xc70C7C7C7C7C7C 7: < C3 (5 (5 C3 < C5 a
x g x UUUm U') a. MCLUM � U2 � 222 = = 2ooS = xx � 22
❑ n �' ❑ O O GO O O r tt In O CO O � to n 00 CD CO 0 0D O r r r Op M In GO M n
❑ V' ❑ IAnn0000 (Ar � COOCOOIAIAV' NnrrrrlAO) MNnNr
¢ In � ¢ rnrnrnrraoaoaornaorrnrnaoaonnnnnrrmm � nnnn
D IC7 MCOnNrrMNrCOOCOOOCO OIAMMNrI!') OnODn O) CDM
Z r Z O O O O O M M O O r r O r N r a r O r r r O r r N N O N 0
O I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
JJ i � � y
w }1 w Co CO CO v CO CO CO CO CO tor t0 N IA lA M M CO M C7 CO O eC r C0 d
r rr '- C7 @7rrrrrNrMNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
U In = U vvvvavvvvvvvv � vvvvaavvvvvvavv
Cc M Q x N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
a a 00000000o00000000000000a0000
U 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
H c c c c c c c c
D) o 0 o o o o o o
W
Z
O
N
W
Z
U
Fr
O
F-
cc d: x xa: a_ a`
m wcowwwwww
cn ❑ aC ❑ > > ❑ ❑ ❑
W 0 < 00 (30 00
a: S m 2 11 2 2 2
❑ � Nvrna10o � c0o °n° allo
¢ n n co cc co n n n
Z>
Z o � 000vav
00000000
L j V Q N N N M M M
N N N N N N N N
Q �i q 't a v V 'T t?
¢ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
L 00000000
.a -v .� •a � � E
o
opt
IL
-o
2 5
122
fat .y
"L, • s. s
E 9.,v o
71
O
l.
m a.Jcu-0 o
a EL
�,o � � .S
cu
zt
0 8 E �
cn -: rid Mo, as vi r< F
N
w
GG O �e Vag
1 1
o •n°O � � nQ •8 � � oS u� a
aim ° •
o .
ice. E act
San Luis Obispo F40yrl S`�J`ZA
' Property Owners Associa'
P.O.Box 12924 '
San Luis Obispo,CA 93406
San Luis Obispo Property Owners' Association's Comments on the Response to the
June 19, 2007 Request for Information Regarding Secondary Dwelling Units — 8-21-07
1. In the past 7 years, 23 of the 710 total residential permits issued in San Luis Obispo were issued for
Secondary Dwelling Units (SDUs) of which approximately+20 of those were located within the Duval
Ranch Developments)thus resulting in only three (3) other permits for SDUs within the City of San Luis
Obispo within the last 7 years.
2. In the Building Division's records from 2000-2007, the relative permit related costs for SDUs were
compared with other residential permit costs as shown below:
• Up to a 450 S.F. SDU costs, on average, $21,200 in fees (or about $50-$60/S.F. for a typical 375 to 400
S.F. SDU), 85%of which are impact fees for water,sewer, or transportation related City fees, (or about
$18, 200 in impact fees.) .
• A 1500 S.F. multiple family residence costs, on average $23,200 in fees (or about+$15/S.F.), 77% of
which are impact fees (or about $17,864 intact fees.
• A 3000 S.F. single family residence costsi on averse 33,700 in fees (or about+$1 I/S.F.), 66% of
which are.impact fees (or about $19,800 in impact fees.)
It is apparent from the August 14, 2007 City Memo that only a mere 3 SDUs have been permitted each year for
the last seven years (in spite of the state mandate to allow SDUs to be built within all California cities) and,
since the SDU ordinance was approved in July of 1999.
It is also apparent that the per square foot costs (the unit costs)to obtain a City of SLO building.permit are
inordinately high for SDUs compared with other, more conventional housing types and, most importantly, there
appears to be a significant disincentive to create smaller, more-affordable housing units based on the present
City of San Luis Obispo's residential building permit fees.
The potential impact-of the current fee structure will undoubtedly have a significant impact on in-fill residential
development including complying with the City's recently adopted Housing Element which emphasized"Smart
Growth Principles" and the desire to create greater amounts of low to moderate income housing as well as the
future size of market-rate hotvng and the future height of residential and "Mixed-Use" developments which
contain any mealiijlgw.housingff components
An important question that must now be asked is "What is the incentive to build smaller residential units
in denser residential developments which use a given property more efficiently when there is an existing
disincentive to do so from a permitting cost perspective?"— Think about it!