HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/18/2007, PH1 - REVIEW AND DISCUSS FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION FOR THE PROPOSED REVISED CHINATOWN MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT 1
council °�°�ia f� o�
j acEnaa Report 1�Nd.J9141
CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Dire or
By: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner_PfZ
SUBJECT: REVIEW AND DISCUSS FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION FOR THE PROPOSED
REVISED CHINATOWN MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, BORDERED BY
CHORRO, PALM, MORRO, AND MONTEREY STREETS IN THE C-D-H ZONE, IN LIGHT
OF THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE (CHC) AND PLANNING COMMISSION
(PC) RECOMMENDATIONS (ER 69-05; 861 PALM STREET AND ADJACENT PARCELS)
CAO RECOMMENDATION
A. Review and discuss the adequacy of the Final EIR in evaluating the potential environmental
impacts of the Chinatown Project in light of the recommendations of the Cultural Heritage
Committee and Planning Commission.
B. Provide direction to the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) regarding areas of special
Council interest, as the ARC completes its review and recommendation on the overall project
design.
C. Following ARC action, direct staff to return to the Council for EIR certification and final
action on the project.
REPORT IN BRIEF
SLO Chinatown, LLC, has submitted plans for the mixed-use development project known as the
"Chinatown Project". The proposed project site is located within the City's downtown core and
consists of eight parcels generally bordered by Chorro, Palm, Morro, and Monterey Streets, and
occupies approximately 75 percent of this city block. Early on in the process, the City
determined that the large-scale, mixed-use project located in a sensitive downtown location had
the potential for significant environmental impacts and warranted preparation of an EIR.
The City Council approved a workscope for the EIR to evaluate the potential environmental
impacts of the project on July 18; 2006. The EIR consultant, Amec Earth & Environmental of
Santa Barbara was hired in October of 2006 and a scoping meeting held before the Planning
Commission on November 15, 2006. Since that time, there have been many hearings to discuss
the project and EIR before the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC), Architectural Review
Commission (ARC) and Planning Commission.
The Draft EIR was reviewed by the Planning Commission at a public hearing on July 11,2007,
during the required public review period. At that meeting, the comments from both the
Commission and public pertained to the merits of the project and the analysis of the project's
impacts in the EIR. In addition to the comments taken directly at the hearing, there were many
letters and e-mails received during the public review period regarding the project. A common
theme with many of these comments was that the project was too massive and tall.
Council Agenda Report—Chinatown Project(ER 69-05)
Page 2
In response to the concerns with the scale of the project expressed by the advisory bodies and the
public, the applicant submitted a revised project in September 2007, which greatly reduces the
overall size of proposed buildings, includes a maximum building height of 50 feet, and closely
resembles the Protection of Visual Resources Alternative included in the EIR. Because the Final
EIR had already been completed prior to the submittal of the revised project, a supplemental
document (Final Update for the Chinatown Project, hereinafter referred to as "Update")
addresses the revised project description, impacts, and mitigation measures. The Final EIR and
Update were distributed to the City Council on November 141i.
With the scale of the proposed project reduced, the most significant remaining environmental
impact and general concern is the proposed demolition of two historic buildings located at the
intersection of Chorro and Monterey Streets, which are the Blackstone Hotel and the Sauer
Bakery buildings. This is a key policy issue needing a Council decision. The CHC is
recommending that these buildings be preserved and reused. The Planning Commission
preferred preservation and adaptive reuse of these buildings, and recommended changes to the
EIR's mitigation measures. However, the Planning Commission is also recommending revised
findings for overriding considerations to support demolition of these buildings, should the
Council decide that is the more appropriate course of action. More detailed discussion of this
issue is included later in this report. Otherwise, the CHC, ARC and Planning Commission have
all been generally supportive of the revised project design.
The changes in the proposed project have eliminated the need for one of the entitlements required
of the original application. With the heights of the buildings in the project at 50 feet or under, there
is no longer a requirement for a Planning Commission use permit to allow building heights over 60
feet. Therefore, the only project entitlement needed at this time is final approval of the project
design. The Council typically delegates this responsibility to the Architectural Review
Commission. The environmental review document that accompanies a development application
is typically certified by the lead agency at the same time that it is taking a final project action.
Because the Planning Commission and Council are not taking action on a project entitlement
along with their review of the Final EIR, the staff presentation made at the November 281i
Commission hearing indicated that the ultimate responsibility for certifying the Final EIR would
be delegated to the ARC when acting on the final project design. The California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines provide broad authority for non-elected
decision-making bodies like the ARC to certify EIRs. Also the City's municipal code gives the
ARC the authority to approve environmental documents, which it often does.
However, the impact of redeveloping 3/a of a block in the Downtown, the fact that much of the
property is City-owned, the public concern over some of the potential impacts, and the need to
resolve important policy questions all create expectations that the Council will take final action.
The Council acknowledged this expectation on December 41i and concurred with the Mayor that
final action should be taken by the City Council (likely anyway, given the probability of an
appeal from the ARC's decisions on a project of this magnitude and complexity).
Therefore, this hearing is an opportunity for the Council to discuss the contents and adequacy of
the Final EIR for consideration of its certification, as well as to provide direction to the ARC on
0
Council Agenda Report—Chinatown Project(ER 69-05)
Page 3
major project issues related to its design purview. It is anticipated that after the ABC's review of
the project design, tentatively scheduled for January 28, 2008, the Final EIR would return to the
Council for certification along with the final approval of the project design. The estimated date
of this final hearing is February 19, 2008.
DISCUSSION
A. Project Specifics
1. Data Summary
Project Addresses: 955 Morro Street; 840, 842, 844, 848, 868, 870 & 886 Monterey Street;
847, 861, 863, & 877 Palm Street; 984 & 986 Chorro Street
State Clearinghouse Number for EIR: 20061.11012
Applicant: SLO Chinatown, LLC
Representative: Mark Rawson
Zoning: Downtown Commercial with the Historical Preservation overlay zone (C-D-H)
General Plan Designation: General Retail
Environmental Status: A Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Update has been
prepared.
2. Project Description
The proposed project would include the development of 2.12-acres to accommodate a
downtown mixed-use center of 235,320 square feet (sf) including retail (43,750 sf), offices
(4,600 sf), restaurants (6,000 sf), 32 residential (53,570 sf) and 4 live/work units (4,000 sf),
parking (56,400 sf/122 spaces), and a 67-room hotel (67.000 sf), generally of three to four
stories, reaching a maximum of 50 feet in height. A pedestrian plaza level at mid-block on
Morro Street would allow entry level access to the restaurant, retail, and hotel. New two-
level retail buildings plus offices above (three stories) would front on Monterey Street, a
residential courtyard/common area would be accessed off Palm Street; live/work units with
retail storefronts are proposed along Morro Street, and a four-story hotel and retail uses
would front Chorro Street. Two levels of below-grade parking with access from Morro
Street would serve both residential and commercial uses. In addition access for the hotel
would be provided on Monterey Street. The proposed project would consolidate private and
public parcels and lead to removal of both private and public structures and surface parking.
In order to accommodate the proposed project, five existing buildings would be demolished:
1. 848 Monterey Street—the Sauer Bakery Building.
2. 984-986 Chorro & 840-842-844 Monterey—the Blackstone Hotel
3. 861-863 Palm—Shanghai Low (formerly Palindrome's)
4. 886 Monterey—Bello's
5. 955 Morro—City offices
/-3
Council Agenda Report-Chinatown Project(ER 69-05)
Page 4
These buildings are shown on Figure 3.3-11, which is part of the Cultural Resources section
of the EIR (Attachment 3). The most historically significant building is the Sauer Bakery at
848 Monterey Street, formerly Pier One, which is on the City?s Master List of Historic
Properties. Three properties are considered contributing historic structures and include: the
commercial building on Palm surrounded by City parking at 861-863 Palm Street, the corner
building at Chorro and Monterey, known as the Blackstone Hotel, and the Bello's building at
886 Monterey Street. The former City office building on Morro Street is not included on
either historical list.
B. Evaluation
Attached to this report is a copy of the November 28, 2007 Planning Commission agenda report
prepared for the Commission's discussion of the Final EIR (Attachment 8). This report includes
the following important background information that will be of assistance to the Council in
evaluating the adequacy of the Final EIR:
a. Summary of earlier advisory body review of the project and EIR;
b. Description of some key changes to the project with the submittal of revised plans;
c. Rationale for preparing the Update and why recirculation is not required;
d. Description of what the Final EIR includes;
e. Highlights of EIR changes between the Draft and Final versions;
f. Highlights of EIR changes between the preparation of the Final EIR and the Update;
g. Discussion of the significant and unavoidable impacts and suggested findings of
overriding considerations.
The following section of the report provides an update to the November 28, 2007 Planning
Commission report. In addition, this section provides information and analysis on what have
been identified as the key issues of public concern, which are: demolition of the Blackstone
Hotel and Sauer Bakery buildings; and loss of public parking spaces.
I. Demolition of the Blackstone Hotel & Sauer Bakery Buildings
The proposed demolition of four historic buildings creates both a policy question and
environmental impacts. The General Plan states that historic buildings "should" be preserved.
The General Plan also states that the Downtown should remain the vital "heart" of the City.
The City interprets "should" policies as being necessary to follow unless not following a
particular policy better enables the City to achieve another stated policy objective. The
applicant has stated that it is not possible to accommodate the new retail, residential and hotel
uses on their property using the historic buildings. If, in the Council's opinion, achieving the
historic preservation policy objective compromises or precludes achieving the social and
economic vitality policy objective, the Council can weigh the two objectives and choose one
over the other. Where the Council's decision will result in the project having an
A fiscal Impact report on the project completed by Alan Kotin & Associates should be
available prior to the December 18`x' meeting, and is planned for formal review on January 8,
2008, prior to final project action in February.
/-y
Council Agenda Report—Chinatown Project(ER 69-05)
Page 5
unmitigated significant environmental impact, the findings of overriding considerations in
the Final EIR explain why the City accepts the significant impact.
Policy Analvsis - Historical
General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE)Policies
3.3.1 Historic Preservation.
Significant historic and architectural resources should be identified, preserved and
rehabilitated.
3.3.2 Demolitions.
Historically or architecturally significant buildings should not be demolished or
substantially changed in outward appearance, unless doing so is necessary to
remove a threat to health and safety and other means to eliminate or reduce the
threat to acceptable levels are infeasible.
An obvious advantage of preserving older buildings, particularly those with important
historical or architectural integrity, is that it helps retain the historical fabric of the
community and contribute to the interest and character of the streetscape. COSE Policy 3.3.2
states that historically significant buildings "should" not be demolished unless doing so is
necessary to protect the public health and safety.
The City's Historical Preservation Program Guidelines note that the demolition of a
Historical Resources is the least favored option and should be done only when:
1) The condition of the building poses a threat to the health, safety or welfare of
community residents or people living or working on or near the site, or.-
2)
r.2) The project sponsor demonstrates that it is financially infeasible to rehabilitate
the structure of preserve the historic nature of the site.
The guidelines do not provide specific criteria or thresholds for how either of these findings
is substantiated. As pointed out earlier, the City's General Plan policies do not consider
rehabilitation costs as a factor. The rehabilitation and conversion of historic buildings can be
expensive, sometimes more costly than a total demolition and rebuild. While cost is not a
factor in the City's determining the feasibility of rehabilitating a structure, it is a
consideration in the developer's decision whether to proceed with the project. However,
Criterion No. 2 suggests that costs can become a factor when the applicant can satisfactorily
demonstrate that they are so exorbitant that they do not permit a reasonable use of the
structure. Pro-formas analyzing costs and benefits of rehabilitation for the two buildings
could assist in making the case for financial infeasibility.
Adaptive reuse of an older structure seldom results in a floor plan layout that is as efficient as
that of a new structure. Remodeling costs per square foot can vary substantially from
building to building. In California, the cost of the structural retrofit of an unreinforced
masonry building averages about $20 per square foot, but can range from $8 to $45 or more
per .square foot. With older structures, especially those that have not been properly
Council Agenda Report—Chinatown Project(ER 69-05)
Page 6
maintained or actively used, there are substantial added costs beyond structural reinforcement
costs to remedy termite damage, dry rot, mold and other condition issues, as well as to bring
mechanical, plumbing, and electrical systems into compliance with current codes and
accommodate required accessibility (i.e. compliance with the Americans with Disabilities
Act and similar requirements). There are opportunities to use the historic building code and
tax incentive programs if the developer chooses preservation rather than demolition, which
can help offset rehabilitation costs.
Downtown Vitality—General Plan Land Use Element(LUE) Goals &Policies
The LUE in its opening pages includes a listing of community goals. The goals are
characterized as an expression of "the community's preference for basic future direction."
These goals have the same legal standing as General Plan policies. In terms of guidance for
redevelopment, the following two goals stand out:
12. Emphasize more productive use of existing commercial buildings and land areas
already committed to urban development.
21. Provide a resilient economic base, able to tolerate changes in its parts without
causing harm to the community.
Given the importance of the downtown as the City's "cultural, social and political center",
the LUE has dedicated an entire section to downtown policies. Part of LUE Policy 4.1 notes
that: "Downtown's visitor appeal should be based on natural, historical, and cultural
features, retail services, and numerous and varied visitor accommodations." Another
downtown LUE policy that has a direct linkage to the discussion of the project and City
redevelopment goals is Policy 4.15.
4.15 Sense of Place..
To keep the commercial core's sense of place and appeal for walking, it should
remain compact and be the City's most intensely developed area.
Redevelopment of the large surface parking lots in the downtown core with more
economically and socially productive uses is consistent with the cited LUE goals and Policy
4.15's reference to the downtown being the most intensively developed area in the City. The
project is also consistent with Policy 4.1 in that it includes retail services and varied visitor
accommodations including a hotel, restaurant and other ancillary tourist-oriented facilities. It
is also consistent with recent planning movements in the country such as Smart Growth and
New Urbanism that promote projects that include a mix of uses, pedestrian linkages and open
spaces that add to community interactionand socialization.
The maintenance and development of the City's downtown is also guided by the San Luis
Obispo Downtown Association Strategic Business Plan, adopted by the City Council on
October 2, 2007. That plan contains several Strategic Goals, including ones relating to
promoting downtown as the social center of the community; maintaining retail health;
retaining and expanding on the unique pedestrian character and small town ambiance; and
encouraging hotel, housing and live-work developments in the downtown. (A copy of the /
• I I
Council Agenda Report-Chinatown Project(ER 69-05)
Page 7
plan is available for review in the Council Reading File.)
As stated by some Planning Commission members in their discussion of the revised project
and Final EIR, the Sauer Bakery and Blackstone Hotel buildings may have outlived their
productive life expectancies. Especially in the case of the Blackstone, the upper floors of the
building have not been occupied for over 25 years and a past proposal in 1995 to rehabilitate
the building for the City Housing Authority was not pursued because of the need for
substantial government subsidies to make it financially feasible based on the deteriorated
condition of the upper floors.
On first examination, the two policy areas cited historic preservation and economic
revitalization - are mutually exclusive and seem to directly contradict one another. However,
as it has been pointed out, there is some opportunity for flexibility in interpreting the
preservation policies given the policy language containing "should" and including the
caveats of either a health and safety threat risk or financial infeasibility. It may not be
possible to unequivocally state that the Blackstone Hotel and Sauer Bakery buildings present
potential health and safety risks that make demolition necessary. However, a finding could
be made that the means of eliminating or reducing the risks to acceptable levels are
impractical and leave relatively few historic elements of the buildings intact, based on the
assembled reports that document substandard building conditions and structural deficiencies.
As was discussed at the last Planning Commission hearing, the intrinsic historic value of the
two buildings is not readily apparent to the casual observer in contrast to viewing other
nearby historic buildings such as the Sinsheimer, J.P. Andrews and Carnegie Library
buildings. Because of the long histories of building modifications to these two structures,
few visible remnants of earlier architectural styles displaying unique craftsmanship or special
integrity exist. The Council could interpret that, given the current conditions of the structures
and the loss of much of their original architectural integrity, the competing economic policy
objectives take precedence in terms of the overall City goals to keep the downtown vital and
provide for productive uses of buildings within the downtown core. The Planning
Commission provided findings of overriding consideration to this effect, as noted below.
What Effect Do the City's Historical Lists Have?
The process for altering listed historic buildings involves both environmental review and
advisory body hearings, and allows for a thorough discussion of applying community values,
represented in General Plan policies, to the proposed demolitions. Through the hearing
process several people have expressed different opinions of what it should mean to have a
property listed on either the Master or the Contributing Lists of Historic Resources. Some
people have commented that a property on the Master List means that property should be
preserved; others have said that even this list is not meaningful because some of the
properties and buildings included on it are not exceptional.
Throughout the course of the project review and discussion on the disposition of the two
main historic buildings on the site, the validity of these buildings as having historical
significance has not been questioned given the important San Luis Obispo families associated
17
Council Agenda Report—Chinatown Project(ER 69-05)
Page 8
with the sites and their influence on the downtown and the development of the community.
The main question that has been raised is their architectural significance and whether the
character-defining qualities of past buildings might still exist behind the facades and surfaces
of more "recent" remodels.
Being on either list does not mean that a building on a designated property must be preserved
or that a building can be demolished. Inclusion on one of the lists does mean that a property
or building has been determined to contain or exhibit some degree of historic value. Master
List buildings exhibit more historical value than Contributing List buildings, and must meet
more specific criteria to be included on that list. Changes to, additions to or demolitions of
buildings included on either list results in a more rigorous process of public review and
evaluation than is required for non-listed properties outside of historic districts. The City's
policies and regulations do allow for physical changes to listed properties, including potential
demolition of buildings on these properties, provided the proper process is followed.
Ultimately, whether policy objectives are mutually exclusive and which policy objective
should prevail is a determination that must be made by the City's decision makers.
How Does CEOA View the Demolitions?
The EIR evaluates the proposed project with the demolition of five separate structures,
including the Blackstone Hotel and the Sauer Bakery buildings The proposed demolitions of
these two buildings, along with the Bello's and Shanghai Low buildings, the other
contributing structures on the project site, are considered Class 1, significant and unavoidable
environmental impacts under CEQA. This means that even with the proposed EIR mitigation
measures, the impacts will not be reduced to a level of insignificance and special findings of
overriding considerations will ultimately need to be made to document the extenuating
circumstances and allow the demolitions. If the project, including the proposed demolitions
is ultimately supported by the decision-makers, these findings will need to carefully
document the overriding benefits of the project as designed given the proposed loss of
significant historic resources.
Mitigation Measures MM CR-4 & MM CR-5 require the actual incorporation of uncovered
building details as well as portions of existing construction into the new construction.
Implementation of these mitigation measures with the current project design have been
discussed by both the CHC and ARC in some detail, but a specific proposal on how to carry
this out has not been resolved because of unanswered questions with the final disposition of
the buildings. Therefore, the Council needs to decide if it will make findings of overriding
considerations for the demolition of the Blackstone Hotel and the Sauer Bakery buildings. If
the Council doesn't make these findings, then the applicant will need to provide details of the
modified project that show how historic resources will be preserved.
Advisory Bodies Reviews & Recommendations
a. CHC
The biggest issue that the CHC has had to grapple with in its review of the Chinatown
1-067
Council Agenda Report—Chinatown Project(ER 69-05)
Page 9
Project is the proposed demolition of the historic Sauer Bakery, given its Master List status
and historical importance to the community. Secondarily, the Blackstone Hotel, at the corner
of Monterey and Chono Streets is the most prominent and architecturally interesting of the
three contributing buildings proposed for demolition. The fact that the CHC required more
information on the conditions and the feasibility of rehabilitating the two buildings before
providing a recommendation to the ARC, Planning Commission and City Council on their
proposed demolition attests to the importance of the requests.
At its October 22, 2007 hearing, the CHC supported demolition of three of the five buildings
proposed for demolition, which are: 861-863 Palm (contributing) — Shanghai Low, 886
Monterey—Bello's, (contributing) and 955 Morro (non-contributing)—City offices, based on
reference to features of the project that support making findings of overriding considerations
relating to enabling the achievement of other important City policy objectives. The CHC
also requested follow-up documentation on the condition of the Blackstone Hotel and the
Sauer Bakery buildings to provide a factual basis for findings that either support or refute
specified grounds for demolition (Attachment 4).
For the November 26, 2007 CHC meeting, the applicant submitted information regarding the
overall condition and structural integrity of the two buildings to substantiate health and safety
issues and the feasibility of rehabilitating the two buildings and incorporating them into the
project (Rehabilitation Feasibility Analysis; which was Attachment 4 to the CHC memo of
11-26-07; this file is available on-line and the Council reading file). The assembled group of
reports provided a fairly persuasive case that the two buildings have structural deficiencies,
serious condition issues, and would require demolition of most of the interior improvements
and systems to be adaptable for modem uses.
However, the CHC did not find that the reports provided sufficient information to
substantiate that rehabilitation was not feasible. The applicant also did not provide a pro-
forma analyzing costs and benefits of rehabilitation for the two buildings. Because, they
ultimately did not have the information the CHC was looking for to make a determination of
rehabilitation feasibility at their meeting, the CHC recommended that the two buildings be
preserved and rehabilitated through adaptive reuse into the project. As the attached meeting
update shows (Attachment 9), the CHC meeting was well attended with many members of
the public urging retention of the buildings. Several of the speakers at the hearing had
credentials in the area of historical preservation.
b. Planning Commission
The Planning Commission on November 28`s added a section to Resolution No. 5493-07
with recommended changes to Mitigation Measures MM CR-4 & MM CR-5 which require
the applicant to submit a detailed rehabilitation feasibility analysis of adaptive reuse to the
City Council and establishes an order of priority with regard to alternatives on the disposition
of the Sauer Bakery and Blackstone buildings. In particular, the Council should discuss the
suggested requirement associated with the demolition alternative that the applicant
contributes to a fund that would assist other property owners in the preservation of historic
resources elsewhere in the City. While a creative idea and, perhaps, a worthy goal,
/- 9
Council Agenda Report—Chinatown Project(ER 69-05)
Page 10
implementation of the mitigation measure as recommended is not immediately achievable
since the City currently does not have an implementing ordinance to initiate and administer
such a fund. Therefore, staff is not recommending this suggestion.
The Planning Commission also expanded and modified the findings of overriding
considerations to reinforce the social and economic vitality policy objectives that are realized
with project development (see Attachment 7, Planning Commission Resolution No. 5493-
07), which are noted below:
a. Convert parking lots. In conformance with the City's General Plan policies and
community goals, the project will maintain and enhance the downtown area as the
commercial and social center of the City by converting surface parking lots to more
economically productive uses which would not be achievable without private capital and
investment;
b. Increase business opportunities. The project will provide expansion space for existing
businesses and opportunities for new businesses to locate in the downtown area by
creating new retail, restaurant and office space which produce further tax dollars to keep
the downtown economically, culturally and socially vital and the center of the
community;
c. Downtown housing. The project will provide housing downtown interspersed with
commercial uses to help balance jobs and housing in the community.
d. Pedestrian amenities.The project will provide for improved pedestrian amenities via the
project's pedestrian streets or paseos, and the possibility of future linkages through other
sites;
e. Economies of scale. The project's coordinated development plan takes advantage of
economies of scale and scope in a manner that facilitates broader implementation of
important City policies, such as enhanced pedestrian circulation in the downtown and
expanded mixed use development, which could not be achieved through the approval of
smaller, more segmented projects.
f. Business synergy. The project will improve business synergy by creating incentives for
other property owners to seek improvements to their own sites, and increasing foot traffic
and revenues.
g. Preserve historic features. The project will incorporate important architectural features
of historic structures into the new construction, including relocation and reconstruction of
the historic Sauer Bakery Oven and the Shanghai Low Restaurant Sign.
h. Hotel & TOT. The project will add a hotel, which will provide the direct benefit of
increased tax revenues to the City and create indirect economic development
opportunities by increasing accommodation for regional tourism in the downtown.
i. "Smart Growth" Principles. The project incorporates many features of "Smart
Growth" including the development of an infill site, greaterintensity of site development,
and improvements to transit facilities, along with subsidies for both City and regional
transit systems.
Council Agenda Report—Chinatown Project(ER 69-05)
Page 11
Guidance for Council's Discussion
The Council should first determine whether the detailed rehabilitation feasibility analysis of
adaptive reuse recommended by the Planning Commission will be required prior to approval
of the project and if the mitigation measures regarding the Blackstone Hotel and Sauer
Bakery buildings should be amended consistent with Planning Commission action. The
following alternatives are provided to help guide the discussion:
1) Accept the applicant's proposal as submitted with the proposed demolition of all five on-
site buildings, based on the findings of overriding consideration as recommended by the
Planning Commission, or as modified by the Council, and with acceptance of Mitigation
Measures MM CR-4&MM CR-5 as prepared.
2) In accordance with the recommendations of the Planning Commission, direct the
applicant to submit a detailed rehabilitation feasibility analysis of adaptive reuse to the
City Council, and modify Mitigation Measures MM CR-4 & MM CR-5 which establish
an order of priority with regard to alternatives on the disposition of the Sauer Bakery and
Blackstone buildings.
3) Require the detailed rehabilitation feasibility analysis of adaptive reuse for the Sauer
Bakery building only and allow demolition of the Blackstone Hotel building, based on
findings of overriding considerations, and in accordance with Mitigation Measure CR-5.
This alternative acknowledges that the Sauer Bakery has greater historical significance as
a Master List property and that the Blackstone Hotel has a lesser likelihood of containing
significant architectural features behind the stucco facade because of past remodels where
significant changes were made to the building, including the removal of portions of the
facade to accommodate street widening. Based on the foregoing analysis, staff
recommends this alternative..
2. Parkin
With the review of large, downtown projects parking inevitably is raised as a topic of
discussion and concern. In the case of the Chinatown Project, while parking did not rise to
the same level of concern as the loss of the Sauer Bakery and Blackstone Hotel buildings
during advisory body review, it is a topic that was thoroughly deliberated and carefully
studied during the preparation of the EIR.
The Policy Context for Downtown Parking
Before delving into "the numbers," it is important acknowledge the underlying policy context
regarding parking development in the Downtown Commercial zone (CD), because it is
fundamentally different than City parking policy elsewhere in the community. In simple
terms, outside the Downtown, the goal is to build enough parking spaces on the development
site to accommodate the demand created by the development. This is not the case in the
downtown, where our policies strongly discourage the "over-use" of precious downtown land
for parking. Instead, they promote saving such land for "higher and better" uses, and
Council Agenda Report—Chinatown Project(ER 69-05)
Page 12
consolidating parking into structures. These policies are also intended to support making the
downtown more pedestrian-oriented by encouraging drivers to keep their vehicle in a single
consolidated location and walking to multiple destinations.
Thus, the parking requirements in the C-D zone are intentionally reduced, as further
described later, and our requirements are flexible and rely on the majority of parking being
provided within consolidated parking structures. In addition to reduced requirements, the
City's Zoning Regulations further allow applicants for projects in the C-D zone to pay in-lieu
fees when on-site parking is not proposed to meet required parking requirements. The
collected fees go to a Parking Enterprise Fund to pay for the on-going maintenance costs of
existing parking facilities and the construction of new structures.
Parking Impacts: Calculating the Net Impact Numbers
Understanding "the numbers" — how the EIR establishes net parking demand — can be
challenging, because reaching the "net" requires a progressive calculation that goes beyond
what may seem obvious on the surface (both literally and figuratively). Staff has attempted
to outline this progression, in a user-friendly manner, below:
How are parking requirements in the Downtown determined?
As discussed earlier, parking requirements for various land uses within the C-D zone are
significantly reduced from the requirements in other zones. In summary, the parking rates
for hotels and residential uses are 50% of the requirements in other zones, assembly-type
uses such as restaurants and theaters are one space for each 350 square feet of floor area, and
other uses like retail and office are one space for each 500 square feet of floor area
How much parking demand will Chinatown create?
Based on the reduced Downtown zoning regulations, the proposed project land use mix will
require 206 parking spaces. But that is not all that is added to the base demand. There are
also 155 surface parking spaces that currently exist on site that will be lost. Because these
spaces are public spaces that anyone can park in, their loss impacts the supply of currently
available parking in the area. Therefore, the EIR concludes that these lost spaces must be
added to the base parking demand, resulting in a total project parking demand of 361
spaces.
How much "credit" should the project get for meeting the 361 space demand?
The project partially offsets the demand in two ways. First, a portion of the parking demand
is met by the 122 spaces proposed by two levels of underground parking within the project.
Second, in an effort to encourage downtown redevelopment, Municipal Code Section
4.30.020 C, allows a credit toward new parking demand when there are existing buildings on
a site, whether they are currently occupied or not, that have historically created a parking
demand (e.g. Pier One created a parking demand for many years, as did prior tenants of that
building). Using this provision, which calculates the credit based on existing floor area, the
112
Council Agenda Report—Chinatown Project(ER 69-05)
Page 13
demand is further met by another 95 spaces. The resulting net unmet project demand is
144 parking spaces.
Parking Summary
Net Project Project Parking Net Unmet
Factors Influencing Parking Parking Demand Provided& Parking
Calculations Credits___ Demand
Parking Demand Per City Code 206
Displaced Surface Parking 155
Existing Use Credit Per City Code 95
Proposed Spaces 122
Totals 361 217 144
Why and How the EIR Recommends Mitigating the Net Unmet Parkin Demand
There was some initial discussion as to whether or not parking demand was a legitimate issue
for discussion within the EIR since there has been a recent San Francisco court case that
indicates that parking demand is not part of the permanent physical environment since
conditions change over time as people change their travel habits. What elevates the issue to
a legitimate EIR issue in the case of the Chinatown Project is the significant loss of the
existing public parking which was found to constitute an adverse change to the existing
physical setting. To offset impacts of the loss of parking and added demand, Mitigation
Measure TT-7a is included that would require the payment of in-lieu fees for the net project
parking requirement of 144 spaces.
The number of in-lieu fees required could increase depending on how the applicant chooses
to allocate the 122 parking spaces provided on-site for different uses. The idea is that the
privately owned and managed spaces would be available for the range of different uses on
the site in accordance with City requirements for those uses. The EIR uses the example of
the residential parking requirement of 44 spaces to illustrate this concept. If the applicant
chose to allocate more on-site spaces toward residential uses, then it would be required to pay
additional in-lieu fees for every space beyond the City requirement of 44 spaces. Mitigation
Measure TT-7b calls for the applicant to submit a parking demand reduction and
management plan which would outline how parking is allocated and managed.
3. Summary/Next Steps
Since the reduced scale version of the Chinatown Project was submitted in mid-September,
the project has generally been well-received. The main point of public controversy with
advisory body hearings has been the proposed demolition of the Sauer Bakery and
Blackstone Hotel buildings.
Similar to the reaction with the revised project plans, the advisory bodies have reacted
positively to the Final EIR and have found it. to contain a thorough review of potential
Council Agenda Report—Chinatown Project(ER 69-05)
Page 14
environmental impacts associated with project development consistent with CEQA. The
only modifications suggested by the Planning Commission with regard to the contents of the
EIR dealt specifically with the mitigation measures associated with the Sauer Bakery and
Blackstone Hotel buildings.
The next step in the project review process will be design review of the project by the ARC.
With its previous review of the revised project on November 19`h, several mitigation
measures were called out in the ARC agenda report that identified further information that
the Commission will need to review with its consideration of final plans. The main issue
with the disposition of the two historic buildings at the corner of Chorro and Monterey
Streets also has direct bearing on the ARC's review of the proposed hotel design at this key
intersection. The Council should provide specific direction on the disposition of the two
historic buildings as identified earlier in this report and identify any other issues that the
Council desires the ARC to look at with its review of the project.
The ARC is expected to complete its design review on January 28, 2008, with final action by
Council to certify the EIR and approve the project design, tentatively scheduled for February
19, 2008.
CONCURRENCES
The comments and recommendations of various City departments are incorporated into the EIR.
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. Because the proposed project is
consistent with the General Plan, it is compatible with this finding. However, the Council also
requested a more targeted fiscal impact analysis of the proposed project, which will be
distributed under separate cover prior to the December 180' meeting and, if desired by Council,
placed on the agenda as a "stand alone" item on January 8, 2008, when the consultant can be
present to answer questions and provide further information,if required,
ATTACHMENTS
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Vicinity Map
Attachment 2: EIR Processing Flow Chart
Attachment 3: Figure 3.3-11 showing existing buildings proposed for demolition
Attachment 4: 10-22-07 CHC Meeting Update & follow-up letter
Attachment 5: 2-5-07 ARC meeting update & minutes & 11-19-07 ARC follow-up letter &
minutes
Attachment 6: Letter from SLO Chinatown LLC dated 9-18-07
Attachment 7: PC Resolution no. 5493-07
Attachment 8: 10-28-07 PC report without attachments
Attachment 9: 11-26-07 CHC meeting update
Council Agenda Report—Chinatown Project(ER 69-05)
Page 15
Previously distributed: Final EIR
Available for review in the Council Reading File:
1. Rehabilitation Feasibility Analysis submitted by the applicant for the 11-26-07 CHC meeting
2. San Luis Obispo Downtown Association Strategic Business Plan, adopted by the City
Council on October 2, 2007.
LA Chinatown\Sraff Reports\Chinatown Project(Council Report)
-
� e
s . 1
a IVA,
Attachment
Appendix A
CEQA Process Flow Chart
Public Agency determines whether Not a Project
the activity is a project
Pr%d
Public Agency determines it - Statutory exerrww r
the project Is exempt Categorical exemptbn
Not Exempt
Public agency evaluates project
to determine ti there B a possibAity No possible significant effect
Mat the project may have a
significant effect on environment
Possible signitkant effect.
Oetemdrwtlon of ked�OeMy where No hatlra WON mow
more tlan one puhlk agerrcy fe wrier CEM
WON
pu d -
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY LEAD AGENCY
Lad agency prepares InftWl study
Respa "lee anal Corsufiation
ronsrdtation
Lead agency Qedslan ro prepare
OR or Negative Declaration
EM NegeUve Declaration
Lead agency sends liana of Preparation
m rce_svonsiwe agency_
Respond to Notice of Preparation Consultation
u to terrOdttt of draft EIR
Lead agency prepares draft OR
Lead agencyhles Notice of Cortgde4on Lead Agency gives public
and gives public rAtIce of otavatiabmt¢
comments on aaeQuacy ava0 bMW of draft OR a;w,.
epadve,DeW�tiar .
of draft OR or ConsuXation PabarReviewPWW Pu WkReviewAerfod
Negative Declaration
-- Lead agency prepares firel EIR
M�Ing responses to eonunerrts
on drag EM
Dedsioninaldnp body considers consideratlae and approval
grin EIR or Negative ikdaration consweration and apprmy of of Negative Dedanilon
prepared by lad agency fiml OR by decislomynaWnO body by decls;l raking body
Findings on feasibility of redudnp Findings on IeasibiGly of reducingor avolding sbntfieam or avoiding slgndiicant environmental
environmental effects effects
Decision on project Decision on project
State Agencies Local Agendas State Agencies Loeaf Agendes
Ric Notice of Fde Noticed Fie Nagce of file Notla of
Detemdnation pe fer�g�
��3 �Ca wfth Ofike of O�rrdnadorr
Researdr auk a ��ty
Appendix VI Guidelines and Discussions 727 1-17
ro
Attachment 3 ruq
T �z s
G Y
IL Co o m ro
O 'c 'M H a m ! LU y
w U.
o c� c c cm \ z w AA
m
a w � w ww` a
N
y
0
k„
MORRO STREET
i ,—•------- ------
Blademnner
i____ Da S a
Y P
�`- X00 =f'�i"-i i A 0] r ___ , `� ��••.�..- d
CCI
,
f- r- , r - ,. 'L 4'
i IL
Z
Co
= 1=-'--=-- a +-- E-
--------
__ _____ Z U
`MuzidS ' L
CVD� Moondoggies m
• �.
a I bs H
d � t°'° -=-!__L_L_1_J._l_L_1_J_J__� ' '� •----- ---, `S
• a m rl/'�JJ�7 7__T�7__7_!_7_I_7__T.�i v .�'i tGplo p' _/tib__
PW
I �
z
5
€ d �y�
U O • W0.No�0
Chop Suey ( ;
a
e u
OF � 0 3 Oo
10
O I um�= :
m �
CHORRO STREET
3.3-30
CHC Meeting Update,October 22,2007 Attachment 4
Page 2
Initial Study (ER 8-06) and development plan (ARC MI 8-06), subject to the following
findings and recommended conditions:
Findin4
1. The proposed construction is architecturally compatible with the Old Town Historic
District and consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties
Conditions
1. The Contributing historic building shall be incorporated into the project consistent
with the Secretary of Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, and
with Conservation and Open Space Policy 3.3.4, and shall not be demolished or
relocated offsite.
2. The proposed addition at the rear of the Contributing structure shall be consistent
with the building's architectural details and materials, including siding material,
window style and trim and roof pitch and materials.
3. No changes to the size, location, material or architectural style of the existing
windows on the Islay Street (North Building Elevation) shall be made. Any new or
replacement windows on the building, including the proposed addition, shall be
matching wood frame double-hung windows.
4. The building's existing narrow wood clapboard horizontal siding material shall be
maintained. The addition proposed at the rear of'the structure shall have matching
narrow wood clapboard horizontal siding material. Any replacement siding material
on the building shall match the original wood clapboard horizontal siding.
5. The new gable end detail proposed on the existing building and addition on the
north and south elevations shall be removed.
Following the conclusion of discussion of Item No. 1, Committee member Fowler
recused himself due to a potential conflict of interest.
2. 840, 842, 844, 848, 868, 870 1886 Monterey Street 984 & 986 Chorro Street
955 Morro Street and 847 & 877 Palm Street. ARC 69-05; Review of Chinatown
mixed-use project and the Cultural Resources section of the project's Environmental
Impact Report; C-D-H zone; SLO Chintatown LLC, applicant. (Pam Ricci)
Pam Ricci presented the staff report and gave a slide presentation outlining the project
scope and character, including land uses, historic properties and access points. She
also summarized project changes made since the Committee's last review of the project
in January 2007. Architect Mark Rawson gave a detailed slide presentation, describing
® The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and
activities. Please contact the City Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance. / C�?
l 1 }
CHC Meeting Update;October 22, 2007 Attachment 4
Page 3
the project details and explaining the design changes they'd made to give the project a
more unique and distinctive architectural character to reflect the Chinatown Historic
District.
Chairperson Breska opened the public hearing and several speakers addressed this
item:
Alex Gough, 964 Chorro Street, showed large format photographs of the historic
Blackstone Hotel and Sauer Bakery buildings as they appeared the late 1800s and
early 1900s, before they had been remodeled to accommodate street widening. He
encouraged the Committee to promote "adaptive reuse"of historic buildings rather than
demolition.
David Brodie questioned how the rooftop pool could be included without some type of
"edge" along the top of the building, and wondered how that would be architecturally
integrated into the building's design. He felt the pitched roofs shown on several
buildings were out of character with the Downtown's character and that it looked more
like "Santa Barbara" than a unique building of San Luis Obispo. He suggested that
buildings facing Palm Street should reflect a Chinese architectural influence.
Craig Smith, 890 Monterey Street, stated that he applauded the changes in the
project's architectural design, but was still concemed that the project would block
second-story windows on the Feliciano Building, at the west comer of Monterey and
Morro Streets. He noted that would affect the livability of offices on the second floor
and asked them to revise the project to avoid blocking their windows.
Elizabeth Abrahams, 375 San Miguel Avenue, was disappointed in the project design
and felt the project design should more accurately represent the culturayethnic
historical groups that lived and worked in this neighborhood. She felt the project's
design looked too much like a Santa Barbara building and was not unique to San Luis
Obispo.
Bob Vessely, 743 Pacific Street, generally supported the project but felt the project
design should not emulate the "blank fagade"of the Blackstone Hotel as it exists today,
but rather the richer, more detailed architecture of the Quintana Block building that
existed before being remodeled into the Blackstone Hotel. He felt the proposed
building at the comer of Monterey and Chorro 'Turned its back"on the Old Mission, and
that the project needed to be "opened up" with a more prominent entry facing Mission
Plaza. He felt the historic Sauer Bakery Building needed to be saved, as required by
the City's own general plan policies. He felt that "overriding considerations" under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) did not offset the loss of community value
that would result from demolishing the historic Sauer Bakery building. He added that
the project needed to be planned so that archaeologists had sufficient time to do their
work, since other City projects.(like the Palm Street Parking Garage) had not allowed
sufficient time to retrieve and protect cultural resources.
® The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and
activities. Please contact the City Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance.
/-fib
CHC Meeting Update,October 22,2007 Attachment 4
Page 4
Fred Collins, representing the Northern Chumash Tribal Council, spoke in support of
the project and with the cooperation they had received in working with the applicant and
staff.
Betsy Bertrando, 267 Foothill Boulevard, agreed with Bob Vessely. She didn't agree
with the architectural treatment of the proposed Monterey and Chorro Street comer, but
felt the proposed Palm Street fagade had improved. She was concerned with the
project's effect on the adjacent adobe buildings due to vibration during construction.
Paula Carr, 615 Lawrence Street, felt it was a nice project, taken alone, but that it didn't
"fit"in the Downtown historical context. She suggested that Chinatown and Downtown
had a significant number of wood frame buildings and felt these needed to be reflected
in the project design. She added the Sauer Bakery building was the town's historic
heart, and that this project would take it out.
Chairperson Breska closed the public hearing and the Committee discussed the project
and asked questions of the applicant and staff. Committee member Miller liked the
project but added "the Devil's in the details°, and was concerned with the quality of the
building construction and architectural details, such as the wrought iron balcony
railings. He wanted to see the Blackstone Hotel comer entry "opened up". similar to the
technique used at the historic Sinsheimer Store. He felt the Sauer Bakery building was
derelict and probably okay to sensitively demolish.
Committee member Crotser liked the project changes in general and generally
concurred with the staff recommendation. He agreed with demolition of the four of the
five buildings noted, but felt the Sauer Bakery should be preserved, if feasible. He felt
the design of the Chorro/Monterey building should "go back"to the original architectural
richness of the Quintana Block building. He sees the comer building treated differently;
more active and with more architecturally interesting. He felt the historic Sauer Building
lacked integrity but wants to somehow keep the interior bakery `feeling" and historic
features.
Committee member Landwehr was concerned about the precedent created by
removing historic buildings without first having documentation showing that it was not
feasible to rehabilitate the buildings. She felt the Committee needed an independent
analysis of the condition and rehab feasibility for the four historic buildings proposed for
demolition,
Committee member Wheeler could not support demolition of the four historic buildings
without a detailed rehabilitation feasibility analysis. She felt the project's design looked
vaguely historic but lacks character and compatibility with the Downtown Historic
District. She was concerned that new Downtown development was all beginning to
look the same.
® The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and
activities. Please contact the City Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance.
Attachment 4
CHC Meeting Update, October 22, 2007
Page 5
Committee member Pavlik felt the Committee needed to be careful with its
recommendations. He agreed with Committee member Wheeler that a feasibility
analysis was needed to determine whether adaptive reuse was possible, as provided in
City policies. He felt that the integration of new and old materials on buildings needed
to be analyzed and that reuse of the historic Sauer Bakery oven should be considered.
He liked the idea of reuse of the Shanghai Low neon sign. He added that the CHC
should advocate saving as much historic fabric as possible. Methods for curation and
display of cultural resource materials uncovered at the site needed to come back to the
Committee.
Chairperson Breska agreed with most of the other committee member comments. She
agreed that the Blackstone Hotel shouldn't necessarily be emulated in the project's
design. She could support a more contemporary style.
On a motion by Committee member Crotser; seconded by Committee member Miller,
the Committee voted 5.1 (Wheeler) to recommend to the ARC that the revised,
reduced-scale project be approved including proposed building demolitions at 861-863
Palm Street (Shanghai Low), 886 Monterey Street (Bello's) and 955 Morro Street (City
offices), based on the following findings, and with the consideration of the following
directional items to address various project components.
Findings
1. Given that both Contributing and Master List historic resources are proposed for
demolition within the project scope, the City determined that the project would result
in significant impacts to historic resources, and for this reason and other potentially
significant impacts in other environmental issue areas on the initial study checklist,
required that an Environmental Impact Report(EIR) be prepared.
2. While mitigation measures are proposed to lessen the environmental impacts
associated with the loss of significant historical resources, the EIR has determined
that the project, as proposed, will result in significant and unavoidable environmental
impacts to Cultural Resources.
3. The economic, social, and other benefits of the proposed project set forth below
would outweigh the unavoidable impacts associated with the loss of significant
historical resources. The proposed project would.
a. In conformance with the City's General Plan policies and community goals,
maintain and enhance the downtown area as the commercial and social center
of the City by converting surface parking lots to more economically productive
uses,
b. Provide expansion space for existing businesses and opportunities for new
businesses to locate in the downtown area by creating new retail, restaurant and
office space;
® The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and
activities. Please contact the City Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance.
CHC Meeting Update, October 22,2007 Attachment 4
Page 6
c. Include an on-site, private subterranean parking structure to provide adequate
off-street parking to meet the demand of on-site uses, and
d. Provide housing downtown interspersed with commercial uses to help balance
jobs and housing in the community.
4. Proposed buildings are architecturally compatible with the surrounding area, based
on the following:
a. The proposed materials, form, style and windows of the proposed building will
promote the character of the existing historic structure and add to the historic
character of the surrounding neighborhood.
b. The scale and siting of the proposed building is appropriate for the Downtown
Commercial zoning of the site and consistent with City property development
standards for height and setback.
5. Consistent with Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 3.5.1, the proposed
archaeological mitigation measures included in the EIR will protect archaeological
resources on the site consistent with the City's Archaeological Preservation Program
Guidelines.
Directional Items
I. Consistent with Mitigation Measure No. MM CR4, provide details to the approval of
the ARC on how the Sauer Bakery ovens will be rebuilt and incorporated into the
project.
2. Consistent with Mitigation Measure No. MM CR-5, provide additional information on
how the Shanghai Low Restaurant sign will be restored and where it will be
incorporated into the project.
3. Consistent with Mitigation Measure No. MM CR-1.c.2, provide information on how
curation and display space will be incorporated into the project.
4. Prepare a detailed rehabilitation feasibility analyses on the Blackstone Hotel building
(984-986 and 840-842-844 Monterey) and the historic Sauer Bakery Building (848
Monterey Street) to return to the Cultural Heritage Committee prior to City Council
review.
3. 956 Monterey Street. ARC 131-06; Review of new mixed-use building; C-D-H
zone, Copeland Properties, applicant. (Pam Ricci)
Pam Ricci presented the staff report and architect Mark Rawson gave a slide
presentation describing the project. Under public comment, Bob Vessely asked the
Committee to include a condition of approval requiring archaeological investigation of
the site prior to construction. He noted that excavations on the adjacent lot for the new
City parking structure and offices produced some significant historic artifacts.
Hearing no further comments, Chairperson Breska closed the public hearing.
Commissioners supported the project and after a brief discussion, and on a motion by
® The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and
activities. Please contact the City Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance.
/lc)3
I^ Attachrnent 4
�►II��III�IIIIIIIIIIIII��;���� I�IIIIIII II III
city Of SAn luiS OBISPO
11INNI Amok
Community Development Department • 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
October 26, 2007
SLO Chinatown LLC
PO Box 1085
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
SUBJECT: ARC 69-05: 840, 842, 844, 848, 868, 870 & 886 Monterey Street, 984 &
986 Chorro Street, 955 Morro Street and 847 & 877 Palm Street.
Review of Chinatown mixed-use project and the Cultural Resources
section of the project's Environmental Impact Report
Dear.Applicant:
The Cultural Heritage Committee,; at its meeting of October 22, 2007, voted to
recommend to the ARC that the revised, reduced-scale project be approved including
proposed building demolitions at 861-863 Palm Street (Shanghai Low), 886 Monterey
Street (Bello's) and 955 Morro Street (City offices), based on the following findings, and
with the consideration of the following directional items to address various project
components.
Findings
1. Given that both Contributing and Master List historic resources are proposed for
demolition within the project scope, the City determined that the project would
result in significant impacts to historic resources, and for this reason and other
potentially significant impacts in other environmental issue areas on the initial
study checklist, required that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared.
2. While mitigation measures are proposed to lessen the environmental impacts
associated with the loss of significant historical resources, the EIR has determined
that the project, as proposed, will result. in significant and unavoidable
environmental impacts to Cultural Resources.
3. The economic, social, and other benefits of the proposed project set forth below
would outweigh the unavoidable impacts associated with the loss of significant
historical resources. The proposed project would:
a. In conformance with the City's General Plan policies and community goals,
maintain and enhance the downtown area as the commercial and social center
of the City by converting surface parking lots to more economically productive
uses;
The 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.
ARC 69-051 861 Palm Street Attachrrlent 4
Page 2
b. Provide expansion space for existing businesses and opportunities for new
businesses to locate in the downtown area by creating new retail, restaurant
and office space;
c. Include an on-site, private subterranean parking structure to.provide adequate
off-street parking to meet the demand of on-site uses; and
d. Provide housing downtown interspersed with commercial uses to help balance
jobs and housing in the community.
4. Proposed buildings are architecturally compatible with the surrounding area, based
on the following:
a. The proposed materials, form, style and windows of the proposed building will
promote the character of the existing historic structure and add to the historic
character of the surrounding neighborhood.
b. The scale and siting of the proposed building is appropriate for the Downtown
Commercial zoning of the site and consistent with City property development
standards for height and setback.
5. Consistent with Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 3.5.1, the proposed
archaeological mitigation measures included in the EIR will protect archaeological
resources on the site consistent with the City's Archaeological Preservation Program
Guidelines.
Directional Items
1. Consistent with Mitigation Measure No. MM CR-4, provide details to the approval of
the ARC on how the Sauer Bakery ovens will be rebuilt and incorporated into the
project.
2. Consistent with Mitigation Measure No. MM CR-5, provide additional information on
how the Shanghai Low Restaurant sign will be restored and where it. will be
incorporated into the project..
3. Consistent with Mitigation Measure No. MM CR-1.c.2, provide information on how
curation and display space will be incorporated into the project.
4. Prepare a detailed rehabilitation feasibility analyses on the Blackstone Hotel
building (984-986 and 840-842-844 Monterey) and the historic Sauer Bakery
Building (848 Monterey Street) to return to the Cultural Heritage Committee prior to
City Council review.
ARC 69-05, 861 Palm Street Attachrrierlt 4
Page 3
The decision of the CHC is a recommendation to the.ARC and, therefore, is not final.
This matter has been tentatively scheduled for administrative action before the ARC on
January 28, 2008. This date, however, should be verified with the project planner.
If you have questions, please contact Pam Ricci at (805) 781-7168.
Sincerely,
MAMA
Kim Murry,
Deputy Community Development Director
Long Range Planning
cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office
Mark Rawson, AIA
P.O. Box 1085
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
Attachment 5
Cl't/ Of SM JUTS 0131SW Department of Community Development
Planning Division
February 8, 2007
TO: File ARC 69-05: Citywide
FROM: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Applicant presentation and preliminary review of the Chinatown Mixed-
Use Project in the Downtown Historic District.
The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of February 5, 2007 was provided
a brief overview of the project and an update on the status of the EIR process. It was
noted that 1) staff had not yet provided an evaluation or analysis of design issues in its
cover memo and that the meeting was designed as an applicant presentation and
overall introduction to the large and complex project, and 2) that it was premature to
make any specific recommendations on the appropriateness of the proposed building
demolitions, the proposed scale and architectural style of the new buildings in the
context of the historical setting, or the height and scale of the overall project until having
the benefit of the objective conclusions of the EIR.
There was general support from the ARC for the use of fly-through, 3-D modeling to
more accurately understand the project, especially interior spaces of the project such as
the plazas and paseos.
No formal action was taken on the project.
A-27
SAN LUIS OBISPO Attachment 5
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES
February 05, 2007
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Greg Wilhelm, Jim Lopes, Steve Hopkins, Anthony
Palazzo, Vice-Chairperson Allen Root and Chairperson Michael Boudreau
Absent: Zeljka Howard - Commr. Howard had previously recused herself from
participation in the meeting because her husband worked as a consultant
for the firm which prepared the plans for the Chinatown Project.
Staff: Senior Planner Pam Ricci and Recording Secretary Jill Francis
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 955 Morro Street, 847, 861, 863 Palm Street. and 840. 842 844 848 868 870
and 886 Monterey Street. ARC 69-05; Applicant presentation and preliminary
review of the Chinatown Mixed-Use Project in the Downtown Historic District; C-D-H
zone; SLO Chinatown LLC, applicant. (Pam Ricci)
Pam Ricci provided a brief overview of the project and an update on the status of the
EIR process. She pointed out that staff had not yet provided an.evaluation or analysis
of design issues in its cover memo and that the meeting was designed as an applicant
presentation and overall introduction to the large and complex project. She noted that it
was premature to make any specific recommendations on the appropriateness of the
proposed building demolitions, the proposed scale and architectural style of the new
buildings in the context of the historical setting, or the height and scale of the overall
project until having the benefit of the objective conclusions of the EIR.
Mark Rawson, project architect, provided a detailed presentation of project plans by
describing components and features such as topography, planned grading, proposed
land uses, motivations for architectural styles and detailing, and pedestrian and
vehicular circulation. He responded to questions from the ARC during and after his
presentation.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Marcie Israel, 265 Almond Street, questioned the overall building height and was
concerned that the project appeared overly looming.
Craig Smith, 890 Chorro Street, expressed concern with maintaining light and visual
access to the second floor windows of the adjacent Feliciano Building, which is located
/—.I?-r
ARC Minutes - t Attachment 5
February 5, 2007
Page 2
at the corner of Monterey and Morro Streets. He suggested that the adjacent building
on the project site be set back further to allow for this.
David Brodie, 873 Chorro Street, stressed the importance of pathways and other open
spaces within the project having adequate sunlight provided to them or they would not
be used much by people. He noted that providing services, including trash, to both the
commercial and residential components of the project would be important. He believed
that energy conservation features is an important consideration and should be built into
the project. He expressed concern with the architectural design of the building located
at the corner of Chorro and Monterey Streets and its relationship to the Mission. He
also questioned the use of mansard roofs.
Peter Danciart, 82 Delacroix Court, had concerns with the architectural style of some of
the building forms and agreed that energy conservation within the project was
important.
Elizabeth Abrams, 335 San Miguel Street, was concerned with the loss of the historical
buildings in the project.
Jennifer Bellow, 651 Chorro Street, felt the project clashes with the surrounding
structures such as the mission and expressed concern with the changes occurring in
the downtown.
There were no further comments from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Root felt the project was well-crafted at this preliminary stage. He suggested
that the addition on the roof of Muzio's and the bridge features in the project need to be
better detailed and integrated with other elements of the project. He recommended
exploring the possibilities of incorporating the Chinese restaurant sign and Sauer
Bakery ovens into the project somehow, and agreed with Craig Smith's comments
regarding maintaining light into the second floor windows of the Feliciano Building. He
noted that project models and shading plans would be important to understanding the
impacts of the project. He thought the scale of the market raised issues with deliveries
and other special needs, and that more Chinese architectural cues in the portion of the
project closest to Palm Street would be desirable. He suggested lowering the horizontal
line of the building entry at the comer of Monterey and Chorro Streets and capitalizing
on roof areas for open space use.
Commr. Wilhelm suggested that the Chinatown Project incorporate more cues or
elements that are in character with Chinese architecture. He noted that the balcony
detail on Palm Street was a starting point to address the thematic concern he was
describing. He discussed the idea of somehow incorporating the historic ovens
contained within the Sauer bakery Building into some type of public art project.
ARC Minutes •
Attachraent 5
February 5, 2007
Page 3
Commr. Hopkins voiced his support for the hotel component at this location and the
proposed "mix of uses in general. He agreed with previous speakers that solar access
to public spaces would be especially important for the overall success of the project. He
suggested the possibility of.retaining the facade of the building at the comer of Chorro
and Monterey Streets, questioned the use of the mansard roofs in the project, and
thought that the project would benefit from a pedestrian connection to Chorro Street as
well.
Commr. Boudreau appreciated the evolution of the project design. He thought the
project could further benefit from more of the larger masses being located away from
the corners, and suggested using a lighter design for the balconies to address scale
concerns. He emphasized the importance of keeping a pedestrian scale at the first
level of buildings. He did not think that the hotel building at the comer of Chorro and
Monterey was necessarily too tall, but felt that the ground floor on Chorro needed more
interest. He believed that the final details of window trim would have a huge impact on
the overall look of the project and complimented the architect on the variety of window
styles currently proposed. He also agreed that solar access to open spaces is very
important.
Commr. Lopes liked some of the architectural elements of the earlier version of
Chinatown and suggested incorporating Chinese themes but cautioned against creating
features that appeared trite or overdone. He expressed agreement with most. of the
CHC's preliminary comments, and specifically mentioned his support for Items 7, 8 & 9
in the prepared memo. He felt that the height and massings of the buildings within the
project were somewhat overwhelming and suggested lowering the scale of buildings to
generally 60 feet with allowance for some tower elements to exceed that height to add
visual interest. He recommended exploring the use of smaller-scale terraces rather
than a large central courtyard as a means of providing open spaces areas to the
residents. He suggested accentuating the retail component along Palm Street and to
look at lower cornice heights and more vertical articulation to achieve this. He also
offered the ideas of more retail openings along the ground floor of the Chorro Street
elevation and incorporating more Spanish and Spanish Revival architectural styles into
the project.
Commr. Palazzo thought that the overall architectural theme and character of the
project would benefit from certain themes, such as the mansards, translating down to
the street level. He noted that as the city continues to grow, this type of scale in the
downtown should be anticipated.
There was general support from the ARC for the use of fly-through, 3-D modeling to
more accurately understand the project, especially interior spaces of the project such as
the plazas and paseos.
No formal action was taken on the project.
2. Staff:
/�`3b
Attachment 5
IIII I II III
CI Gyo SAn 1lUls OBISPO
Community Development Department•919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
December 3, 2007
SLO Chinatown, LLC
PO Box 1085
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
SUBJECT: ARC 69-05: 861 Palm Street
Review of Chinatown Mixed-Use Project
Dear Applicant:
The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of November 19, 2007, continued
action on your project to a date uncertain, with the following direction on design issues
and additional information required for final review of the overall project design.
1. Provide the architectural model of the project block and buildings across the
street consistent with Mitigation Measure MM VIS-2 along with the ARC's final
review of the project design.
2. Submit more refined versions of the sidewalk management and
plazalwalkway management plans.
3. The ARC noted their preference for the proposed mid-block paseo design
versus the idea of a diagonal paseo.
4. Provide ideas for creative public art proposals to be incorporated into project
plans that build on the project's Chinatown theme.
5. Expand on how the reuse of uncovered building features and/or the reuse of
portions of building walls in the project may be feasible.
6. Provide detailed plans on how oven reconstruction would be accomplished,
including the rebuilt oven's integration with surrounding project features and
signage to provide historic documentation.
7. Correct all pages of project plans to reflect the revised proposals including
the landscaping plan.
The 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.
'
�- Attachment 5
ARC 69-05
Page 2
8. Provide more ground level shots of the project as shown in the 3-D digital
model to clarify project details with the submittal of final, plans.
9. Encourage cooperation with the owner of the adjacent Feliciano Building to
look at potential solutions regarding the loss of property line windows such as
the installation of skylights.
10. Provide a written description of solid waste services for all proposed uses in
the project along with an accompanying pictorial exhibit. Plans should clarify
where both short-term and long-term storage will be in buildings .and how
trucks will access the site via the Morro Street service driveway.
If you have questions, please contact Pam Ricci at (805) 781-7168.
Sincerely,
GG/
Pamela Ricci, AICP
Senior Planner
cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office
Mark Rawson, AIA
PO Box 1085
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406-1085
d
Draft ARC Minutes Attachment 5
November 19,2007
Page 2
Principal Transportation Planner Peggy Mandeville from the City's Public Work
Department explained that the Meadow Street connection to Lawrence Drive would
remain open until the cul-de-sac is completed.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
The Commission supported the revised design as it protected the sensitive site features
and the overall building height was lower.
Commr. Root questioned the condition to have removable bollards added to Meadow
Street at Lawrence Drive, and asked about the concrete roof material.
On motion by Commr. Howard to -grant final approval of the new house desiqn, based
on .findings, and subiect to conditions and code requirements. Seconded by Commr.
Wilhelm.
AYES: Commrs. Wilhelm, Howard, Root, Boudreau, Hopkins, Palazzo, Kambitsis
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: None
The motion passed on a 7:0 vote.
Commr. Howard recused herself because of a potential conflict of interest.
2. 861, 840, 842, 844, 848, 868, 870 & 886 Monterey Street, 984 & 986 Chorro
Street, 847, 863 & 877 Palm and 955 Morro Street. ARC 69-05; Review of
Chinatown mixed-use project; C-D-H zone; SLO Chinatown LLC,, applicant.
(Continued from November 5, 2007) (Pam Ricci)
Senior Planner Pam Ricci presented the staff report, recommending continuance of the
project to a date uncertain with direction on design issues and identification of additional
information required for final review of the overall project design. She described the key
elements of the revised, reduced-scale project and noted changes made in response to
previous ARC comments and direction. She noted that the Cultural Heritage Committee
had continued their discussion regarding the disposition of the Blackstone Hotel and
Sauer Bakery buildings to November 26, 2007, but that they had supported demolition
of Bello's, Shanghai Low and 955 Morro, and were generally supportive of the mass
and scale of the revised plans in the context of the historical district setting.
Mark Rawson, project architect and representative for the applicant, presented a 3D
visual model and gave a detailed presentation of the revised project plans.
Draft ARC Minutes
November 19, 2007 Attachment 5
Page 3
Principal Transportation Planner Peggy Mandeville answered questions about walkways
within the project and how they interacted with pedestrian movements onto adjacent
City sidewalks.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Alex Gough, San Luis Obispo, indicated his concern with the demolition of the historic
buildings on the site and felt-that adaptive reuse of the buildings was important. He felt
that retention of the Sauer Bakery building was essential and questioned how the ovens
could be reused in the project effectively because of their large size. He supported the
lower height of project buildings and more public open space in the site design.
Elizabeth Abrahams, San Luis Obispo, agreed with Alex Gough's comments and noted
that the Sauer Bakery ovens should be creatively used in the project.
David Brodie, San Luis Obispo, disliked the pitched tile roofs shown on some project
buildings, finding them overused in current architecture. He questioned how accurately
the 3-D video depicted the scale of the streets and voiced concerns with the viability of
the proposed retail uses, servicing buildings (trash and deliveries), the appearance of
the rooftop pool, and the Monterey Street stairwells. He suggested that the project
incorporate an escalator from Monterey Street to the upper plaza area.
Craig Smith, San Luis Obispo, expressed concern with the blocking of the windows on
the second floor of the adjacent Feliciano Building with project development and noted
that skylights may be a viable option..
Peter Danciart, San Luis Obispo, complimented the architects on their complex plaza
design and suggested that the building architecture should respect the current time and
place of construction and that replication of Chinese architecture here was not
appropriate. He noted that the design should take advantage of views, and that uses
established in the center of the site should be ones that draw people in via the
stairwells, rather than hotel meeting rooms and a spa.
There were no further comments from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
The Commission used the discussion points included in the staff report to guide their
discussion of project components and issues. Some of the key points covered were:
• The ARC's preference for the proposed central paseo design from Palm Street as
opposed to an alternative diagonal paseo that linked the interior of the site with the
intersection of Palm and Morro Streets;
• The architecture of the hotel was discussed, but no consensus was reached on
preferred building styles until after further input from the EIR hearings regarding
the disposition of the Sauer Bakery and Blackstone Hotel buildings;
1-3.
Draft ARC Minutes
November 19,2007 Attachment 5
Page 4
• The ARC was generally pleased with the applicant's plan for solid waste access
and servicing, but wanted further details to return to them;
• The preference was for a subtle approach to incorporating a Chinese motif into the
architecture and design details of the Palm portion of the project;
• The ARC encouraged cooperation with the owner of the adjacent Feliciano
Building to look at potential solutions regarding the loss of property line windows
such as the installation of skylights; and
• The ARC supported the incorporation of creative public art proposals into project
plans that build on the project's Chinatown theme.
Comms. Hopkins suggested that the project incorporate a range of sizes of residential
units.
Commr. Boudreau felt the main focus for the ARC should be the mass of the buildings,
and circulation including pedestrian access. He noted that design details would be
important to see when the project returned for final review. He felt that there were
solutions to the issue with blocking the property line windows of the Feliciano Building
(Bladerunner and Full Circle) such as the skylight idea. He liked the brick veneer on the
building adjacent to Muzio's and thought that the project could benefit by maximizing
ground floor openings.
Commr. Wilhelm mentioned that the corner buildings opposite the Mission should have
more window opening details. He suggested that the entrance to the project off of Palm
Street make a statement, including the possibility of incorporating a Chinese motif.
Commr. Root liked the proposed staircases in the project off of Monterey Street, wanted
to see more information return on solid waste service for the project, and thought it
would be a nice feature to have the rebuilt Sauer Bakery ovens be operational.
Commr. Kambitsis also liked the proposed stairwells and felt that it was important to
have more active uses in the center of the project.
On a.motion by Commr. Root to continue the proiect to a date uncertain with additional
information reaulred for final review. Seconded by Commr. Hopkins.
AYES: Commrs. Wilhelm, Root, Boudreau, Hopkins, Palazzo, and Kambitsis
NOES: None
RECUSED: Commr. Howard
ABSENT: None
The motion carried on a 6:0 vote
- \ Attachment
SLO Chinatown, LLC
P.O. Box 12260
San Luis Obispo, California 93406
(805) 593-0200
FAX#(805) 593-0109
September 18`h, 2007
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: ARC 69-05
Chinatown Project
Attn: Pam Ricci, AICP
Senior Planner
Dear Pam,
This document has been prepared to outline the changes which have been incorporated
into the proposed Chinatown Project as a result of input and comments received from
both the Cultural Heritage Committee and Architectural Review Commission.
The following changes address comments received at the preliminary review of the
Chinatown Mixed-Use Project by the Cultural Heritage Committee on January 22na
2007. The specific items identified below as items 1 through 15, are as listed in the
follow up memo prepared by Jeff Hook, Senior Planner, dated January 25, 2007, and
include responses to each item.
CHC Meeting Comments (in italic)
1. Questioned the purpose and desirability of the large tower proposed adjacent to
Muzio's Store on Monterey Street.
Response: The tower has been removed from the design.
2. Supported preserving windows and fire shutters on, both sides of Muzio's store.
Response: No changes to the windows and fire shutters on both sides of Muzio's
store are proposed
3. Concerned with the proposed demolition of the former Blackstone Hotel and
questioned if building design could be brought back to a specific design period.
Attachment 6
Response: Building designs for both the Blackstone as well as the Sauer Bakery
have been modified to incorporate specific design details and character derived
from the 1930's period architecture of both the buildings.
4. Questioned if the Sauer Bakery `ovens'could be preserved and somehow
incorporated into a new project.
Response: The oven doors and related hardware are proposed to be re-used within
the project along the pedestrian walkway adjacent to the current location of the
Sauer Bakery building.
S. Cited the 2000 "CHC Mitepaper and its Council-supported recommendations
regarding loss of historidarchaeological resources and felt tourist-oriented uses
were displacing the historic features that gave Downtown its uniqueness and
attraction. Concerned with the proposed demolition of four Contributing historic
properties, one Master list historic property, and the `irreparable loss' of
significant historic and prehistoric archaeological artifacts (due to excavation for
underground parking garage).
Response: Current project design has been modified to retain and incorporate
historic/archaeological resources wherever practical. The most historically intact
and significant building on site, the Muzio building, has been retained in the
project and previous additions proposed to this building have been removed.
6. Concerned about the architectural compatibility and integrity of a proposed roof
addition to the historic David Muzio Store. Committee members felt that Muzio's
Store is the focus of this block of Monterey and the proposed addition would
adversely affect its historic character.
Response: The proposed roof addition has been removed.
7. Felt the applicant and City needed to consider the potential effects of three large-
scale projects on the historic Mission —the most important cultural, religious and
historic building in the city, and on Downtown's historic character and scale: the
Chinatown development, the Johnson Building mixed-use development and the Ah
Louis Store development.
Response: The potential effects of the large scale of this project have been
carefully considered, and as a result, the project scale has been dramatically
reduced.
8. The Chinatown District had a "humble" origin but this project's Chinatown
name would distort that image as the project is now designed.
Attachment 6
Response: The current proposed project has been reduced in scale to a more
`humble' size. Buildings proposed along Palm Street(Chinese Historic District)
are now a maximum of three stories in height with a maximum height of
approximately 44' (measured at the Palm Street frontage above the sidewalk at
the corner of Palm and Morro streets).
9. Supported the new building being setback from Feliciano building so that the
Feliciano building's side windows could be preserved.
Response: It is not practical to set back the new building to accommodate these
windows as it would limit the new building to a single story adjacent to the
Feliciano building..Furthermore these windows are non-code compliant windows
since they occur in an area where openings are not normally allowed—at the
property line. Instead we propose that operable skylights could be added into the
Feliciano building to allow light and air into the existing office space, without
requiring a non compliant code condition.
10. Felt that a downtown hotel was a good idea but the project's scale should be
reduced along Chorro Street to prevent overshadowing the Mission(the former
Blackstone Hotel provides a neutral backdrop in scale with.the Mission), and
should be scaled down to preserve character of Muzio's Store.
Response: The scale of the project at Chorro Street has been reduced. The 5`s
floor has been eliminated. The building is now a maximum of 4 stories, and a
maximum of 50' high above average natural grade. A more `neutral' building
design has been integrated into the project to provide a `neutral' backdrop in scale
with the Mission. This reduction in scale and removal of the 5t'story also insure
that the character of the Muzio Store is preserved.
11. Felt the potentially significant archaeological resources likely to be found on site
should be preserved in place, and questioned whether, the proposed parking
garage was worth the loss of Mission-era and pre-Mission era history.
Response:The project EIR has specifically addressed this. In addition we are
working directly with Fred Collins,the Tribal Administrator with the Chumash
Nation, to insure that any Mission-era and pre-Mission era
historical/archaeological resources are handled appropriately.
12. Concerned about the spa addition on the top floor of the proposed hotel near the
corner of Chorro and Monterey Streets and its effect on the building's scale
relationship with the Old Mission.
Response: The spa addition on the top floor of the proposed hotel has been
removed to lessen the scale of the building. The spa has been relocated to another
area of the project at grade along the pedestrian walkway.
Attachment 6
13. Recommended that the cultural resource preservation priorities for this project
should, with one being highest,preserve: 1)archaeological resources, 2)
designated historic buildings, and 3)historic site or building features or elements
(e.g. Sauer Bakery ovens).
Response: This priority was noted and used in connection with considering these
project refinements and changes.
14. Questioned the "French Revival" architectural style, as expressed by mansard
roof treatments on several proposed buildings, with the Downtown Historic
District's "Main Street"architectural character, since there is no historical
precedent for this architectural style in SLO. They felt there were other, more
compatible ways to modulate the scale of the proposed buildings. Three to four-
story elevations facing the street were okay.
Response: The use of"French Revival" style mansard roof treatments has been
removed from the project in keeping with the `Main Street' character.
Additionally,buildings are now a maximum of three to four story elevations
facing the street, consistent with CHC comment.
15. Requested a detailed, 3-D model of buildings, showing scale relationships and
shadow and light patterns.
Response: A digital 3-D model of buildings is available and will be included in
the presentation at the CHC hearing.
The following changes have also been incorporated into the project in response to input
and comments from the Architectural Review Commission at its February 5t', 2007
preliminary review.
1. ARC Commissioner comment: Incorporate more elements of`Chinese
architecture'
Response: Colors and materials, detailing, iron railings; and tile-work selected for
the buildings, particularly those located in the area of the Chinese historic district,
have been selected to reflect Chinese architecture, incorporating Chinese art and
architectural elements and motifs. The historic neon sign at Palm Street is also
proposed to be re-used and installed on the building fagade along the Palm Street
frontage in the same general location.
I
Attachment 6
2. ARC Commissioner comment: Refine balcony elements
Response: Along Palm Street and throughout the project,balcony elements have
been refined and incorporated within the project with a variety of iron work
details proposed, which are inspired by Chinese art and architectural elements and
motifs.
3. ARC Commissioner comment: Incorporate ovens into public art.
Response: The oven doors and related hardware are proposed to be re-used within
the project in the plaza area and incorporated into a site feature.
4. ARC Commissioner comment: Plaza area—maintain good light levels.
Response: Buildings at plaza level and throughout the project have been reduced
in height which will result in better natural light penetration.
5. ARC Commissioner comment: Monterey and Chorro— "maintain facades of
buildings".
Response: The building facades at the Monterey and Chorro street building have
been revised to incorporate design details of the historic building facades.
6. ARC Commissioner comment: Questioned the use of mansard roofs.
Response: Mansard roofs have been removed.
7. ARC Commissioner comment: Mass and height overwhelming.
Response:Mass and height of all buildings have been reduced. Maximum height
of buildings has been lowered to 50' above average natural grade. Building height
measured above Palm Street is approximately 44' above the existing grade at the
comer of Palm and Morro. Additional step backs have been incorporated into the
building design. A reduction in the mass of the proposed building at the comer of
Chorro and Monterey has been achieved by also incorporating a lightwell which
extends from the street back into the building mass which creates a separation of
the building into two smaller forms, which both incorporate individual design
detailing. This lightwell also allows for additional light and.air into the building
for better natural lighting and ventilation.
8. ARC Commissioner comment: 4 stories, 60'preferred.
Response: Building heights are proposed at a maximum of 50'. Buildings are 3
stories along Palm, and Mono Streets, and both 3 and 4 stories along Monterey
and Chorro Streets
/-7
9. ARC Commissioner comment. Central residential terrace may not work.
Response: The central residential terrace has been removed and replaced with a
street level central court accessing the commercial level and providing a more
active use.
Thank-you for your time and consideration. As always, please don't hesitate to contact
me if you have any questions regarding the project.
Sinc rely,
G
Mark awson, AIA
SLO Chinatown, LLC
�-yr
I
PLANNING COMMISSION Attachment 7
RESOLUTION NO. 5493-07
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZE
CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
WITH UPDATE BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FOR
THE CHINATOWN PROJECT
APPLICATION # 69-05; 861 PALM STREET (BASE PROJECT ADDRESS)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission 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 November 28, 2007, for the purpose of considering Application ER 69-05, an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Chinatown Project; and
WHEREAS, said public hearing was for the purpose of formulating and forwarding
recommendations to the City Council and Architectural Review Commission regarding the
Final EIR and associated update to the Final EIR (which together constitute the "Final
EIR"); and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, public hearings on this EIR were previously held before the Planning
Commission on November 15, 2006, and July 11, 2007; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR was considered by the Planning Commission after
extensive review by City staff and other agencies, and with the comments of the concerned
public; and
WHEREAS, the potential environmental impacts of the project have been evaluated in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City's Environmental
Guidelines; 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.
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 has
concluded that the a Final EIR [ER 69-05] for the Chinatown Project adequately identifies
the project's potentially significant impacts, alternatives to the proposed project(?) , and
recommended mitigation measures, based on the following findings:
1. The Final EIR was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and was considered by the City prior to any approvals of the
project.
/-yam
Attachment 7
Resolution No. 5493-07
Page 2
2. The Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City.
3. The revised project was greatly reduced in its overall scale (about a 25% reduction
in the overall floor area from 310,544 square feet to 235,320 square feet) and
closely resembles the Protection of Visual Resources Alternative in the EIR. No
new environmental impacts were created as a result of the revised plans, but
some impacts were eliminated or reduced in significance.
4. For each significant effect 'identified in Ahe Final EIR under the categories of
Aesthetics and Visual Resources, Cultural Resources, Geologic Resources,
Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and
Planning Policies, Noise, Population and Housing, Transportation and Traffic,
and Utilities and Public Services, the approved mitigation measures contained in
the Final EIR will avoid or substantially lessen the identified adverse
environmental impacts of the project to a level of insignificance and have been
incorporated into the project.
5. The significant effects identified in the Air Quality, Cultural Resources, and
Short-term Construction Noise sections of the EIR will not be fully mitigated to a
degree of insignificance with the incorporation of all of the identified mitigation
measures included in the EIR. However, the Planning Commission finds that
the adverse environmental effects are acceptable and makes a statement of
overriding considerations for those significant and unavoidable environmental
impacts because:
a. Mitigation strategies are identified in the Final EIR help to reduce project
emissions and ultimately put the air basin in closer compliance with
established State and federal standards.
b. Mitigation strategies are in place in the event that burials associated with
Mission San Luis Obispo are encountered as a result of subsurface grading
and excavation that are consistent with State law and have been reviewed
and endorsed by the Cultural Heritage Committee.
c. The unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the loss of historical
structures have been reviewed by the Cultural Heritage Committee and their
specific recommendations regarding proposed demolitions and incorporation
of appropriate and feasible mitigations has been reviewed and considered
and are reflected in proposed modifications to mitigation measures for
impacts CR-4 and CR-5 identified in the final EIR., as set forth in paragraph 6
below.
d. The unavoidable adverse impact of construction noise is temporary in nature
and can be substantially mitigated by implementation of a construction
management plan that regulates the,-hours of construction, noise reduction
measures, and a complaint resolution process, consistent with recommended
mitigation measures.
6. The Planning Commission has identified the following overriding economic,
social, and other public benefits of the project, which are additional reasons that
y�
Attachment 7
Resolution No. 5493-07
Page 3
the significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the Final EIR can be found
acceptable; these are:
a. In conformance with the City's General Plan policies and community goals, the
project will maintain and enhance the downtown area as the commercial and
social center of the City by converting surface parking lots to more
economically productive uses which would not be achievable without private
capital and investment;
b. The project will provide expansion- space for existing businesses and
opportunities for new businesses to locate in the downtown area by creating
new retail, restaurant and office space which produce further tax dollars to keep
the downtown economically, culturally and socially vital and the center of the
community;
c. The project will provide housing downtown interspersed with commercial uses
to help balance jobs and housing in the community.
d. The project will provide for improved pedestrian amenities via the project's
pedestrian streets or paseos, and the possibility of future linkages through
other sites;
e. The project's coordinated development plan takes advantage of economies of
scale and scope in a manner that facilitates broader implementation of
important City policies, such as enhanced pedestrian circulation in the
downtown and expanded mixed use development, which could not be achieved
through the approval of smaller, more segmented projects.
f. The project will improve business synergy by creating incentives for other
property owners to seek improvements to their own sites, and increasing foot
traffic and revenues.
g. The project will incorporate important architectural features of historic structures
into the new construction, including relocation and reconstruction of the historic
Sauer Bakery Oven and the Shanghai Low Restaurant Sign.
h. The project will add a hotel, which will provide the direct benefit of increased tax
revenues to the City and create indirect economic development opportunities
by increasing accommodation for regional tourism in the downtown.
i. The project incorporates many features of "Smart Growth" including the
development of an infill site, greater intensity of site development, and
improvements to transit facilities, along with subsidies for both City and regional
transit systems.
The data to support these overriding factors are found in the following sections of
the record including:
1.) The Environmental impact Report, including Final Update;
2.) Letters submitted by the public contained in the project files;
3.) Public testimony provided at this and previous project hearings; and
4.) The applicant's presentation.
7. Because the significant and unavoidable impacts to Cultural Resources, associated
with the proposed demolition of the Sauer Bakery and Blackstone Hotel buildings
have been identified as impacts of particular concern by the Cultural Heritage
Attachment 7
Resolution No. 5493-07
Page 4
Committee and in the course of public testimony the Planning Commission
recommends the following modifications to Mitigation Measures CR-4 and CR-5:
"Prior to any project approval, the applicant shall submit a detailed rehabilitation
feasibility analysis of adaptive reuse to the City Council and,' unless the Council
determines otherwise after consideration and review, the applicant shall adhere to
the following order of priority with regard to disposition of the Sauer Bakery and
Blackstone buildings:
a. Applicant shall first attempt to achieve preservation of any viable underlying
brick facades and adaptive reuse of the remainder of the structures
themselves;
b. If preservation and adaptive reuse as set forth in (a) above is detemined to
be infeasible, applicant shall attempt to preserve the brick facades of the
buildings only;
c. If both a and b above are determined to be infeasible, applicant shall be
permitted to undertake demolition of the buildings with the requirement that
the developer contribute to a fund that would assist other property owners in
the preservation of historic resources elsewhere in the City, and with the
requirements as currently set forth in the referenced mitigation, measures,
and in particular emphasizing the requirement that architectural details of
these buildings be incorporated into the new construction on the site of the
original building and that uncovered original details as well as portions of the
original structure be incorporated into the new construction."
8. The Mitigation Monitoring Program has been reviewed by the Planning Commission
in conjunction with its review of the Final EIR.
Section 2. Recommendation. The Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that the City Council authorize the Architectural Review Commission to certify
the Final EIR for the Chinatown Project ER 69-05.
On motion by Commr. Multari, seconded by Commr. Ashbaugh, and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commrs. Multan, Gould-Wells, Stevenson, Ashbaugh, Carpenter, Brodie and
Chairperson Christianson
NOES: None
REFRAIN: None
ABSENT: None
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 28th day of November, 2007.
Doug Davi son, Secretary
Planning Commission
Attachment 8
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT rrEM#i
BY: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner(781-7168) MEETING DATE: November 28, 2007
FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director(Development Review)] D.
CITY FILE NUMBER: ER 69-05
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER: 2006111012
PROJECT ADDRESSES: 861 Palm — main address for project file, other addresses for site
listed on agenda.
SUBJECT: Consideration of a Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Chinatown
Project bordered by Chorro, Palm, Morro, and Monterey Streets in the C-D-H zone.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommend to the City Council that the EIR be certified with a finding of overriding
considerations relative to air quality, cultural resources and short-term construction noise.
BACKGROUND:
Situation
SLO Chinatown, LLC, has submitted plans for the mixed-use development project known as the
"Chinatown Project". The proposed project site is located within the City of San Luis Obispo's
downtown core and consists of 8 parcels generally bordered by Chorro, Palm, Morro, and
Monterey Streets, and occupies approximately 75 percent of this city block. Early on in the
process, the City determined that the large-scale, mixed-use project located in a sensitive
downtown location had the potential for significant environmental impacts and warranted
preparation of an EIR.
On July 11, 2007, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission to discuss the Draft
EIR during the required public review period. At that meeting, testimony from both the
Commission and public was taken. Subsequent to this hearing and after completion of the Final
EIR, the applicant submitted a revised project which was greatly reduced in its overall scale and
closely resembles the Protection of Visual Resources Alternative in the EIR. In response, a Final
Update for the EIR (hereinafter referred to as "Update") was prepared which is a supplemental
document that updates the Final EIR to reflect the revised project description, impacts, and
mitigation measures. The Final EIR and Update were distributed to the Planning Commission at
their November 14`h meeting and are now ready for the Commission's review.
The Commission needs to review and consider the information contained in the Final EIR and
Update to determine whether it is complete and in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA); this review process is known in CEQA as certification. The Commission
Attachment 3
Chinatown Project (ER 69-05; 861 Palm Street)
Page 2
makes a recommendation to the Council who takes a final action on certification of the EIR. The
EIR needs to be certified before a final action to approve the project can be taken.
Data Summary
Project Addresses: 955 Morro Street; 840, 842, 844, 848, 868, 870 & 886 Monterey Street; 847,
861, 863, & 877 Palm Street; 984 & 986 Chorro Street
Applicant: SLO Chinatown,LLC
Representative: Mark Rawson
Zoning: Downtown Commercial with the Historical Preservation overlay zone (C-D-H)
General Plan Designation: General Retail
Environmental Status: A Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared.
Proiect.Descriation
The proposed project would include the development of 2.12-acres to accommodate a downtown
mixed-use center of 235,320 square feet (sf) including retail (43,750 sf), offices (4,600 sf),
restaurants (6,000 sf), 32 residential (53,570 sf) and 4 live/work units (4,000 sf), parking (56,400
sf/122 spaces), and a 67-room hotel (67.000 sf), generally of three to four stories, reaching a
maximum of 50 feet in height. A pedestrian plaza level at mid-block on Monro Street would
allow entry level access to the restaurant, retail, and hotel. New two-level retail buildings plus
offices above (three stories) would front on Monterey Street, a residential courtyard/common
area would be accessed off Palm Street; live/work units with retail storefronts are proposed along
Morro Street, and a four-story hotel and retail uses would front Chorro Street. Two levels of
below-grade parking with access from Morro Street would serve both residential and commercial
uses. In addition access for the hotel would be provided on Monterey Street. The proposed
project would consolidate private and public parcels and lead to removal of both private and
public structures and surface parking.
In order to accommodate the proposed project, five existing buildings would be demolished,
which are:
1. 848 Monterey Street—the Sauer Bakery Building.
2. 984-986 Chorro & 840-842-844 Monterey—the Blackstone Hotel
3. 861-863 Palm—Shanghai Low
4. 886 Monterey—Bello's
5. 955 Morro—City offices
These buildings are shown on Figure 3.3-11, which is part of the Cultural Resources section of
the EIR (Attachment 3). The most historically significant building is the Sauer Bakery at 848
Monterey Street, formerly Pier One, which is on the City's Master List of Historic Properties.
Three properties are considered contributing historic structures and include: the commercial
building on Palm surrounded by City parking at 861-863 Palm Street, the corner building at
/_717
Atachment 8
Chinatown Project (ER 69-05; 861 Palm Street)
Page 3
Chorro and Monterey, known as the Blackstone Hotel., and the Bello's building at 886 Monterey
Street. The former City office building on Morro Street is not included on either historical list.
Previous Review
Planning Commission
On November 15, 2006, a public consultation or scoping meeting was being held before the
Planning Commission to review the workscope and determine from interested members of the
public, other agencies, and the Planning Commission whether or not there are any other issues
that need to be included as part of the.EIR workscope. Based on public testimony and direction
from the Planning Commission received at the scoping hearing, the workscope was modified
including, but not limited to, more key viewing areas (KVAs) in the Aesthetics analysis, and a
moderately detailed analysis and discussion of the Population and Housing issue.
On July 11, 2007, the Planning Commission held a hearing to discuss the Draft EIR during the
required public review period. Nine individuals spoke during the public hearing including the
applicant's representative Mark Rawson. Major concerns brought up by the public related to
impact areas evaluated in the EIR included: mechanisms to reduce the apparent height and scale of
project buildings; concerns with the loss of historic structures and other archaeological artifacts; the
provision of affordable housing within the project; and construction traffic and air quality impacts.
The Commission echoed many of the same base concerns that were brought up in the public
hearing and asked for particular issues to be further refined and clarified prior to publication of the
Final EIR. The minutes from the meeting reflecting all of the specific individual comments made
by both the public and Commission members are part of the formal Responses to Comments
(Section 7.0 of the Final EIR).
Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC)
The CHC has reviewed the project on three previous occasions. On December 18, 2006, the
CHC discussed the cultural resources workscope for the project EIR and preliminary project
fieldwork plan. On January 22, 2007, Mark Rawson provided a presentation on the original
project and the Committee provided preliminary comments to the applicant and staff. On
October 22, 2007, presentations were made by staff and the applicant on a reduced scale project,
summarizing and describing project details and design changes made to respond to impacts
identified in the EIR and to better fit the site's historical context. The CHC was generally
supportive of the scale and massing of project buildings and proposed archaeological mitigation
measures. However, the demolition of the historical buildings on the site garnered most of the
CHC's focus and attention.
At the conclusion of the last review, the CHC supported the demolition of three of the five
buildings proposed for demolition, which are: 861-863 Palm — Shanghai Low, 886 Monterey —
Bello's, and 955 Morro — City offices (Attachment 4— 10-22-07 CHC meeting update). Prior to
making a recommendation on the proposed demolition of the Blackstone Hotel and the Sauer
Attachment 8
Chinatown Project (ER 69-05; 861 Palm Street)
Page 4
Bakery buildings, the CHC directed that a detailed rehabilitation feasibility analysis on the two
buildings return to them prior to the City Council's review of the Final EIR prepared for the
project. This meeting has been scheduled for November 26, 2007. Staff will update the
Planning Commission on the conclusions of this discussion as part of their presentation.
Architectural Review Commission (ARC)
On February 5, 2007, Mark Rawson provided a presentation on the project to the ARC. The
ARC provided preliminary comments on the project which are reflected in the minutes from the
meeting (Attachment 5). On November 19, 2007, the ARC conceptually reviewed the revised
project plans and provided direction on issues and additional information to be included in plans
submitted for final architectural review. The ARC was pleased with the reduced scale of the
project and overall supported the site plan, proposed pedestrian circulation, and building
architecture. Detailed project plans will return to the ARC for final review after the City
Council's certification of the Final EIR. Once decisions regarding the loss of on-site historic
buildings and approved mitigation measures are known, then the applicant can further refine
building designs and site details that would be reflected in final project plans.
EVALUATION
Back in September, the applicant submitted revised project plans. The general reaction to the
revised project from City staff, the CHC, and many members of the public has been positive.
The revised project was greatly reduced in its overall scale (about a 25% reduction in the overall
floor area from 310, 544 square feet to 235,320 square feet) and closely resembles the Protection of
Visual Resources Alternative in the EIR. While the number of residential units in the project
decreased from 64 to 36 units, the benefits of the reduced scale project in terms of better fitting
the site and respecting the context of the setting seem to outweigh concerns with the loss of
residential units. Some of the more.significant project changes include:
• No building heights over 50"; this means that a Planning Commission use permit per the
new ordinance will not be required to process the project;
• No additions to the Muzio's building; the bridge connection to the hotel and addition on
the roof have been eliminated;
• There is a floor of residential units in replacement of offices in the proposed building
where Bello's is now located with a commitment for at least four affordable units;
• There is a central courtyard entry from Palm Street between buildings that is at the street
level providing more public space and more varied retail spaces;
• The architecture of the building at the comer of Chorro and Monterey closely replicates
the Blackstone Hotel; and
• Detailing of the rebuilt Sauer Bakery recalls the 1930s version of the building.
Many of the project changes reflect a direct reaction to preliminary comments provided at the
Planning Commission, ARC and CHC hearings. Attachment 6 contains a statement from the
applicant describing specific changes that were made to the project to respond to preliminary
/_7 7
i
1
Attachment g
Chinatown Project(ER 69-05; 861 Palm Street)
Page 5
comments made by both the ARC and CHC. In terms of the project's environmental impacts, no
new environmental impacts were created as a result of the revised plans, but some impacts were
eliminated or reduced in significance. In accordance with Section 15088.5 of the State CEQA
Guidelines, no new public review period for this updated environmental information was
required due to the following reasons:
• The revised project is generally consistent with the Protection of Visual Resources
Alternative from the EIR, has similar impacts to that alternative, and would be subject to
similar previously discussed mitigation measures.
• The revised project would not create any new significant effects not previously disclosed in
the EIR.
• No substantial new mitigation measures would be required; only minor modifications would
be required to previously proposed mitigation measures which have already been subject to
public review and comment.
• The public would have the chance to review the revised project description, an analysis of the
changes in impacts and mitigation measures, and a revised impact summary table prior to
decision-maker hearings on this project.
The Final EIR
EIR Adequacy
The Final EIR is a compilation of the Draft EIR and responses to comments. Responses to
comments are a written evaluation of comments on the environmental issues received from persons
who reviewed the Draft EIR. Copies of all the written comments received during the public review
period have been incorporated into the Final EIR. As previously mentioned,the minutes of the July
11, 2007 Planning Commission meeting are also included as comments in the Final EIR. The
Responses to comments (Section 7.0 of the Final EIR) were prepared by the consultant and
reviewed by city staff.
The Final EIR Update consists of updated material supplementing the Final EIR. The Final EIR
Update reflects revisions to the Chinatown Project submitted by the applicant in response to the
Draft EIR and public concerns over the size, height, and scale of the original project. The Final
EIR update should be used in conjunction with the Final EIR to assist City staff, the public, and
decision-makers in understanding changes to project impacts and mitigation measures that result
from the project redesign.
The Commission needs to review and consider the information contained in the Final EIR to
determine whether it is complete and in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA); this review process is known in CEQA as certification. The Commission makes a
recommendation to the Council who takes a final action on certification of the EIR. If the
document adequately evaluates environmental issues and appropriately responds to comments,
then the Commission should recommend to the Council that the EIR be certified. The Final EIR
must be certified prior to approval of the project analyzed in the EIR.
Attachment 8
Chinatown Project(ER 69-05; 861 Palm Street)
Page 6
Highlights of EIR Changes
Changes from Draft EIR to Final EIR: As requested by the Commission, changes to the text of
the document made since the review of the Draft EIR are incorporated directly into the Final EIR.
Therefore, the Final EIR consolidates changes into the body of the main document, and it is not
necessary to have a copy of the Draft EIR to understand the changes. As a result of the comments
received during the public review period, there were not significant changes made to the discussion
of different issues areas in the EIR. Some of the focused changes or additions that were made
include:
Section Major Changes from Draft EIR to Final EIR
Section 1.0,Introduction Text was added to address current status of the City's Downtown Building Height
Policy and Zoning Ordinance amendments,as well as the project's public review
process(Pages 1-1 and 1-4).
Section 2.0,Project A paragraph was added to state that six existing rental units are located on the second
Description floor of the Muzio's building(Pae 2-8).
Section 3.1,Aesthetics • Text was revised to update the current status of the City's Downtown Building
and Visual Resources Height Policy and Zoning Ordinance amendments(Page 3.1-8).
• Clarifications to previously recommended mitigation measures were made(Pages 3.1-
44 to 3.1-46).
Section 3.2,Air Quality . Discussion regarding greenhouse gases and global climate change was added(Pages
3.2-2 to 3.2-3&3.2-6).
• NOx calculations under Impact AQ-I were revised to be more accurate as
recommended by SLOAPCD(Pages 3.2-9 to 3.2-11).
• Impact AQ-2 was added to address potential release of vapors from hydrocarbon
contaminated soils during construction,as recommended by SLOAPCD(Pages 3.2-15
to 3.2-16).
• APCD-recommended mitigation measures were added(Pages 3.2-12 to 3.2-21).
Section 3.3,Cultural • The Prehistoric and Historic Setting discussions were modified per public comments
Resources (Pages 3.3-1 to 3.3-9).
• Discussion regarding.City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Guidelines was
added(Page 3.3-27).
• Discussion and mitigation measures under Impact CR-1 were revised to address
project-related and cumulative curation and storage issues(Pages 3.3-34 to 3.3-38).
• Clarifications to previously recommended mitigation measures(CR-4,CR-5,and CR-
6)were made(Pages 3.343 to 3.3-45)..
• Discussion and mitigation measures under Impact CR-7 were revised to address
impacts to the Downtown Historic District(Pages 3.3-46&3.347).
Section 3.7,Land Use a Table 3.7-1 was updated for policy consistency with the new Unified General Plan
(Pages 3.74 to 3.7-7).
• Discussion of zoning regulations was revised to address current status of the City's
Downtown Building Height Policy and Zoning Ordinance amendment process
(Pages 3.7-10 to 3.7-11 &3.7-15 to 3.7-18)
Section 3.9,Population a Additional housing policies were included under Regulatory Setting(Pages 3.9-8&
and Housing 3.9-9)
• Analysis and mitigation measures under Impact PH-2 were revised to address changes
to affordable housing requirements as a result of the City's Downtown Building
Height Policy and Zoning Ordinance amendments(Pages 3.9-12 to 3.9-14).
Attachment 8
Chinatown Project (ER 69-05; 861 Palm Street)
Page 7
Section 3.10, • Analysis and mitigation measures under Impact TT-2 were revised to include impacts
Transportation and to transit routes during construction(Pages 3.10-19 to 3.10-21).
Traffic . Analyses under Impacts TT-4 and TT-5 regarding bicycle and motorcycle parking
requirements were revised per comments by applicant and City Public Works
Department(Pages 3.10-27 to 3.10-29).
• Analysis and mitigation under Impact TT-7 regarding vehicle parking requirements
were revised per comments by City Public Works Department(Pages 3.10-30 to 3.10-
41).
Section 3.11,Utilities and • Additional mitigation measures were added under MM UT-1 and MM UT-2 to
Public Services designate applicant responsibility for potential requirements for off-site improvements
to City infrastructure(Pages 3.11-9&3.11-10).
• MM UT-4a and MM UT-4b were revised to address changes to current status of the
City's Downtown Building Height Policy and Zoning Ordinance amendment
process(Pages 3.11-13 to 3.7-11 &3.7-15 to 3.7-18).
Section 4.0,Other CEQA Text was revised to clarify requirements for Statement of Overriding Considerations
Sections (Pae 4-5).
Section 5.0,Cumulative Discussion regarding greenhouse gases and global climate change was added(Page 5-9).
Impacts
Section 6.0,Alternatives Reduced Development Alternative was revised to include an increase in the size of the
proposed central plaza(Pae 6-20).
Changes from Final EIR to Final EIR Update: Subsequent to the July 11, 2007 Planning
Commission hearing and after completion of the Final EIR, the applicant submitted a revised
project which closely resembles the Protection of Visual Resources Alternative in the EIR. In
response, an update of the Final EIR was prepared. The Final EIR update should be used in
conjunction with the Final EIR to assist City staff, the public, and decision-makers in
understanding changes to project impacts and mitigation measures that result from the project
redesign. The Final EIR Update reflects revisions to the Chinatown Project submitted by the
applicant in response to the Draft EIR and public concerns over the size, height, and scale of the
original project. Changes to the project description include:
• Size reduction from approximately 310,544 sf to 235,320 sf(25 percent)
• Largest proposed structure (Building A) split into two smaller buildings
• Project height reduced from five to six-story buildings (up to 75 feet tall) to three- to four-
story buildings (up to 50 feet tall)
• Reduction in residential from 59 to 36 units (36 percent)
• Reduction in proposed parking from 204 to 122 spaces
• Rearrangement of proposed uses
• Expansion of internal pedestrian plaza/walkway system
• Redesign of architectural style more compatible with the Main Street character of the
Downtown Historic District
• Redesign of proposed hotel (Building B) at the corner of Chorro and Monterey Streets to
incorporate elements from 1930s historic Blackstone Hotel and Sauer Bakery
• Incorporation of elements of Chinese architecture (reuse of the historic neon Shanghai Low
Restaurant sign along Palm Street)
Attachment 8
Chinatown Project(ER 69-05; 861 Palm Street)
Page 8
As a result of these changes to the project description, many of the revisions outlined in the
section above (from Draft EIR to Final EIR)may no longer be applicable.
Major changes in project impacts and mitigation measures as a result of revisions to the project
description include those listed in the table below. In general, the changes to the project
description would substantially reduce or avoid a number of impacts, including the project's
impacts to Aesthetics and Visual Resources and Land Use, while impacts to Cultural Resources
would be partially reduced. Changes in impacts and mitigation measures are described in more
detail below.
Section Major Changes from Final EIR to Final EIR Update
Aesthetics and Visual • Impact VIS-(,associated with height and mass of proposed multi-story structures,would
Resources be reduced from significant and unavoidable under the original project to less than
significant under the revised project.
C Impact VIS-2 and associated measures to mitigate impacts to architectural compatibility
would be reduced and would remain less than significant with incorporation of
mitigation.
• MM VIS-la,MM VIS-lb,MM VIS-2(2)through(4)would no longer apply.
• Residual impacts reduced to less than significant
Cultural Resources e Impact CR-3,associated with alterations to the historic Muzio's Building,would be
reduced and would remain less than significant.
• Impact CR-6,associated with demolition of Shanghai Low Restaurant sign reduced to
less than significant.
• MM CR-3 and MM CR-6 would no longer apply.
Land Use • Impact LU-1,associated with Downtown Plan consistency,would be reduced and would
remain less than significant with incorporation of mitigation.
• Impact LU-2,associated with Land Use Element Policy 4.16.4 consistency,would no
longer apply.
• MM LU-2a through MM LU-2c would no longer a 1 .
Population and • Impact PH-2,associated with removal of existing affordable rental units,would be
Housing reduced and would remain less than significant with incorporation of mitigation.
• MM PH-2 would still apply;however,the minimum affordable housing units to be
provided would be reduced from six to two..
Transportation and • Impact TT-3,associated with pedestrian facilities,would be revised but would remain
Traffic less than significant with incorporation of mitigation.
• Impact TT-7,associated with parking impacts,would be revised but would remain less
than significant with incorporation of mitigation.
• Impact TT-9,associated with parking structure efficiency and safety,would be reduced
and would remain less than significant with incorporation of mitigation.
• MM TT-3 would still apply;however,an additional component,MM TT-3h,has been
included to require a Plaza/Walkway Management Plan.
• MM TT-7a would still apply;however;an additional option to provide additional on-site
spaces rather than in-lieu fees has been included.
• MM TT-9 would still apply;however,the requirement to modify the Monterey Street
Level parking structure layout from the original project plans would no longer a 1 .
Attachment a
Chinatown Project (ER 69-05; 861 Palm Street)
Page 9
Utilities and Public • Impact UT-4,associated with energy consumption,would be reduced and would remain
Services less than significant with incorporation of mitigation.
• Impact UT-6,associated with fire services,would be reduced and would remain less
than significant with incorporation of mitigation.
• MM UT-4a,MM UT-6b,and MM UT-6c would no longer apply.
Significant& Unavoidable Impacts
The EIR concludes that the project will result in significant and unavoidable Class I
environmental impacts in terms of:
• Air quality - from short-term construction emissions of NO,,and long-term mobile emissions
of ROGs, PMio, and NO,, associated with vehicle trips;
• Cultural Resources—possibility that burials associated with Mission San Luis Obispo could
be encountered as a result of subsurface grading and excavation and loss of historic
structures;
• Noise—short-term construction noise.
Therefore, the City would be required to adopt a statement of overriding considerations if it were
to accept the project as submitted. While it is not something that it recommends lightly, staff
does believe that the benefits of the project outweigh the need to make such findings and feels
that it can support recommending the adoption of a statement of overriding considerations for the
following reasons:
Air Quality:
The County of San Luis Obispo is currently in "non-attainment" for the State standards.for ozone
and PMio (fine particulate matter, 10 microns or less in diameter). Increased traffic associated
with the project would incrementally increase the pollutants in the air. Projects proposed for
development in non-attainment areas should adopt all "reasonably available transportation
control measures" to mitigate the impacts associated with new development. This applies to all
new projects within the City's urban reserve. Mitigation strategies recommended, included those
added since the Draft EIR based on a letter received from the local Air Pollution Control District
office, would reduce emissions associated with the proposed project. However, proposed
mitigation measures will not reduce emissions below established SLO APCD thresholds.
Cultural Resources:
Given the project site's proximity to Mission San Luis Obispo, there is the possibility that burials
associated with the Mission could be encountered as a result of subsurface grading and
excavation. Mitigation strategies are in place in the event that burials are encountered that are
consistent with State law and have been reviewed and endorsed by the Cultural Heritage
Committee.
A total of four historically listed buildings, three contributing buildings and one master list
1_:;5 �
Attachment 8
Chinatown Project(ER 69-05; 861 Palm Street)
Page 10
structure, are proposed for demolition to accommodate the proposed project. The proposed
demolitions of these buildings are considered Class I, significant and unavoidable environmental
impacts under CEQA. In addition, the building at 955 Morro Street owned by the City is
proposed for demolition, but is not considered historically significant. The CHC has
recommended demolition of two of those contributing buildings, which are: 861-863 Palm —
Shanghai Low, and 886 Monterey— Bello's. They also recommended that the demolition of the
non-historic 955 Morro.
Prior to making a recommendation on the proposed demolition of the Blackstone Hotel (984-986
Chorro & 840-842-844 Monterey), a contributing structure, and the Sauer Bakery (848 Monterey
Street), a master list structure, the CHC directed that a detailed rehabilitation feasibility analysis
on the two buildings return to them prior to the City Council's review of the Final EIR prepared
for the project. The CHC requested follow-up documentation on the condition of the Blackstone
Hotel and the Sauer Bakery buildings to provide a factual basis for findings that either support or
refute specified grounds for demolition. Mitigation measures are included that call for the reuse of
uncovered building features and/or the reuse of portions of building walls in the project to offset
the impacts of the loss of the resources. With the Sauer Bakery building, there is a mitigation
measure that requires the dismantling and reconstruction of a historic oven in the building as a
project feature or amenity,
Short-term Construction Noise:
The impact relates to short-term construction noise and the proximity of the residential units.
Even with compliance of allowed hours of construction activities per the Noise Ordinance, and
best management practices to attenuate noise to the greatest degree possible, it is anticipated that
noise levels identified in the City's Noise Ordinance will be exceeded.
In terns of overriding public benefits of the project, staff has established the following list,
consistent with General Plan policies and goals:
1. In conformance with the City's General Plan policies and community goals, the project
will maintain and enhance the downtown area as the commercial and social center of the
City by converting surface parking lots to more economically productive uses which
would not be achievable without private capital and investment;
2. The project will provide expansion space for existing businesses and opportunities for
new businesses to locate in the downtown area by creating new retail, restaurant and
office space which produce further tax dollars to keep the downtown economically,
culturally and socially vital and the center of the community;
3. The project will include an on-site, private subterranean parking structure to provide
adequate off-street parking to meet the demand of on,-site uses; and
4. The project will provide housing downtown interspersed with commercial uses to help
balance jobs and housing in the community.
5. The project will provide for improved pedestrian amenities via the project's pedestrian
streets or paseos, and the possibility of future linkages through other sites;
i
Attachment 8
Chinatown Project(ER 69-05; 861 Palm Street)
Page 11
6. The project will improve business synergy by. creating incentives for other property
owners to seek improvements to their own sites, and increasing foot traffic and revenues.
7. The project will incorporate important architectural features of historic structures into the
new construction, including relocation and reconstruction of the historic Sauer Bakery
Oven and the Shanghai Low Restaurant Sign.
This list was developed based on the identification of key features of the project that comply with
General Plan goals for the downtown and benefit the public and the project objectives included
in Section 1.0 of the Final EIR.
ALTERNATIVES
The City has the following options in responding to the conclusions of the EIR:
• Disapprove the project because it has significant environmental effects;
• Require changes in the project to reduce or avoid a significant environmental effect;
• Approve the project despite its significant environmental effects, if the proper findings and
statement of overriding considerations are adopted. An agency is not required to select the
most environmentally superior alternative.
Section 6.0 of he EIR identifies five alternatives to the submitted project which were reviewed by
both the Planning Commission and City Council during development of the scope of the EIR.
As has been mentioned previously, the revised project closely resembles the Protection of Visual
Resources Alternative in the EIR. In forwarding a recommendation on the Final EIR to the City
Council, the Commission may indicate a preference for one of the other alternatives over the
revised project.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The comments and recommendations of various City departments are incorporated into the EIR.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Vicinity Map
Attachment 2: EIR Processing Flow Chart
Attachment 3: Figure 3.3-11 showing existing buildings proposed for demolition
Attachment 4: 10-22-07 CHC Meeting Update
Attachment 5: 2-5-07 ARC meeting update & minutes
Attachment 6: Letter from SLO Chinatown LLC dated 9-18-07
Attachment 7: Draft PC Resolution
Previously distributed- Final EIR
Chinatown\Staffreports\Chinatown Project Final EIR(PC report)
1
CHC Agenda, November 26, 2007 Attachment 9
Page 5
Community Development Director.
3. The proposed windows on the 2nd level that show divided lights shall be `true"
divided light windows, subject to the approval of the Community Development
Director.
4. The Applicant shall provide a chain of title property owner listing as part of photo-
documentation for 783 High Street, to the approval of the Community Development
Director.
The motion carried, 7-0.
Committee member Fowler recused himself due to a potential conflict of interest and left
the meeting.
4. 840, 842, 844 & 848 Monterey Street and 984 & 986 Chorro Street. ARC 69-05;
Review building condition reports and structural analyses for the Blackstone Hotel and
Sauer Bakery buildings related to the proposed Chinatown mixed-use development
project in the Downtown Historic District;C-D-H zone; SLO Chinatown, LLC, applicant.
(Pam Ricci)
Pam Ricci presented the staff report and provided copies of correspondence from four
members of the public. Richard Schmidt (supports retention of the two structures); Bob
Vessely (indicates adaptive re-use hasn't been adequately explored); Jim Lopes (general
comments about the lack of Chinese motif in the development and concern about display
of artifacts discovered during construction); and Betsy Bertrando (indicates a detailed
evaluation of feasibility had not been done and that economics of restoration alone
shouldn't prevail as a reason to demolish the buildings). Architect Mark Rawson gave a
slide presentation showing the condition of the Blackstone Hotel building and the historic
Sauer Bakery building. He noted that both buildings had been modified over time and
appeared to have significant structural damage due to weathering and deferred
maintenance. Laura Luker, architect and Barry Price, archaeologist, were also present,
representing the applicant.
Chairperson Breska opened the public hearing. Dan Krieger, 662 Islay Street, historian
and former CHC member urged the Committee to preserve the historic building facades of
the Blackstone Hotel building and.historic Sauer Bakery building as a "gift to the street."
He briefly described the historic role of the Sauer Bakery and felt the memories and
historic roles of the buildings must be commemorated at all costs. Alex Gough, 964
Chorro Street, showed photos of the two buildings as they looked in the early 2e century,
as the "Quintana Block" building at the corner of Monterey and Chorro, and the original
Sauer Bakery building. He noted he was in favor of the project but felt that to make this
the best project possible, these two buildings must be preserved since the grounds to
demolish them were not justifiable. David Brodie read a statement by Professor Randall
Cruikshanks recommending the buildings be preserved and adaptively reused, and Mr.
Brodie added his own statement about the importance of preserving the buildings as a
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and
activities. Please contact the City Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance.
CHC Agenda, November 26, 2007 Attachment 9
Page 6
critical part of Downtown's urban character and sense of place. He added that the CHC
needs to lend its support and guidance to developers to help preserve historic buildings.
Mr. Brodie also spoke on behalf of Joe Kourakis who felt the buildings should be saved
and adaptively reused. Boz Schrage,1167 Marsh Street, owner of an historic residence
and former CHC member, urged the CHC to be very deliberate and base its decisions on
historic significance and not on economic feasibility. He indicated that the vitality of
Downtown and its sense of historic character are interrelated and asked the Committee to
preserve Downtown's historic character. Allan Cooper, 756 Broad Street, noted that he
had restored a house in worse condition than shown in the slides of the historic buildings,
and on a very limited budget. He felt the lifecycle costs of preservation vs. demolition
were not being considered. He emphasized that historic preservation is a "Green Building"
strategy in that it saves energy and materials and reduces pollution and waste. Pete
Evans questioned the accuracy of the applicant's reports, and noted that although he
didn't support the Chinatown Project, he wanted to see the historic buildings preserved
either way. He agreed with Allan Cooper. He felt the City was becoming "Wal-Mart style"
and was losing its unique character. Elizabeth Abrahams, 335 San Miguel, said that
although the CHC had asked for a detailed rehabilitation study at its last meeting, she saw
no evidence that that study had been provided. She asked why the City appeared to be
rushing to take an action. Bruno Giberti, 3981 Hollyhock, architectural historian and
former CHC member, observed that the two buildings' historical significance was not
under debate. The main question was whether it was structurally or financially feasible to
rehabilitate them. However the questions of structural or economic feasibility had not
been adequately addressed by the applicant. No pro forma was provided to allow a
rational evaluation. He felt the City needs to "raise the bar"on documentation required to
evaluate demolition vs. adaptive reuse. He added that he supports the Chinatown project,
but felt it should build on the Downtown's `Torn historic fabric." These buildings are part of
the City's urban character. Christopher Yip, architectural historian with expertise in
Chinese-American history, said that based on the pictures and reports provided by the.
applicant, one must assume that the historic buildings are restorable. Their size and scale
represent the historic development and urban fabric of Downtown. Joe Abrahams, 335
San Miguel, felt that preserving cultural integrity is critical to maintaining Downtown's
economic integrity. These two buildings can serve as anchors for the revitalization of
Downtown's character. Bob Vessely, 743 Pacific Street, noted that the "detailed feasibility
analysis" requested by the Committee had not been provided. He added that past
structural reports on the buildings had determined they were feasible to rehabilitate. He
noted that some of the holes in floors and walls shown in the slides of the Blackstone
Hotel were ones he had made to do a previous structural evaluation. Paula Carr noted
that the Copelands had purchased these properties knowing they were un-reinforced
masonry buildings and subject to seismic retrofit requirements. She felt one of the her
biggest regrets as a former CHC member is allowing the demolition of the historic
Loobliner Building and urged the Committee not to repeat that mistake. She felt the
buildings could be preserved. She also noted that the applicant could take advantage of
the Historic Building Code to address some of the concerns being expressed with adaptive
reuse of the buildings.
Hearing no further comment, Chairperson Breska closed the public meeting
® The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and
activities. Please contact the City Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance.
CHC Agenda, November 26,2007
Attachment 9
Page 7
Committee member Landwehr said she was convinced the buildings could and should be
saved. We should not repeat the Loobliner Building mistake. Committee member
Wheeler agreed with Committee member Landwehr and added that the information
provided was not adequate to determine rehabilitation feasibility. Committee member
Pavfik felt these structures possessed historic significance and that based on the
Secretary of the Interior Standards, these buildings should be adaptively reused. This is
what the City's General Plan calls for. Committee member Miller can't support the findings
in the staff report to allow building demolition. He felt the Committee's charge was to
preserve historically significant buildings, and that it's not a question of cost, but rather a
question of value. Committee member Crotser appreciated the public comments and
noted that he had a dilemma in determining how much historic fabric was left in these
buildings to enable adaptive reuse. He felt more thorough analysis of the feasibility to
rehabilitate these buildings was needed before the CHC took action. He felt the
Blackstone Hotel building might need "reconstruction" to preserve it. Chairperson Breska
felt the CHC did not get sufficient information to complete its review of the demolition
request of these two buildings.
Committee member Pavlik explained that as part of his motion, he anticipated that the
applicant would do a detailed structural and economic feasibility analysis and that the
CHC would eventually see the results. Consequently, he did not feel it was necessary to
continue the project for more information.
On a motion by Committee member Pavlik, seconded by Committee member Wheeler, the
Committee supported the preservation and rehabilitation of the Blackstone Hotel building
and the historic Sauer Bakery building, their adaptive reuse and incorporation into the
Chinatown Project. The motion carried, 5-1 (Crotser), with Committee member Fowler
absent.
Committee member Fowler returned to the meeting.
COMMUNICATIONS:
A. Agenda Forecast—Staff
Staff gave a brief agenda forecast for the December 17, 2007 CHC meeting. Staff asked
the Committee to consider several Possible dates for a CHC retreat early next year.
Committee members felt February 11 h or March le, 2008 would be suitable dates.
Due to the lateness of the hour, the Committee decided to continue the remaining agenda
items to the December 174' meeting.
B. Historic Survey Status
C. Committee
ADJOURNMENT The CHC adjourned the meeting at 10:00 pm.
® The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and
activities. Please contact the City Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance. �1
council mEmoizanbum
RED FILE RECEIVED
December 17, 2007 _. MEETING AGENDA
DATEITEM #�_ DEC 17 2007
TO: City Council SLO CITY CLERK
FROM: Ken Hampian, City Administrative Office
Bill Statler, Director of Finance & Information Technology
SUBJECT: REVISED CHINATOWN FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
In his review of the initial analysis we distributed on December 13, Council Member Carter
identified an error in the report regarding the formula and related General Fund cost calculations
associated with "residential equivalencies" (Exhibit G-3 of the report). We notified the
consultant of this error. This in tum led the consultant to take a closer look at the all the
calculations, and they found one more similar error in their spreadsheet formulas.
Attached is the revised report reflecting these corrections, summarized as follows:
General Fund Annual Fiscal Impact
Original I Revised Variance COUNCIL ADD DIR
Revenues 798,700 803,700 5,000 'CAO $oFIN DIR
TOT ` 366,000 366,000 0 CATTORNEY ACAO [FIRE CHIS
Sales Tax ` '195,600 195,600 0 W DIR
Property Tax 97,100 97,100 0 CLERK/CRIG POLICEC
Other Revenues " 140,000 145,000 5,000 11 DEPT HEADS REC DIR
��i� �
[Ongoing Costs 206;500 101,400 (105,100) � $rUTILDIR
-
Net Fiscal Impact $592,200 $702,300 $110,100
8UA1 C HR DIR
1• G�cwase
Net of estimated transfers from existing businesses
" With decreased costs, the "net"is higher and this investments earnings rC�lEe�
are higher by$5,000.
As reflected in this summary, the corrections result in an improved General Fund fiscal impact of
$110,000 annually ($702,300 versus the initial result of$592,200).
The Parking Fund analysis is unaffected by these changes.
As discussed previously, Allan Kotin will be making a concise presentation on project fiscal
impacts at the December 18 and will answer any questions that the Council may have about this
revision at that time. In the interim, please call Bill Statler at extension 125 if you have any
questions concerning the revised report.
ATTACHMENT
Revised Chinatown Fiscal Impact Analysis
TAChinatown\Fiscal Impact Study2007thinatown Fiscal Impact Transmittal Memo,vFinal 12-17-07.doc
DKJ1 310. 203900
213.6623.3841
Fax 213.623.4231
Allan D. Kotin &Associates
Real Estate Consulting for Public Private Joint Ventures
949 S. Hope Street, Suite 200, Los Angeles, CA 9001.5 akotin@adkotin.com
Memorandum
TO: Claire Clark, Economic Development Manager, DATE: December 17,2007
City of San Luis Obispo
CC: Shelly Stanwyck,Bill Statler, and Robert Horch
FROM: Ross S. Selvidge and Allan D. Kotin
RE: CHINATOWN FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS—GENERAL FUND AND PARKING FUND
At your request, Allan D. Kotin & Associates in association with CBRE Consulting is pleased to
present this analysis of the potential fiscal impacts of the proposed redevelopment of a portion of the
Chinatown block in downtown San Luis Obispo. The analysis is based primarily on project
information provided by Copelands' Properties as well as financial and other data from several
departments of the City of San Luis Obispo. With respect to the impact of the project on the General
Fund, the approach and format for the fiscal impact follows that used in a similar study for the
proposed San Luis Marketplace in 2002. In this instance, a supplementary analysis of the impact of
the project on the Parking Fund has also been included at the City's request
EXECUTIVE SUND4ARY
Summary Findings
The proposed project, known as `-`Chinatown", consists of 43,750 square feet of retail space, 4,600
square feet of office space, a 67 room hotel with associated meeting space and a 6,000 square foot
restaurant, 36 residential units, and 122 underground parking spaces.
The project should generate a positive annual General Fund net fiscal impact measured at stabilized
operations. In 2007 dollars, annual fiscal revenues are estimated at$803,700. Annual operating costs
of funding the necessary municipal services are estimated at $82,100. This produces an annual
General Fund surplus of $721,600. After an allowance of $19,300 for a share of the City's capital
improvement plan costs, the General Fund's annual net fiscal surplus is estimated at$702,300.
ANNUAL IMPACT ON GENERAL FUND(2007$)
Revenues $803,700
Less Municipal Service Costs8( 2.100)
Net Fiscal Revenues-Operations $7219600
Less Allocation to Capital Improvements1( 9.300)
Net Fiscal Revenues (with Capital) $702,300
Note that these specifications reflect the revised and reduced project description of November 2007, not the larger
project described in the original application.
1 DK
J
1 - 213. 20.0900
213.6623.3841
Fax 213.623.4231
Allan D. Kotin &Associates
Real Estate Consulting for Public Private Joint Ventures
949 S. Hope Street,Suite 200, Los Angeles, CA 9001.5 akotin@adkotin.com
Memorandum
TO: Claire Clark,Economic Development Manager, DATE: December 17, 2007
City of San Luis Obispo
CC: Shelly Stanwyck,Bill Statler,and Robert Horch
FROM: Ross S. Selvidge and Allan D. Kotin
RE: CHINATOWN FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS—GENERAL FUND AND PARKING FUND
At your request, Allan D. Kotin & Associates in association with CBRE Consulting is pleased to
present this analysis of the potential fiscal impacts of the proposed redevelopment of a portion of the
Chinatown block in downtown San Luis Obispo. The analysis is based primarily on project
information provided by Copelands' Properties as well as financial and other data from several
departments of the City of San Luis Obispo. With respect to the impact of the project on the General
Fund, the approach and format for the fiscal impact follows that used in a similar study for the
proposed San Luis Marketplace in 2002. In this instance, a supplementary analysis of the impact of
the project on the Parking Fund has also been included at the City's request
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Summary Findings
The proposed project, known as "Chinatown", consists of 43,750 square feet of retail space, 4,600
square feet of office space, a 67 room hotel with associated meetin� space and a 6,000 square foot
restaurant, 36 residential units, and 122 underground parking spaces.
The project should generate a positive annual General Fund net fiscal impact measured at stabilized
operations. In 2007 dollars, annual fiscal revenues are estimated at$803,700. Annual operating costs
of funding the necessary municipal services are estimated at $82,100. This produces an annual
General Fund surplus of $721,600. After an allowance of $19,300 for a share of the City's capital
improvement plan costs, the General Fund's annual net fiscal surplus is estimated at$702,300.
ANNUAL IMPACT ON GENERAL FUND(2007$)
Revenues $803,700
Less Municipal Service Costs8( 2,100)
Net Fiscal Revenues-Operations $7219600
Less Allocation to Capital Improvements1( 9,300)
Net Fiscal Revenues (with Capital) $7029300
Note that these specifications reflect the revised and reduced project description of November 2007, not the larger
project described in the original application.
I � 1
l
RDK&OI
Memorandum
RE: CHINATOWN FISCAL IMPACT AND PARKING ANALYSIS
Note that these estimates of general fund.impact consider only direct impacts and do not consider the
potential catalytic effect this project may have on other spending and property values in Downtown
San Luis Obispo. This approach is consistent with prior fiscal impact analyses.
Due to the need to compensate for the loss of public parking spaces now provided on the project site
and to provide the additional parking needed for the added project improvements, the project will
have a modest adverse impact on both the operating and capital budgets of the Parking Fund. Part of
the adverse capital impact will be offset by the allocation to the parking fund of a portion of the sales
proceeds the City will realize from the sale of the site to the developer. The parking fund analysis
acknowledges that the project's internal parking requirements are apparently satisfied by the
proposed provision of onsite parking.
ANNUAL IMPACT ON PARKING FUND(2007$)
New Revenues From Transferred Demand $ 16,000
Less Loss in Revenue from Lot Closure24( 2.000)
Net Fiscal Loss from Operations ($226,000)
Less Annual Debt Service for New SpacesZ ($143,000)
Net Fiscal Loss (with Capital Charges) ($369,000)
Categories of General Fund Revenues and Expenditures
The four largest components of the revenues make up more than 82% of the total. The largest of all
is the $366,000 in transient occupancy tax (TOT) generated from the hotel operations. New taxable
retail sales are expected to generate sales and use tax revenue (at 1% of sales) and Measure Y
revenue (at 0.5% of sales) equal to approximately $130,400 and $65,200, respectively. The City's
share of property tax revenue is estimated to be approximately $97,100 based on the expected value
of the new improvements. The remaining $145,000 in revenue is derived from other sources such as
utility and franchise taxes, business license tax, vehicle license fees, and investment earnings.
The three largest components of the new municipal service costs are police protection, general
government and parks and recreation. They constitute more than 73% of the total. Police protection
at $40,200 is the largest new cost with parks and recreation at $7,700 and general government at
$12,200. Street maintenance costs were $5,500. The remaining costs are attributable to flood
protection, transportation planning and several social services and community development
categories.
2 Based on a 30-year bond at 5.5% interest to service a net cost of$2,097,000 which reflects a total cost of$5,869,000
for 144 spaces at$40,900 reduced by$1,832,000 in parking in lieu fees (current rates)and$1,940,000 in allocated land
proceeds. (See Exhibit P-I for details)
Allan D. Kotin&Associates Page 2 12/17/2007
P �
RDK&A
Memorandum
RE: CHINATOWN FISCAL IMPACT AND PARKING ANALYSIS
These municipal service costs are net of any revenues received directly in some of the categories that
offset the gross costs. The amount of these new costs is largely based on the increase in new
residents or new daytime population including residents, employees and hotel guests. Consistent
with prior fiscal impact analyses, no added incremental costs (after revenue recovery for fee-based
services) are shown for fire costs. This is based on two factors: 1) from a staffing perspective, the
City is currently meeting its policy goals for three-person engine companies at all stations at all
times as well as its constant staffing standards; and 2) given the project's location, it is within the
City's four minute response time goal. Accordingly, unless the City changes its fire protection plans
and policies (which are currently under review as part of a strategic planning effort approved in the
2007-09 Financial Plan), no added "net" fire costs are projected to be incurred in serving this
project.
DETAILED SUPPORTING CALCULATIONS—GENERAL FUND
General Fund Summary
Exhibit G-1 presents a summary tabulation of the amount of the annual individual fiscal revenue and
cost components. Exhibits G-2 through G-9 show the detailed derivation of the amounts presented in
Exhibit G-1. Each of the major steps in the analysis associated with these exhibits is discussed
below
General Fund Input Assumptions and Factors
The fiscal impact is based primarily on 1) the project specifications, 2) the number of residents,
employees and hotel guests, and 3) city demographic and fiscal factors. The project description by
use type and area is presented in Exhibit G-2. The use types, areas and parking specifications were
provided by Copelands' Properties and are consistent with the Updated EIR dated November 2007.
Estimates of resident, employee and hotel guest counts are presented in Exhibit G-3 along with the
current City population and number of employees working in the City. Based on average unit
occupancy provided by the City, it is estimated that the project will contain 69 new residents. The
estimate of 222 employees in the project is based on industry average employee densities. The 88
hotel guest person years is based on estimates of the average room occupancy and number of guests
per night per room. The equivalent residents figure of 224 is based on an employee or hotel guest as
being equivalent to 0.50 residents for the purpose of estimating certain municipal costs. That is a
commonly used factor in fiscal analyses.
General Fund Derivation of Specific Taxes
Property Taxes
The property tax revenue derivation is presented in Exhibit G-4. The City's receives approximately
14% of the 1.00% general levy on the assessed value of real estate in the City. The areas of the
Allan D. Kotin&Associates Page 3 12/17/2007
RDK&n
Memorandum
RE: CHINATOWN FISCAL IMPACT AND PARKING ANALYSIS
different project components were multiplied by estimates of their values per square foot (or room
count multiplied by the value per room in the case of the hotel) to determine the assessed value that
would be taxed. The estimated combined assessed value of the residential and non-residential
portions of the project is $79.9 million. That assessed value would initially produce an annual
general levy of $799,000. The City's share would be $111;900. Since current property taxes are
approximately$14,800, the City's net new property tax would equal $97,100.
Sales Taxes
The City will receive sales tax revenue equal to 1.00% of the taxable sales that will occur on the
project site. Exhibit G-5 presents the derivation of the estimated taxable retail sales that will be
generated by the project and the net tax the City will receive. The estimates of sales per square foot
prepared by Copelands' Properties and are within a range that is considered reasonable. It is
estimated that there will be$19.6 million in annual taxable sales at the project. This is approximately
a 20% to 25% increase in taxable retail sales in the downtown area. Given that scale of additional
retail sales in the downtown area, there will be some transfer of sales from existing retailers, at least
initially. Given the amount and character of the existing retail sales, it is estimated that the transfer
will initially be in the range of 25% of sales at the project. That transfer may decrease over time as
retail demand grows. The existing retailers project site that will be displaced currently generate
$17,000 in annual sales tax for the City. Adjusting for the transfer effect and existing taxable sales
on the project site, it is estimated that the City will receive a net increase of $130,400 in sales tax
revenue. The City will also receive Measure Y revenue equal to 0.50% of the net new taxable retail
sales or$65,400.
Hotel Taxes
The derivation of the impacts from the hotel operations are presented in Exhibit G-6. The annual
daily room rate, occupancy levels and estimated spending on food and beverages used were
provided by PKF Consulting, a specialist in the hospitality industry. Based on the level of
competition for the proposed hotel and the growth in hotel demand projected byPKF Consulting, it
is estimated that upon stabilization, approximately 15% of the hotel's business will be transfers from
existing hotels. Net of the transfer effect, it is estimated that the hotel will produce $366,000 in TOT
(Transient Occupancy Tax), $2.6 million in taxable spending, and $623,000 in other spending.
Other Revenues
A derivation of the business license tax, real property transfer tax and vehicle license fee swap
revenue is presented in Exhibit &7. The business license tax is essentially a tax on the receipts of
businesses. The rate is 0.05% of gross receipts. Based on estimates of the gross receipts (after
transfer effects) for the businesses in the project, the City can expect to receive $10,300 in annual
business license tax.
Allan D. Kotin&Associates Page 4 12/17/2007
RDK&%1
Memorandum
RE: CHINATOWN FISCAL IMPACT AND PARKING ANALYSIS
The City will receive a real property transfer tax equal to 0.055% of the value of real estate sold each
year in the project. Each residential unit is assumed to sell at an average eight year interval. Based
on the value of the residential components, this would produce approximately $2,200 in annual real
property transfer tax revenue for the City. The non-residential portions of the project would sell at
irregular intervals that make it too speculative to include in this projection.
The vehicle license fee swap revenue is based on the annual percent increase in the City's assessed
value. The project would constitute approximately a 1.28% increase in the assessed value in the
City. This would produce a$48,400 increase in the City's annual vehicle license fee swap revenue.
A summary tabulation of the factors by which the different revenue and municipal cost line items are
estimated is presented in Exhibit G-8. These are consistent with common practices in fiscal analyses
and the previous fiscal analysis conducted in 2002 for the San Luis Marketplace.
General Fund Derivation of Estimated Expenditures
The derivation of the municipal cost factors and several revenue factors are presented in Exhibit G-
9. These factor derivations are based on cost and revenue patterns in the City's 2007-2009 Financial
Plan budget. In the case of some of the cost categories, there are offsetting revenues that reduce the
gross costs on which the factors are based. These factors are combined with other parameters such as
the project's new residents or new equivalent residents to obtain a category's cost for the project.
DETAILED SUPPORTING CALCULATIONS—PARKING FUND
Parking Fund Calculations -Summary
According to the City parking regulations, the project will create a parking demand for a total of 206
spaces. The residential component will require 43 parking spaces while the hotel, restaurant, retail,
and office components will require 163 spaces. According to the City code, existing uses on the
project site constitute a demand for 95 spaces. Consequently, the project will produce a net increase
in demand of 111 spaces.
The project site currently has 155 public and private parking spaces. Those 155 spaces will be lost
with the development of the project. Upon completion, the project will provide 122 parking spaces
on-site in an underground parking garage and on the surface. Given the net new demand, there will
be a parking deficit of 144 spaces.
Project Demand 206
Less Existing Demand (95)
Plus: Existing Parking Lost 155
Less: New Parking Provided (1122)
Parking Deficit 144
Allan D. Kotin&Associates Page 5 12/17/2007
RDK&R
Memorandum
RE: CHINATOWN FISCAL IMPACT AND PARKING ANALYSIS
The potential annual financial impact to the City of this plan would equal the net revenues from the
143 space City parking lots on the project site that would be lost with an offset for any increased
utilization of existing or new City-owned lots or structures (and thus net revenues) resulting from
those facilities absorbing all or part of the parking deficit demand. The annual net revenue lost from
the 143-space City lots is estimated at $242,000. If all the parking deficit demand were to relocate to
existing or new facilities, the net increase in City revenues is estimated at approximately $16,000.
This would produce an overall annual loss of approximately$226,000 for the City.
The net capital cost of providing spaces to eliminate the 144 space parking deficit is equal to the cost
of the structure less the parking in lieu fee that would be levied and allocated proceeds from the sale
of land. The cost including land to provide a parking in the vicinity of the project is estimated at
$40,900 per space or approximately$5.9 million for the entire deficit.
The City's $12,767 fee per deficit space would offset $1.8 million of that cost. Further offsetting the
cost with the $1.9 million in proceeds from the sale of the two City-owned lots on the project site
leaves a net cost of approximately $2.1 million. In the current capital markets, that cost could be
financed over 30 years at an annual cost of approximately$143,000.
Parking Fund - Supporting Calculations
Combining the annual operating deficit produced by the elimination of the two City-owned lots with
the annual burden of the net capital cost of providing parking spaces to offset the parking shortfall,
produces an annual deficit of$369,000. The derivation of this figure is presented in Exhibit P-1. The
details behind the derivation in Exhibit.P-1 are presented in Exhibit P-2 through P-5.
As shown in Exhibit P-2, the two existing City-owned parking lots on the project site contain 143
spaces (excluding a loading zone) and generate approximately $242,000 in annual net revenue. The
"net" revenue is estimated at $110 per space, based on the detailed analysis of structure revenues
and costs that already developed by City staff as part of the parking fund review in May 2007.
The derivation of the parking demand for the project is presented in Exhibit P-3. The residential
derived parking demand of 43 spaces for the residential component and 163 spaces for the remainder
of the project is consistent with the demand derived in Final Updated EIR. The existing buildings
and improvements on the project site would require 95 parking spaces according to the City's
parking regulations. A credit against the demand for the proposed project is allowed for the demand
from the existing uses. The net increase of 111 spaces in the parking requirements for the project site
is satisfied by the 122 spaces to be provided in the project.
Exhibit P-4 presents the derivation of the current 95 space demand for the existing uses on the
project site. It also presents an additional derivation of the parking requirements for the residential
component of the project. The specifications of the project by component and the amount of parking
provided are presented in Exhibit P-5.
Allan D. Kotin&Associates Page 6 12/17/2007
RDIGSI
Memorandum
RE: CHINATOWN FISCAL IMPACT AND PARKING ANALYSIS
EXHIBIT G-1
SAN LUIS OBISPO - CHINATOWN PROJECT
ANNUAL FISCAL REVENUES AND COSTS (2007$)
Percent Source
Amount of Total Exhibit(s)
Annual Revenues
Sales and Use Tax 130,400 16.2% G-5
Measure Y 65,200 8.1% G-5
Property Tax 97,100 12.1% G-4
Transient Occupancy Tax 366,000 45.5% G-6
Real Property Transfer Tax 2,200 0.3% G-7
Utility Users Tax 29,200 3.6% G-9
Utility Franchises 15,900 2.0% G-9
Business License Tax 10,300 1.3% G-7
Gasoline Tax 1,300 0.2% G-3&G-8
Vehicle License Fee/VLF Swap 48,400 6.0% G-7
Other Revenues 100 0.0% G-9
Investment Earnings 37,600 4.7% G-8
Total $803,700 100.0%
Annual Municipal Service Costs
Public Safety
Police Protection $40,200 49.0% G-3&G-8
Transportation
Transportation_Planning 2,700 3.3% G-3&G-8
Streets Maintenance 5,500 6.7% G-3&G-8
Flood Protection 2;400 2.9% G-3&G-8
Leisure, Cultural and Social Services
Parks & Recreation 7,700 9.4% G-8&G-9
Cultural Services 600 0.7% G-3&G-8
Social Services 300 0.4% G-3&G-8
Community Development
Planning and Building 1,500 1.8% G-3&G-8
Natural Resource Protection 1,200 1.5% G-3&G-8
Engineering 5,600 6.8% G-3&G-8
Community Promotion 1,500 1.8% G-3&G-8
Economic Development 700 0.9% G-3&G-8
General Government 12,200 14.9% G-8
Total $82,100 100.0%
Net Recurring Operating Surplus $721,600
Capital Improvement Plan Costs $19,300 G-3&G-8
Net Fiscal Impact $702,300
Allan D. Kotin& Associates Page 7 12/17/2007
RDK&IN
Memorandum
RE: CHINATOWN FISCAL IMPACT AND PARKING ANALYSIS
EXHIBIT G-2
SAN LUIS OBISPO-CHINATOWN PROJECT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Hotel Residential TOTAL Parking
Level Retail Restaurant Office Sq Ft Rooms Sq Ft Units SO FT Sq Ft Spaces
Monterey 14,200 6,000 8,500 26,000 60
4,600 7,500 2,400
18,800 6,000 16,000 28,400 60
Plaza 7,450 4,600 15,000 13 28,000 62
Palm 3,900 14,500 27 10,400 10
2,900 4,000
7,600 3,000
1,200
1,000
900
17,500 21,500 27 10,400 10
Palm 2 14,500 27 25,470 16
Palm 3 21,700 10
Total 43,750 6,000 4,600 67,000 67 57,570 36 178,920 56,400 122
Source:Copelands'Properties
Allan D. Kotin&Associates Page 8 12/17/2007
-R DKJ1
Memorandum
RE:CHINATOWN FISCAL IMPACT AND PARKING ANALYSIS
EXHIBIT G-3
SAN LUIS OBISPO -CHINATOWN PROJECT
PROJECT AND CITY DATA
CITYWIDE
Residents 44,440
Employees 39,000
Equivalent Residents Resident
Residents or Equivalent Equivalent
Employees Factor Residents
Residents 44,440 100% 44,440
Employees 39,000 50% 19,500
Total 63,940
Non-Residential Improvements
Square Feet 8,030,000
PROJECT Units Per Unit Total
RESIDENTS
Amount 36 1.92 69
SF Per Employees Total
Sq Ft Employee Rooms Per Room Employees
EMPLOYMENT
Retail 43,750 500 88
Restaurant 6,000 125 48
Office 4,600 250 18
Hotel 67,000 67 1 67
Residential 57,570 1
Total 178,920 222
HOTEL GUESTS
Guest Days 32,100
Hotel Guest Person Years 88
Resident
Residents or Equivalent Equivalent
Employees Factor Residents
EQUIVALENT RESIDENTS
Residents 69 100% 69
Employees 222 50% 111
Hotel Guest Person Years 88 50% 44
Total 224
Source: CBRE Consulting and City of San Luis Obispo
Allan D. Kotin&Associates Page 9 12/17/2007
. . RDK&R
Memorandum
RE: CHINATOWN FISCAL IMPACT AND PARKING ANALYSIS
EXHIBIT G-4
SAN LUIS OBISPO- CHINATOWN PROJECT
PROPERTY TAX
Assessed Value Property Tax
Square Feet Units or PSF or General
Unit/Room Total Rooms Room Total Levy City Share
NEW PROPERTY TAX
RETAIL
Monterey 18,800 $375 $7,050,000 $70,500 $9,900
Plaza 7,450 375 2,794,000 27,940 3,900
Palm 17,500 375 6,563,000 65,630 9,200
Subtotal 43,750 $16,407,000 $164,070 $23,000
RESTAURANT 6,000 In Hotel
OFFICE 4,600 $375 $1,725,000 $17,250 $2,400
HOTEL 1,000 67,000 67 $450,000 $30,150,000 $301,500 $42,200
RESIDENTIAL 1,599 57,570 36 $550 $31,664,000 $316,640 $44,300
COMBINED $79,946,000 $799,460 $111,900
EXISTING PROPERTY TAX
Amount $10,550,000 $105,500 $14,800
NET NEW PROPERTY TAX $69,396,000 $693,960 $97,100
Amount
Notes: 1.Assessed value estimates provided by Copelands'Properties
2.Existing assessed vaue provided by City of San Luis Obispo
Allan D. Kotin&Associates Page 10 12/17/2007
�l
RDK&R
Memorandum
RE: CHINATOWN FISCAL IMPACT AND PARKING ANALYSIS
EXHIBIT G-5
SAN LUIS OBISPO - CHINATOWN PROJECT
SALES TAX
Sales Taxable Sales Sales
Sq Ft PSF Total Percent Total Tax
NEW SALES TAX
RETAIL
Monterey 14,200 500 $7,100,000 100% $7,100,000 $71,000
4,600 500 2,300,000 100% 2,300,000 23,000
18,800 $9,400,000 $9,400,000 $94,000
Plaza 7,450 500 $3,725,000 100% $3,725,000 $37,300
Palm 3,900 200 $780,000 100% $780,000 $7,800
2,900 200 580,000 100% 580,000 5,800
7,600 200 1,520,000 100% 1,520,000 15,200
1,200 200 240,000 100% 240,000 2,400
1,000 200 200,000 100% 200,000 2,000
900 200 180,000 100% 180,000 1,800
17,500 $3,500,000 $3,500,000 $35,000
Subtotal 43,750 380 $16,625,000 $16,625,000 $166,300
RESTAURANT
Monterey 6,000 In Hotel
HOTEL FOOD&BEVERAGE $3,017,000 100% $3,017,000 $30,200
COMBINED 49,750 $19,642,000 $19,642,000 $196,500
NET OF TRANSFER FROM OTHER SLO RETAILERS
Transfer Factor 25% $14,731,500 $14,731,500 $147,400
EXISTING SALES TAX
Amount $1,700,000 100% $1.700,000 $17,000
NET NEW SALES TAX $13,031,500 $13,031,500 $130,400
NET NEW MEASURE Y TAX $65,200
Notes: 1. Retail sales estimates provided by Copelands' Properties
2.Transfer factor estimated by CBRE Consulting
3. Existing sales on project site provided by City of San Luis Obispo
Tax Rates
Sales Tax 1.00%
Measure Y 0.50%
Allan D. Kotin&Associates Page 11 12/17/2007
RDKJ1
Memorandum
RE: CHINATOWN FISCAL IMPACT AND PARKING ANALYSIS
EXHIBIT G-6
SAN LUIS OBISPO - CHINATOWN PROJECT
HOTEL OPERATIONS
Specifications
Square Feet 67,000
Rooms
Number 67
SF Per Room 1,000
Rooms
Average Daily Rate $235
Occupancy 75%
Annual Revenue $4,310,000
Number of Guests
Guests Per Room 1.75
Guest Days Per Year 32,100
Person Years 88
Transient Occupancy Tax
Rate 10%
Amount $431,000
Food & Beverage Spending
Percent of Room Revenue 70%
Amount $3,017,000
Other Revenues
Percent of Room and F&B 10%
Amount $733,000
Net of Transfer From Other SLO Hotels
Transfer Factor 15%
Net New
Room Revenue $3,663,500
Transient Occupancy Tax 366,000
Food & Beverage Spending 2,564,000
Other Revenues 623,000
Notes: 1. Hotel operations estimates provided by PKF Consulting
2.Transfer factor estimated by CBRE Consulting
Allan D. Kotin&Associates Page 12 12/17/2007
RDK&OI
Memorandum
RE: CHINATOWN FISCAL IMPACT AND PARKING ANALYSIS
EXHIBIT G-7
SAN LUIS OBISPO - CHINATOWN PROJECT
OTHER REVENUES
BUSINESS LICENSE TAX
PSF Total
Net New Gross receipts
Retail $262 $13,031,500
Office 150 690,000
Hotel & Restaurant 102 6,850,500
Combined $20,572,000
Business License Tax
Rate 0.05%
Amount $10,300
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX
Residential Property Value $31,664,000
Annual Trunover
Average Holding Interval in Years 8
Percent Sold Each Year 12.50%
Value $3,958,000
Transfer Tax
Rate 0.0550%
Amount $2,200
VEHICLE LICENSE FEE
Current Assessed Value $5,419,334,000
Current VLF Revenue 3,781,900
Assessed Value Added by Project
Amount $69,396,000
Percent Increase 1.2805%
New VLF Revenue from AV Increase
Amount $48,400
Source: CBRE Consulting and City of San Luis Obispo 2007-2009 Financial Plan
Allan D.Kotin&Associates Page 13 12/17/2007
R D KIR
Memorandum
RE: CHINATOWN FISCAL IMPACT AND PARKING ANALYSIS
EXHIBIT G-8
SAN LUIS OBISPO -CHINATOWN PROJECT
REVENUE AND COST ESTIMATION FACTORS
Revenue Factors
Property tax allocation to City 14.0% Percent of General Levy
Direct sales tax rate 1.0% Percent of Taxable Sales
Measure Y tax rate 0.5% Percent of Taxable Sales
Transient occupancy tax 10.0% Percent of Room Receipts
Real property transfer tax 0.055% Percent of Annual Residential Sales
Utility franchises Per Capita and SF of Non-Residential
Utility users tax Per Capita and SF of Non-Residential
Business license tax 0.05% Percent of Gross Receipts
Gasoline Tax $18.65 Per Resident
Vehicle License Fee Percent Increase in Assessed Value
Other revenues $1.69 Per Resident
Investment and property 5.5% of other revenue factors minus cost factors
Cost Factors
Public Safety
Police protection $179.36 Per Equivalent Resident
Transportation
Transportation planning 12.20 Per Equivalent Resident
Streets maintenance 24.76 Per Equivalent Resident
Flood Protection 10.71 Per Equivalent Resident
Leisure, Cultural and Social Services
Parks& Recreation 112.04 Per Resident
Cultural services 8.19 Per Resident
Social services 4.59 Per Resident
Community Development
Planning and building 6.91 Per Equivalent Resident
Natural resource protection 5.51 Per Equivalent Resident
Engineering 25.10 Per Equivalent Resident
Community promotion 6.62 Per Equivalent Resident
Economic development 3.27 Per Equivalent Resident
General government 13.7% Percent of Other Costs& Capital Plan
Capital improvement plan 86.10 Per Equivalent Resident
Source:CBRE Consulting and City of San Luis Obispo 2007-2009 Financial Plan
Allan D. Kotin&Associates Page 14 12/17/2007
-RDK&R
Memorandum
RE: CHINATOWN FISCAL IMPACT AND PARKING ANALYSIS
EXHIBIT G-9
SAN LUIS OBISPO-CHINATOWN PROJECT
FISCAL REVENUE AND COST FACTORS
PART 1 OF 3 -General Fund Expenditure Relationships
Service Cost 2007-2008 Functional Cost Unit
See Nates Relationship Cost Revenues(l) Net Cost Base Cost
Public Safety
Police protection Equiv Res $12,699,000 $1,231,000 $11,468,000 63,940 $179.36
Fire&environ safety 9,918,000 836,000 9,082,000
Transportation
Transportation planning Equiv Res 801,000 21,000 780,000 63,940 12.20
Streets Equiv Res 1,614,000 31,000 1,583,000 63,940 24.76
Flood protection Equiv Res 788,000 103,000 685,000 63,940 10.71
Leisure,Cultural&Social Services
Parks&recreation Per Capita 6,012,000 1,033,000 4,979,000 44,440 112.04
Cultural services Per Capita 364,000 0 364,000 44,440 8.19
Social services Per Capita 204,000 0 204,000 44,440 4.59
Community Development
Planning&building Equiv Res 2,712,000 2,270,000 442,000 63,940 6.91
Natural resource protection Equiv Res 352,000 352,000 63,940 5.51
Engineering Equiv Res 2,055,000 450,000 1,605,000 63,940 25.10
Community promotion Equiv Res 423,000 423,000 63,940 6.62
Economic development Equiv Res 209,000 209,000 63,940 3.27
General Government 2 Cost Ratio 7,181,000 249,000 6,932,000 na I na
Total Operating Programs 45,332,000 6,224,000 39,108,000
Capital Improvement Plan(3) Equiv Res 5,505,000 5,505,000 63,940 86.10
Debt Service n.a. 1,464,400 1,464,400 n.a. n.a.
TOTAL 52,301,400 6,224,000 46,077,400
Notes
1. "Functional"revenues are deducted to arrive at a"net cost"to be supported from general purpose revenues
2. General government costs will be incurred in proportion to total direct costs
3. CIP costs are based on the four year average General Fund contribution for"capital maintenance"costs:
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Average
Total $2,837,900 $3,012,500 $8,479,700 $7,690,000 $5,505,000
4. No future General Fund debt service costs are projected as a result of the Chinatown project
Allan D. Kotin&Associates Page 15 12/17/2007
RDK&A
Memorandum
RE: CHINATOWN FISCAL IMPACT AND PARKING ANALYSIS
EXHIBIT G-9
SAN LUIS OBISPO-CHINATOWN PROJECT
FISCAL REVENUE AND COST FACTORS
PART 2 OF 3-General Fund Revenue Relationships
2007-03
Source Revenue Relationship Revenues
Taxes
Sales tax--General Percent of Retail Sales $ 14,032,000
Measure Y Percent of Retail Sales 5,100,000
Sales tax--Prop 172 Functional revenue--police protection 333,000
Property tax Percent of Assessed value 8,771,000
Transient occupancy tax Percent of Room Revenues 5,007,000
Utility users tax Percent of Utility Usage 4,188,000
Franchise fee Percent of Utility Usage 2,288,000
Business tax Percent of Gross Revenues 1,699,000
Real property transfer tax Percent of Value of Real Estate Sold 350,000
Fines&forfeitures Functional revenue--police protection 224,000
Investment&property Estimated as percent of any net annual fiscal impact 716,000
Subventions&grants
Motor vehicle in lieu Increases at rate of increase in assessed value 3,782,000
Gasoline tax Per capita 829,000
TDA Functional revenue--transportation planning 21,000
Homeowners subvention Not applicable to annexation under current City/County agreement 88,000
Other in-lieu taxes Existing agreements--no direct relationship to annexation area 16,000
SB 90 reimbursements Functional revenue--general government
Police training(POST) Functional revenue--police protection 70,000
COPS grant Functional revenue--police protection 100,000
OTS Grant 179,000
School resource officer Functional revenue--police protection -
Maint of State highways Functional revenue--streets 31,000
Zone 9 revenues Functional revenue--creek&flood protection 103,000
Other grants No relationship to Chinatown project 22,000
Service charges
Police protection Functional revenue 325,000
Fire&environ safety Functional revenue 836,000
Transportation Functional revenue -
Community development
Planning&building Functional revenue 2,270,000
Engineering Functional revenue 450,000
Leisure,cult& soc sery Functional revenue 1,033,000
General government Functional revenue 249,000
Other revenues Per Capita 75,000
Total Revenues $ 53,187,000
Source:City of San Luis Obispo 2007-2009 Financial Plan
Allan D. Kotin&Associates Page 16 12/17/2007
D K&A
Memorandum
RE: CHINATOWN FISCAL IMPACT AND PARKING ANALYSIS
PART 3 OF 3 -Other General Fund Revenue
Utility Users Tax
Estimated at 60%of revenues from residential uses and 40%from non-residential uses.
Revenue Revenue 2007-2008 Revenue Unit
Relationship Base Percent I Amount. Revenue
Residential Per capita 44,440 60% $2,512,800 $56.54
Non-Residential Per sq ft 8,030,000 40% 1,675,200 0.21
Total Revenue
Residential 69 $3,900
Non-Residential 121,350 25,300
Total $29,200
Franchise Fees
Estimated at 60%of revenues from residential uses and 40%from non-residential uses.
Revenue Revenue 2007-2008 Revenue Unit
Relationship Base Percent Amount Revenue
Residential Per capita 44,440 60% $1,372,800 $30.89
Non-Residential Per 1000 sq ft 8,030,000 40% 915,200 0.11
Total Revenue
Residential 69 $2,100
Non-Residential 121,350 13,800
Total $15,900
Gasoline Tax
Revenues estimated based on population:
2007-2008 Revenue Unit
Revenue Base Revenue
Gasoline tax $ 829,0001 44,440 $ 18.65
Other Revenues 2007-2008 1 Revenue Unit
Revenue Bai I Revenue
$ 75,000 1 44,4401 $ 1.69
Residential 69 $100
Source:City of San Luis Obispo 2007-2009 Financial Plan
Allan D. Kotin&Associates Page 17 12/17/2007
1
Memorandum
RE: CHINATOWN FISCAL IMPACT AND PARKING ANALYSIS
EXHIBIT P-1 SAN LUIS OBISPO - CHINATOWN PARKING COST SUMMARY
Required Parking
Project Parking Requirements 206
Less Credit for Existing Improvements 95
BASELINE New Parking Required 111
ANALYSIS OF Required vs.Provided Parking
Parking Provided in Project 122
PARKING GAINED Less New Parking Required 111
AND LOST Surplus or(Deficit) 12
Full.Parking Impact of Project
Surplus or(Deficit) 12
Less tot 3 and 11 Spaces Lost 143
Less Other Spaces Lost 12
Full Surplus or(Deficit) (144)
Annual Net Revenue Per Deficit Parking Space Relocated $110
OPERATING COST Lots 3&11 Annual Net Revenue Lost ($242.000)
IMPACT ASSUMING Estimated Revenue Impact of Relocating Deficit Parking
Annual Net Revenue Per Space $110
NEW PARKING New Annual Not Income 16,000
CONSTRUCTED Combined
Existing Lots and Structures ($242,000)
Deficit Spaces Located to New Structures 16,000
Total ($226,000)
Full Parking Deficit Before Any Relocation 144
ANNUAL AMORTIZED Cost Per Deficit Space Relocated to New Structure $40,900
Total Cost for New Structured Spaces Required 5,869,000
COST OF
Parking In Lieu Fee(Based on Current Fee)
PROVIDING Per Deficit Space $12,767
Total 1,832,000
144
Offsets to Cost for Land Purchase Price 1,940,000
ADDITIONAL SPACES
Net Cost After Impact Fees and Purchase.Price Offsets 2,097,000
Annual Amortized Cost
Bond Constant Factor(5.5%interest and 30 years) 6.81%
Amount $143,000
COMBINED COST IF Annual Operations ($226.000)
ADDITIONAL SPACES Annual Amortized Capital Cost (143,000)
ARE TO BE BUILT Total ($369,000)
Notes:
1.Operating and capital cost assumptions from City of San Luis Obispo
2..Demand is based on parking analysis provided in the updated project EIR
3 Annual net revenue per parking space based on prorated cost of new structure per William Steller
from City parking review in May 2007
Allan D. Kotin&Associates Page 18 12/17/2007
RDK&R
Memorandum
RE: CHINATOWN FISCAL IMPACT AND PARKING ANALYSIS
EXHIBIT P-2 PARKING OPERATING REVENUES AND COSTS
Exfisting Surface Lot Operating Revenues and Costs
Annual Gross Revenues Annual Annual Net Revenue
Surface Lots Spaces Meter Fines Total Expenses Total Per Space
Metered
Lot 3 79 $39,785 $104,421 $144,206
Lot 11 64 37,064 74,037 111,101
Total 143 $76,849 $178,458 $255,307 $13,200 $242,000 $1,692
Unmetered
Total 12
Parking Structure Operating Revenues and Costs(See Note)
Revenues 1,134,400
Operating and Maintenance Costs 1,004,600
Net Revenue 129,800
Total Structure Spaces 1,179
Net Revenue Per Space $110
Note. Based on revenue and cost analysis by activity presented to the Council on May 31,2007 as part of the
Parking Enterprise Fund review for 2007-09
Source:City of San Luis Obispo Parking Services
Allan D. Kotin&Associates Page 19 12/17/2007
. fit DKJ1
Memorandum
RE: CHINATOWN FISCAL IMPACT AND PARKING ANALYSIS
EXHIBIT P-3 COMPUTED PARKING STATUS
Sq Ft of
Project Project Spaces Units Per
Sq Ft Units Per Space Per Unit Space Total
Proposed Development
Apartments
Residents 36 1 36
Guests 36 5 7
Hotel
Rooms 67 0.50 34
Meeting 3,000 350 9
Lounge 1,600 350 5
Manager 1
Retail 43,750 500 88
Restaurant 6,000 350 17
Office 4,600 500 9
Total 58,950 139 206
Credit for Existing Buildings (95)
New Parking Required After Credit for Existing Buildings 111
Parking Provided On Site 122
Surplus or (Deficit) 11
Source: Copelands' Properties
Allan D. Kotin&Associates Page 20 12/17/2007
RDIGR
Memorandum
RE: CHINATOWN FISCAL IMPACT AND PARKING ANALYSIS
EXHIBIT P-4 REQUIRED PARKING FOR EXISTING AND PROPOSED
NEW IMPROVEMENTS ON SITE
Blackstone Sauer Muzio 955
Hotel Building Building Bello's Morro Yung Total
Apartments 15 0 6 7 0 0 28
Hotel 17 0 0 0 0 0 17
Retail 0 20 10 0 0 0 30
Restaurant 0 0 0 0 0 5 5
Office 0 0 0 0 11 4 15
Total 32 20 16 7 11 9 95
REQUIRED PARKING FOR PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL
Unit Type
Live/
2 Br 3 Br 4 Br Work Total
Palm Level 6 0 0 4 10
Palm Level 2 10 6 0 0 16
Palm Level 3 1 8 1 0 10
Total 17 14 1 4 36
Source: Copelands' Properties and City of San Luis Obispo
Allan D. Kotin& Associates Pagc 21 12/17/2007
RDK&II
Memorandum
RE: CHINATOWN FISCAL IMPACT AND PARKING ANALYSIS
EXHIBIT P-5 CHINATOWN - SAN LUIS OBISPO
PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS
Hotel Residential Parking
Level Retail Restaurant Office Sq Ft Rooms Sq Ft Units Sq Ft Spaces
Monterey 14,200 6,000 8,500 26,000 60
4,600 7,500 2,400
18,800 6,000 16,000 28,400 60
Plaza 7,450 4,600 15,000 13 28,000 62
Palm 3,900 14,500 27 10,400 10
2,900 4,000
7,600 3,000
1,200
1,000
900
Subtotal 17,500 21,500 27 10,400 10
Palm 2 14,500 27 25,470 16
Palm 3 21,700 10
Total 43,750 6,000 4,600 67,000 67 57,570 36 56,400 122
Source:Copelands'Properties
Allan D. Kotin&Associates Page 22 12/17/2007
RED FILE
RECEIVED
MEETING AGENDA Luther Berrrando DEC 17 2001
DAT ITEM #-px4( 267 Foothill Blvd.
San Luis Obispo,CA 93405 SLO CITY CLERK
December 17,2007
r,r,,.ATT,,NEY
TCDD DIR
City Council,City of San Luis Obispo LPFIN DIR
990 Palm Street °FIRE CHIEF
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 PW DIR
I POL CE CHF
DEPT HEADS rPOL DIR
Re:Chinatown Project, Final Environmental Impact Report UTIL DIR
�—' HR DIR
Dear City Council; �ounrGrC
)- G4v
In reviewing the Final Update for the Environmental Impact Report for the Chinatown Project, I t- C Leer.
have a concern about the conclusion arrived under 3.3 Cultural Resources CR-3 summarized on
page 4-34 of that report. I am notable to understand how the conclusion was reached that
impacts would be less than significant.
The design of the project,especially as depicted in Figure 2.2-3, indicates that the Muzio
Building will essentially be encapsulated over most of the bottom floor with a large retail area
and two stairways,abutting the existing building, leading to a second level. This design
contradicts the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties,
standards 2,3,4,6,9,and 10. These standards may be found on page 7 of the City of San Luis
Obispo Historic Preservation Guidelines dated May 2007.
The rational of declaring the rear exterior stairway as not significant,see page 3.3-41 of the Final
Environmental Report for the Chinatown Project,is especially contradictory to standard 4
which states"Most properties change over time;those changes that have acquired historic
significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved." As stated on page 3.3-41,
"However the building was designed so that the second floor could only be accessed via the reef
exterior doors." This fact indicates that the rear exterior stairway was the only way to access the
second floor,both historically and currently,and is an integral part of the building and therefore a
historic resource.
The project's design also destroys the"related landscape features and the building's site and
environment"(htti)://www.nos.gov/history/hps/ips/t-Iyrhb/stand.htm),emphasis mine. To retain
its historic significance the Muzio Building must stand apart from the project, see Standard 9. If
it doesn't it loses its significance as a historic building and would therefore not be eligible for the
City's Master List or the Mills Act.
I realize that incorporating a historical resource into such a large project is a difficult task, but the
guidelines the City has developed and adopted,should be respected and used as a tool to guide
the design of a project. Thank you for considering my concerns.
Sincerely,
1W40 le
ther Be do
Page 1 of 1
Council,SloCity
From: Victoria&John Grostick[victoriagrostick@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Fri 12/ 12007 10:17 AM
To: Council,SloCity
RECEIVED
Cc:
Subject: Upcoming City Council Meeting, Dec. 18th DEC 17 2007
Attachments. SLO CITY CLERK
Dear Members of the City Council,
I would like to take the opportunity, before the council meeting on Tuesday, DEC. 18Th,to address a few concerns of mine as
and active member of Save Our Downtown.
I am hoping you will give the members that plan to speak at the meeting your full attention in regards to the EIR for
the Chinatown project regarding the demolition of the historic buildings(Blackstone Hotel and Sauer Bakery)on the stated site. As
one of our members so eloquently states,It is not expressly the buildings but the history attached to them that can never be
regained.
My own personal concern is the amount of parking that will be lost. As a woman parking on her own, either at night or in the
day time, underground parking is something I stay strictly away from. I feel much more comfortable with above ground parking in
lighted areas. It is also hard enough to find parking without loosing 144 spots. The developer paying Iui will not solve this
problem.
We citizens love our SLO-town and although we want to see progress,we want it to subtle and kind to the environment and
attractive to tourist as well as ourselves.
I hope you will take this in consideration when you approve the EIR.
Thank you for your time.
COUNCIL TCDD DIR
With respect and appreciation, CAOFIN D:'
ACAO (•FIRE Ci;iEF
Victoria Grostick PATTORNEY VC
DI,;
1730 Corralitos Ave. CLERK/ORIG LICE CHP
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 DEPT HEADS DIR
805 5447988 u,rIL DIR
C �f� HR DIR
Y (►v�K G CL
v-
x ccs
RED FILE
(MEETING AGENDA
DA a 07 ITEM # RE
https://mai1.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycouncil/Inbox/Upcoming%2OCity%20Council%2... 12/17/2007
aRED FILE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
MEETING AGENDA
�a
DA ITEM #2J+–(— DEC 1 8 2007
IT
Rosemarie McKeen Carrington - -- ---
1743 Southwood Drive, San Luis Obispo.CA 94301 805-544-0441#C.OUNCIL
December 18,2007 CAO CDD DIR
ACRO Fr FIN DIR
San Luis Obispo City Council ATTORNEY Ir PW DIR
FIRE CHIEF
CLERK/ORIG V
❑ � POLICE CHF HEADS
REC DIR
Dear Sirs: jL-- UTIL DIR
HR DIR
RE: Historic ovens used by Sauer's Grocery °ume f, -
C joro
The original concept of the Mission Plaza eontaiiied a vision of reclaiming the backs of
then ugly stores and restoring the creek,including preserving as much as possible of San
Luis Obispo Is heritage. This included preserving the abobes, the mill stream, the grist
mill, Chinatown(the two Louis buildings), and the old large brick ovens in the bakery. It
also included a vision to recreate mission arts such as candle mating,adobe brick
forming,pinatas,etc. as tourist attractions. The Blackstone and Sauer Buildings do not
need to be preserved,but the old large brick ovens(I believe in the cominon_wall of the
buildings)need to be preserved in such a way as that they can be viewed and demonstrate
how they were used.
I remember hearing the discussions in our living room as Rose&Bill McKeen(my
parents),Bob&Helen Peters((Jnion Hardware),Peg Maxwell (JC Art instructor),
Myron Graham,and others,brainstormed their vision. We have lost some irreplaceable
parts of history, such as the old roundhouse and its train turntable,our beautiful old gas
lights,and the SLO lights across 101. Let's not loseanother piece of history.
Please consider carefully before you allow this bit of history to be destroyed.
Rosemarie McKeen Carrington
P.S. Since you are increasing density,you certainly should be able to find a way to
increase the total parking,andNOT decrease it. It may take a few less Hiving units
balanced by a more parking in the same space.
Z d d1E :E0 Lo 81 0a0
RED FILE F—'CEIVED
MEETING AGENDA DEC 1 8 2007
IIIIIII;IIIII��II 'llllllllll DATE kITEM #LUL
SLO CITY CLERK
l ` COUNCIL MEMORANDUM
December 18, 2007 If CCUNCIL DD DIR
CAC FIN DIR
TO: Mayor and City Council ACAO FIRE CHIEF
ATTORNEY SPW DIR
'—' CLEIIK'ORIQ POLICE CHF
FROM: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner �� , ���]]]]] DEPTTHEADS EFIEC DIR
t �eI� UTtL DIR
VIA: Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer 1 HR DIR
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATION OF CHINATOWN PROJECT FINAL EIR PC a
ON DECEMBER 18
y
• 9`
Attached please find an Errata Sheet dated December 18, 2007which reflects minor corrections
to the Final EIR. Corrections noted on the Errata Sheet are recommended by staff to be made
and will be incorporated into the Final EIR at the time of certification. The environmental
consultant will be present at the December 18, 2007 meeting to answer any questions pertaining
to the Errata Sheet.
Attachment: Errata Sheet
Errata Sheet
City Council Hearing on Chinatown Project Final EIR
ER#69-05
December 18,2007 _
' 71
The following items reflect changes between the Final EIR "(September 2007) and
associated update to the Final EIR(November 2007),which together constitute the"Final
EIR", to be considered for certification by the City Council on December 18, 2007.
Changes in text occurred in the following locations:
• Final EIR,Section 3.3,Cultural Resources,MM CR-lc;
• Final EIR,Section 3.2,Air Quality,MM AQ-3f and MM AQ-3g;and
• Final EIR Update.
Final EIR,Section 33,Cultural Resources,MM CR-1c(Curation)
The following Cultural Resource Mitigation Measure(MM CR-lc)was modified to place
responsibility for determining the most appropriate final mitigation with the Community
Development Director due to that agency's expertise with Cultural.Resource issues, and
to provide flexibility given the possible changes in circumstances that could occur by the
time curation is implemented. These changes also occurred in the Executive Summary,
under Tables ES-1,ES-2,and ES-3,Impact Summary Tables,and Section 8.0,Mitigation
Monitoring Program,in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan table.
The proposed text changes to page 3.3-37 are indicated by strike-out/underline below.
MM CR-1c Artifacts recovered from significant resources shall be housed at a
qualified curation facility. The Community Development Director shall Deleted:City
&i�_?.5efronione_gfthe-following alternatives presented below or curation Dem`adopt
of archaeological collections.
1. Work with existing public or private institutions, such as(but not
limited to)the San Luis Obispo County Archaeological Society
(SLOCAS), University of California,Santa Barbara(UCSB),
California Department of Parks and Recreation, or Cal Poly; to secure
long-term storage. The chosen institution shall request and receive a
one-time, lump-sum payment from the project proponent to fund said
storage.
y ..
2. Each individual development, including the current proposed project,
shall create a secure space for long-term storage and display within
the development. This space will be subject to City approval and will
be entirely funded by the project proponent.
0 0
3. Require developers to pay into a City-controlled fund for long-term
curation and interpretation of archaeological remains. This money
would be used to fund the construction and staffing of a City-operated
curation facility..
Final EIR,Section 3.2,Air Quality,MM AQ-3f and MM AO-3g
The following Air Quality Mitigation Measures (MM AQ-3f and MM AQ-3g) were
modified to place responsibility for final approval of mitigation (i.e.-;-parking and trip
reduction programs) with the City. These changes also occurred in the Executive
Summary under Tables ES-1,ES-2, and ES-3, Impact Summary Tables, and Section 8.0,
Mitigation Monitoring Program,in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan table.
The proposed text changes to page 3.2-19 are indicated by strike-out/underline below.
MM AQ 3f The project applicant shall develop and implement an aggressive parking
demand reduction and management program coordinated with the
County's Transportation Choices Coalition and submitted to the APCD
for reviews This programmqy include, but is not limited to the Deleted: and pp.al
designation of a Transportation Coordinator who will manage
transportation programs for the project and shall promote alternative
modes of transportation, transit subsidies for both'City and regional
transit system(including residents), applicant-funded "Gold.Passes".to be
distributed to employees and information regarding parking and
transportation options for customers.
The project applicant will be required to submit an implementation plan to
the City Transportation Division,for review and approval or amendment,
which demonstrates how this mitigation measure will be achieved.
Formatted::spate before: 9 pt,
MM AQ-3g The following measures shall be implemented to reduce impacts from After 9 pt
vehicle emissions:
• Provide incentives to employees to carpool/vanpool, take public
transportation„ telecommute,. walk, bike, etc. by implementing the
Transportation Choices Program. The applicant should Contact SLO
Regional Ruleshare at (805) 541-2277 to receive free consulting
services on how to start and maintain a program.
• Implement ar 0tv;approved Trip Reduction Program_- -- _ Deleted:n
• Provide on-site bicycle parking consistent with. City ordinance Deleted:APCD
requirements.
• Provide preferential carpool and vanpool parkirig.spaces.
• Provide shower and locker facilities for employees of the major ----(Formatted:Space After. 9 pt
tenants (i.e., neighborhood market, hotel, and restaurant) andlor one
shared shower and locker facilityfor all site employees.
Final EIR Update
Minor typographical errors were corrected in the Final EIR Update as summarized below.
Changes also occurred in the Executive Summary under Tables ES-1, ES-2, and ES-3,
Impact Summary Tables, and Section 8.0, Mitigation Monitoring Program, in the
Mitigation Monitoring Plan table,if applicable.
Pae Section Revision
2-1 2.2,3"r— All project elements would be reduced in size, with themost
sentence substantial reduction in residential uses from 64 to 36 units - Deleted:s9
(including livelwork units), a reduction by approximately 36
percent in residential s uare nota e.
2-2 Table 2.2-1 Refer to revised table below
3-8 Table 3.2-1 Refer to revised table below
46 Table ES-1 Impact AQ-2 and associated mitigation should be relocated
to Table ES-2, Class 11 Impacts-Significant Impacts That
Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
Table 2.2-1. Comparison of Revised Project Details
Original Pro-ect- Revised Pro'ict
Use DetaiWUnits Size Details/Units. Sia-
Retail 6 spaces t I 55,750 10 spaces r 43,750
Office 1 space 3 8,000 I space' 4,600
Restaurant Seating for 100 people 6,000 Seating for 100 people 6,000
Residential 59 units ' 83,804 12 uniu53.570 Dem.36
- --_ - -------------
LivefWork 5 units 6,840 4 units 4,000
Hotel 77 rooms 61,050 67 rooms 67,000
Parking 204 spaces 89,100 122 spaces 56,400
Total 4 buildings 1 310,544 5 buildings ( 235,320
The original site plans currently show 6 individual retail spaces scattered through the project's lower levels ranging
from 1,100 to over 20,800 sf in size;however,this general floor plan may not reflect long-tetra occupancy.
2 The revised site plans currently show to individual retail spaces scattered through the project's tower levels ranging
from 900 to over 14,000 sf in size;however,this general floor plan may not reflect long-term occupancy.
3 Offices spaces shown on site plans may be leased whole or subdivided into individual offices.
Y L.F
Table 3.2-1. Revised PM Peak-Hour Project Trip Generation Rates and Estimates
Tri .Generation Rates .- 1-.T'
_.Tri Generation.Eslimates
Land Use Size' In Out _ Total In Out Total
Proposed Uses
- - -
Condominium and ;6 du 0.36 0.22 0.58 _IDeleted:43
F3 t4 I
Live/Work UnitsZ Deleted:16
Boutique Hotel 67 rooms 0.25 0.26 0.51 17 18 35 Deleted:10
Meeting Facility° 3,000 sf N/A N/A N/A 0 75 75 Deleted:26
Restaurants 6,000 sf 5.02 2.47 7.49 30 IS 45
Retailb 43,750,f 1.80 1.95 3.75 !s7 55 G4�_ , ���39'150
Office' 4,600 sf 0.25 1.24 1.49 6 7
DeleteJt*76
Subtotal _...
--2.-. --347-- p 147
Existing Uses Deleted:135
Cornerstone Realty' 1,300 sf 0.25 1.24 1.49 0 2 2 Deleted:i6o
Photo 1016 1,100 sf 1.80 1.95 3.75 2 2 4 Deleted:335
Costume Caperss 1,675 sf 1.92 1.91 3.83 3 3 6
Bello'ss 3,600 sf 1.92 1.91 3.83 7 7 14
Palm St.Cornmercia16 3,400 sf 1.80 1.95 3.75 6 7 13
Subtotal 18 21 39
25%Project Internalization Reduction 17 12 V:25
DPJ2tCd;.23
25%Existing Uses Internalization Reduction 5 4 9
- � :Delet+ed:a8
Total Net New Trips under Revised Project 1!W....J65 ;.65 Deleted:97
Total Net New Trips under Original Project 198 2.58_ 456 Deleted:160
Difference in New Net Tris S 3 191 Deleted:251
.,.. Deleted:101
Notes:
I du=dwelling units;sf=square feu Deli;9S
2 High-rise condominium/townhome(ITE land use code 232);PM equation:T=0.34(X)+15.47 Formatted;Indent:
s Hotel(ITE land use code 310);PM equation:.Ln(T)=1.20 Ln(X)-1.55 Rlght: -0.08" -
°Based on City parkin requirements.
'Quality restaurant(ITE land use code 931);average mtes used. Dem-199
6 Shopping center(ITE land use code 820);average rates used.
'General office(ITE land use code 710);average rates used.
°Apparel store(ITE land use code 870);average rates used.
'Reduction taken for restaurant and retail uses only.
Where T=average trip ends and X=number of units(measured in dwelling units or 1,000 sf).
Source:Institute of Transportation Engineers 2003.
I
RECEIVED
DEC 181007
MEMU NUM SL0 CITY CLERK
sem. o ew's oMa
DATE: December 18, 2008
TO: Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Ken Hampian, CAO
SUBJECT: Language— Chinatown EIR Mitigation Measure on Parking
The attached proposed ,language was submitted by the applicant and relates to the
proposed EIR parking mitigation measure.
Staff does not concur with the proposed language and can discuss this matter during
the meeting tonight if Council so desires.
ATTACHMENT
IIA" �o Errs�w�-
Proposed Language , 0 COUNCIL CDD DIR
I? CAO $ FIN DIR
{ZACAO [�PFIRE CHIEF RED FILE
FTTORNEY J;;PW DIR MEETING AGENDA
DCLEOMORIG iiPOLICE CHF
E T HEADS C�.REC DIRDATE#-7 ITEMPW/
e UTIL DIR
TRN&tJ J►HR DIR
� o tJN6C/
r G/fo
y &Axe—
12-1"7Copdmid Woidmg
MM TT-7a The applicant shall pay a required parking in-lieu fee to the City of San
Luis Obispo if necessary as per the City parking in lieu fee ordinancefer
T.b r 3.2 z of the c; al crn Additionally, the applicant shall pay a
parking in-lieu fee for each on-site parking space provided that is not
preserved and maintained available to the intended users living, working,
or spending time in the City s Downtown core
1__.- dent.. sx
A nCow-_ --,e6 (.
RED FILE ioCOUNCIL 9COD DIR RECEIVED
$1 CAO Ia FIN dIR
MEETING AGENDA 42 ACAO 0 FIRE CHIEF Cl�r I A 1C01
iB ATTORNEY i�w DIR
DATE2A910,7 ITEM #.Elit. 40 CLERK/ORIO Sr POLICE CHF SLO CITY CLERK
O DEPT HEADS Q?AEC DIR
to -us nlE a UTIL DIR
hIR Dl�
w C��
G
-From: susan pyburn [mailto:susanimai@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 11:11 AM
To: Ricci, Pam
Subject: Chinatown Project
Dear Ms. Ricci,
I wrote to you last summer concerning the plans afoot to redevelop downtown at the expense of historic
buildings. I appreciate your interest in my comments and am hoping that you will again be able to share
them with council members.
Again, I am unable to be present at the historic meeting scheduled for tomorrow night. I work part time
at the Homeless Shelter... otherwise, I would be there.
As you know, I am very concerned about the inclusion of low cost housing wherever and whenever
possible. I am also concerned, in this instance, about the historic buildings at risk in the project as
currently proposed. I am a relative newcomer to San Luis Obispo. I so appreciate the unique ambience
and clearly present history in what is a thriving and prosperous small city. it works. PLEASE do not
alter this marvelous formula which we are fortunate to have inherited.
We have also inherited the responsibility to preserve what we can for future generations. While it is only
bricks and mortar, there is the human element of visible history which should not be swept aside simply
because it makes it cheaper. Who is going to benefit most?The developer benefit is.short lived .... while
the lasting legacy will be enjoyed for many many generations. If we sweep it aside today, where will go
the charm of our city??
Thank you for your attention to my remarks...
Susan Pybum
resident 594-1625
i should like to be able to love my country and still love justice...camus
12/18/2007
FOFC
EIVED
COUIA10L MEMORANDUM Y CLERK
RED FILE
December 18, 2007 MEETING AGENDA
DATE2&8-/b6ITEM #
TO: City Council
VIA: Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer(
FROM: Jay Walter,Director of Public Works
Prepared by: Robert Horch,Parking Services Manager
SUBJECT: Red file: Occupancy Rates for Parking Structures and Lots
Councilmember Andrew Carter inquired about the current occupancy rates for the three parking
structures in the downtown. He also asked for the occupancy rates of various lots, in particular
those lots included with the Chinatown project.
Monthly Structure Summary by Daily Averages r�
19 CAONCIL CDD DIR
#of 2006-07 2007-08* ACAO r FIN DIP
Structure Spaces Occupancy Occupancy ATTORNEY FIRE CHIEF
PW DIP
Marsh 520 62% 61% CLERK/ORIG POLICE CHF
919 Palm 192 76% 78% ❑ DEPT HEADS
842 Palm 415 50% 48% RTC DIP
*Based on average of the 1"5 months of FY 2007-08 6� UTIL DIP
HA 91R
e 4a
Lots 3 & 11 Occupancy Daily Averages a 66 0,K
There are 144 parking spaces in these two lots: Occupancy data is not tracked daily, but it is
based on Parking Enforcement Officer observations working in these locations Monday through
Saturday.
Approximate occupancy of the lots is 60%-75%.
If Council has further questions, please contact Public Works Director Jay Walter or Robert
Horch in Parking Services.
RECEIVED
dllllllllll� IIIIIIIII QFC 19 2001
IIIA , N IL MEMORANDUMSLO CITY CLERK
COU C
December 17, 2007 RED FILE
TO: Mayor and City Council MEETING AGENDA
DATE is-f g 7 ITEM #��
FROM: Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer
Jonathan P. Lowell, City Attorney
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATION OF CHINATOWN PROJECT FINAL EIR
ON DECEMBER 18
The memorandum to you of last week (transmitting the applicant's request that you certify the
final EIR at your December 18, 2007 meeting) indicated that a draft resolution would be
provided.. Attached please find a draft resolution certifying the EIR for your consideration
should you decide to certify the EIR at the December 18, 2007 meeting.
Attachment: Resolution
COUNCIL
CAC CDD DIR
ACAO FIN DIR
IF ATTORNEY FIRE CHIEF
5�CLERK/CRIGPW DIR
0 DEPT HEADS iiPCLICE CHF
J�,REC DIR
.'ilHDIR
HRR DIR
`� CcvNc.�G
CGERat
RESOLUTION NO. (2007 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO MAKING
FINDINGS,ADOPTING STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS,AND
CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT(EIR)
WITH UPDATE FOR THE CHINATOWN PROJECT
APPLICATION#69-05; 861 PALM STREET AND ADJACENT PARCELS
WHEREAS, public hearings on this EIR were previously held before the Planning
Commission on November 15, 2006,July 11, 2007 and November 28,2007; and
WHEREAS, the EIR was considered by the City Council after extensive review by City
staff and other agencies on December 18, 2007, and with the comments of the Planning
Commission, Architectural Review Commission, Cultural Heritage Committee and concerned
public; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the potential environmental impacts of the project have been evaluated in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City's Environmental Guidelines;
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.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council as follows:
SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council hereby certifies that the
Final EIR and Update for the Chinatown Project (hereinafter"Final EIR") adequately identifies the
project's potentially significant impacts, alternatives to the proposed project, and recommended
mitigation measures.
SECTION 2. Final EIR Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations. Based upon
all the evidence, the Council makes the following findings and statement of overriding
considerations in certifying the Final EIR:
1. The Final EIR was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) and was considered by the City prior to any approvals of the project.
2. The Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City.
3. The revised project (as indicated in plans submitted September 18, 2007) was greatly
reduced in its overall scale(about a 25% reduction in the overall floor area from 310;544
square feet to 235,320 square feet) from the earlier plans (submitted January 29, 2007)
and closely resembles the Protection of Visual Resources Alternative in the EIR. No
new environmental impacts were created as a result of the revised project plans, but
some impacts were eliminated or reduced in significance.
�I
Resolution No. (2007 Series)
Page 2
4. For each significant effect identified in the Final EIR under the categories of
Aesthetics and Visual Resources, Cultural Resources, Geologic Resources, Hazards
and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and _Water Quality, Land Use and Planning
Policies, Noise, Population and Housing, Transportation and Traffic, and Utilities and
Public Services, the approved mitigation measures contained in the Final EIR will
avoid or substantially lessen the identified adverse environmental impacts of the
project to a level of insignificance and have been incorporated into the project.
5. The significant effects identified in the Air Quality, Cultural Resources, and Short-
term Construction Noise sections of the EIR will not be fully mitigated to a degree of
insignificance with the incorporation of all of the identified mitigation measures
included in the EIR. However, the City Council finds that the adverse environmental
effects are acceptable and makes a statement of overriding considerations for those
significant and unavoidable environmental impacts because:
a. Mitigation strategies are identified in the Final EIR help to reduce project
emissions and ultimately put the air basin in closer compliance with established
State and federal standards.
b. Mitigation strategies are in place in the event that burials associated with Mission
San Luis Obispo are encountered as a result of subsurface grading and excavation
that are consistent with State law and have been reviewed and endorsed by the
Cultural Heritage Committee.
c. The unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the loss of historical structures
have been reviewed by the Cultural Heritage Committee and their specific
recommendations regarding proposed demolitions and incorporation of
appropriate and feasible mitigations have been reviewed and considered and are
reflected in modifications to mitigation measures for impacts CR-4 and CR-5
identified in the final EIR, as set forth in paragraph 6 below.
d. The unavoidable adverse impact of construction noise is temporary in nature and
can be substantially mitigated by implementation of a construction management
plan that regulates the hours of construction, noise reduction measures, and a
complaint resolution process, consistent with recommended mitigation measures.
6. The City Council has identified the following overriding economic, social, and other
public benefits of the project, which are additional reasons that the significant and
unavoidable impacts identified in the Final EIR can be found acceptable, and hereby
adopts them as a statement of overriding considerations:
a. In conformance with the City's General Plan policies and community goals, the
project will maintain and enhance the downtown area as the commercial and social
center of the City by converting surface parking lots to more economically
productive uses, to wit: hotel, retail,commercial and residential, which would not be
achievable without private capital and investment;
b. The project will provide expansion space for existing businesses and opportunities
for new businesses to locate in the downtown area by creating new retail, restaurant
Resolution No. (2007 Series)
Page 3
and office space which will further the General Plan Land Use Element goals and
policies relating to keeping the downtown economically, culturally and socially vital
and the center of the community;
c. The project will provide expansion space for existing businesses and opportunities
for new businesses to locate in the downtown area by creating new retail, restaurant
and office space which produce additional tax revenues for the City, both sales and
transient occupancy taxes, that the City can use to provide services to the
community;
d. The project will provide housing downtown interspersed with commercial uses to
help balance jobs and housing in the community. The project will provide 36
residential units anticipated to house approximately 70 people, and generate
approximately 191 jobs.
e. The project will provide for improved pedestrian amenities via the project's
pedestrian streets or paseos, and the possibility of future linkages through other sites,
thereby benefiting the entire downtown by providing people on foot greater
accessibility to all businesses and attractions in the area;
f. The project's coordinated development plan takes advantage of economies of scale
and scope in a manner that facilitates broader implementation of important City
policies, such as enhanced pedestrian circulation in the downtown and expanded
mixed use development, which could not be achieved through the approval of
smaller,more segmented projects.
g. The project will improve business synergy by creating incentives for other property
owners to seek improvements to their own sites, increasing foot traffic in the
downtown, and increasing revenues of businesses in the downtown and to the City
through sales and transient occupancy taxes.
h. The project will incorporate important architectural features of historic structures
into the new construction, including relocation and reconstruction of the historic
Sauer Bakery Oven and the Shanghai Low Restaurant Sign.
i. The project will add a hotel, which will provide the direct benefit of increased
transient occupancy and sales tax revenues to the City and create indirect economic
development opportunities by increasing accommodations for regional tourism in
the downtown.
j. The project incorporates many features of "Smart Growth" including the
development of an infill site, greater intensity of site development, and
improvements to transit facilities, along with subsidies for both City and regional
transit systems.
The data to support these overriding factors are found in the following sections of the
record including:
1.) The Environmental Impact Report, including Final Update;
2.) Letters submitted by the public contained in the project files;
3.) The December 17, 2007 Chinatown Fiscal Impact Analysis — General Fund and
Parking Fund, prepared by Ross S. Selvidge and Allan D. Kotin;
4.) Public testimony provided at this and previous project hearings; and
5.) The staff and applicant presentations.
r
Resolution No. (2007 Series)
Page 4
7. The Mitigation Monitoring Program has been reviewed by the City Council in
conjunction with its review of the Final EIR.
SECTION 3. EIR Conditions. Based upon all the evidence, the Council directs that the
following changes identified in the December 18, 2007 Errata Sheet be included in the Final EIR:
1. Changes to Mitigation Measures CR-4 and CR-5 with modifications to the
recommendations of the Planning Commission (Council to direct at meeting).
2. Minor typographical edits to Table 2.2-1 &Table 3.2-1 to correct data.
3. Place Air Quality Impact AQ-2 as a Class 2, rather than Class 1 impact.
4. Modify CR-lc to allow for the range of curation options to be considered to the approval
of the Community Development Director.
On motion of seconded by and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this_day of 2007.
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
Audrey Hooper, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jonathan Lowell, City Attorney
L;\Chinatown\Resolutions\CC Resolution(Final EIR)
Proposal with regard to Historic Resources & Chinatown Project
In order to avoid controversy and possible delay in the project, it is proposed that the
project description be modified to include the following:
1. Deconstruction of the Blackstone building with recycling of the bricks.
2. Restoration of the facade of the Swiss-Italian Building (Costume Capers).
3. Rehabilitation & reuse of the Sauer Bakery Building & ovens. The details of the
rehabilitation and the extent of adaptive reuse is to be determined by thorough
documentation and analysis of the existing structures, which is to be reviewed by
the CHC, and an architectural design of the adaptive reuse of the structure, which
will be reviewed by the CHC and ARC.
RECEIVED
Robert S. Vessely,P.E. COUNCIL _ �;DD DIR
1GFIN DIR
rtACAO AFIRE CHIEF n�r 1 71007
VPATTORNEY "ggqsssPW DIR
OCLERK/ORIG POLICE CHF SLO CITY CLERK
❑ DEPT HEADS REC DIR
C�kTetBy__ E geUTIL DIR
iR 91R
aofOWEc
1R G•.w
�
RED FILE
MEETING AGENDA
DATE I2 tfr a ITEM # Ft
D:Prujmts/}{iswricBui W iog.VChimwwuPlm.doc
1 IL✓ 1 ILL,
AN&MEETING AGENDAwim LAW
@PCOUNCIL DD%IR
�=u�/s ITEM #_R14- 1
�
ICAO FIN 1
�ACAO ' FIRATTORNEY PWa Quintana Building-HistoryFDEC
ED
Pza
CLERK/ORIG POLICE CHF
❑DEPT RTC DIR [a.k.a. The Blackstone Hotel] 001
UTIL DIR L�HR DIR LERK
-46v^seic Icc1,&-'.
-# G A*o
The Quintana Building is the last vestige of San Luis Obispo's pre-eminent
Hispanic businessman in the earliest days of the pueblo, Francisco Estevan Quintana
[1801-1880]. Estevan had purchased the city lot in 1851 and, from an adobe building on
the site, operated what was probably the first store in San Luis Obispo. Estevan
contracted with Blas Castro to build the brick building we now call the Blackstone Hotel,
in 1874,some twenty-three years after Quintana had first purchased the site.
"Don Estevan" had been born in Abiquiu, New Mexico, during the reign of
Carlos III of Spain. He was descended from several of the original 1598 colonists of New
Mexico. In 1801 Abiquiu was a frontier outpost abutting the territory of the Ute [Utah]
Indians. There were fivquent raids by Apache and Navajo Indians. Undefended
Hispanic children were captured and sold into slavery. It was a harsh world in which he
Brew up-
As a young man he raised stock like the majority of New Mexicans, but he was
among the privileged class, called the "Ricos." There were no schools in New Mexico,
so Estevan was sent elsewhere,probably to Durango, Mexico, to be educated. To sell his
horses and other livestock, he journeyed to San Antonio, Texas, and to Chihuahua For
safety,he would travel with trade caravans to these places. Soon he was using the money
earned from his livestock sales to buy trade goods. Thereafter he would always have a
dual career as a ranchero and a merchant.
About 1825 he moved his family to the Taos Valley because the newly-opened
Santa Fe Trail did not pass through Abiquiu. Here he traded with American merchants
then sold his goods elsewhere in New Mexico and Chihuahua
In 1829 the trail to California [now "the Old Spanish Trail"] was opened. We
don't know when Estevan first crossed the trail to trade in California. The first
documented journey was in 1839. He had six pack mules loaded with trade goods. After
selling the goods he journeyed northward in California and came across Petronilo Rios in
San Luis Obispo County. From Rios he purchased two square leagues of land [about
8,800 acres] at the present site of Paso Robles. It was called the Rancho de la Agua
Caliente [Ranch of the Hot Water]. He then returned to New Mexico.
He apparently purchased trade goods in California also. These he probably sold
in Chihuahua and New Mexico. He did not return to California until 1841, no doubt with
more trade goods. In January of 1842 he received permission from Governor Juan
Alvarado to settle on land in the San Bernardino Valley. Returning to New Mexico he
sold his trade goods and prepared to move his family to his land in San Luis Obispo
County.
They crossed on the Old Spanish Trail in 1843. Enroute one of Estevan's sons
was killed in a landslide and buried on the trail. Estevan and his older children drove all
his livestock. He chose not to settle in the San Bernardino area He arrived in San Luis
Obispo in late 1843.
The family was on their new rancho at Paso Robles when Fremont passed through
in 1846 and when the Reed family was slaughtered at Mission San Miguel in 1848. They
also were likely victims of raids by the Indians from the Central Valley.
The family owned a town home in San Luis Obispo also. He had been alcalde
earlier, in 1845, under Mexican rule and again in 1850 Estevan was elected as one of the
alcaldes. He later refused to serve in the office because there was no means of enforcing
the law. At the time of the 1850 Census he was gone to the mines selling his livestock
and trade goods. With his profits he bought more real estate. In 1852 Estevan sold his
Paso Robles rancho back to Petronilo Rios and moved to San Luis Obispo proper. He
purchased most of what is now eastern San Luis Obispo. It was called La Vfira,
apparently the site of a mission vineyard. The residence was the La Loma adobe, which
is still standing. It was in 1851 that he bought the lot upon which he later built the brick
Quintana Building.
In 1854 he traded La Kfia for the Rancho Potrero,just north of Brizzolara Creek
from Cal Poly. It was a square league originally. Leaving his son-in-law, Miguel
Serrano, to manage the rancho, Estevan concentrated on his mercantile business. By
1860 he also owned a two-story adobe building on the northwest corner of Monterey and
Chorro next to the Mission and a one-story adobe a few lots north of this on the west side
of Chorro Street. He had early Chinese residents working for him and Hispanic ones
selling his goods on consignment at the ranchos.
In the late 1850's Estevan and other members of his family were members of the
vigilance committee organized by his attorney, Walter Murray.
In the great drought of 1862-1864 when 95% of the livestock in California died,
Estevan was left with very few animals to rebuild his herds. His real estate and his
business interests had him back to his former status quickly while most Hispanic
rancheros had lost their livelihoods and their ranchos.
In 1874 he built the Quintana Building [Blackstone Hotel] and the following year
another brick building where his adobe building had been, abutting the Mission. Records
show he owned other buildings around town, but we don't have the addresses. That year
he also bought the Rancho San Bernardo from the Canet family and turned it over to his
son Pedro to manage.
The family was generous with their wealth. In 1873 when the church began to
discuss building the east extension, Estevan donated his adobe town home at that site.
His daughter Manuela and son-in-law, Dolores Herrera, donated the land on which
Mission High School now stands. The family donated stained-glass windows for the
Mission in its pre-restoration period. These are only the philanthropies of which there are
still records. The tree at the mission that is to be cut down was donated by Frances
Serrano Bressi,a great granddaughter.
Estevan died in 1880 and the Quintana Building passed to his widow and then to
their son Pedro Quintana. Like his father, Pedro was a shrewd businessman and
operated "The White House" from the building and became a millionaire at a time when
that meant something. In the middle 1890's Pedro civic-mindedly put a new facade on
the building, removing portions of the building that jutted out onto Monterey and Chorro
streets. The reopening of the store was celebrated with the photo that was in the Tribune
on November 28,2007 and is attached here.
Soon afterward Pedro retired and sold his business to his sons Joaquin and Juan
Pedro in 1896. Not apt businessmen, the brothers were soon bankrupt. Pedro then sold
the business [but not the building] to Swiss Italians named Codoni,Donati,and Righetti.
When Pedro Quintana died in 1921,the building passed to his son, Tom Quintana
[1882-1975]. Tom was the one who added a third story, gave the building its present
facade, and established the Blackstone Hotel. He hired a cut-rate contractor to do the
remodeling. Ever after regretting this poor decision, he said it was the second greatest
mistake of his life. Tom sold the hotel about 1940, probably after his only son was killed
in World War 11.
We of the Quintana family, perhaps selfishly, do not wish to see this building of
our ancestors torn down. If you DO decide to tear it down, don't you think it fitting to
somehow memorialize this founding father of the city in some fashion at the site?
Don Rivara
donrivarana,aol.com
781-0874
5037 S. Higuera St., #139
San Luis Obispo, CA
Ulm--
fit
/ S
I
The Quintana Building about 1894 when Pedro Q. remodeled the Chorro and Monterey facades..
i 1
?7t Street Scene in San Luis Obispo, Cal.
I 1
IN
•i
r
I�j L_Y _
I P /
i
of 1 � �' .````• ////��, �'
...gin•Ji a 11 B .
-�—_
About 1910 when the building, at left, was leased to Righetti, Codoni, and Donati.
p
GD
i
42
zi�
y
i o 0
F. Estevan Quintana 1801-1880 came to Quintana also built in 1875 building on
CA first in 1839 as a merchant-ranchero. right across Chorro from Quintana
Building.
o '^
1
t _ r
f , l �� o
s
Andrew Sauer,who married Estevan Black and white marble walkways of the
Quintana's granddaughter. Quintana cemetery plot
A
i `elf: R
zL
�tR
- r
T
y .
Don Pedro Quintana 1833-1921,who Joaquin Quintana 1862-1935,purchased
inherited the Quintana Building in 1884 the family buisiness in 1896 with his
and gave it the second facade in 1894. brother Juan Pedro when Pedro retired.
The hrntherc hankninteri the hncinecc
� It
.r 4--z i►Y � .F
_r•.�.��.s�-. T .:1i ' 'ter - ...'
t
Juan Pedro Quintana 1870-1905,ran the Tom Quintana 1882-1975,inherited the
business briefly 1896-97 with his building, added a third story and opened
brother Joaquin until they went the Blackstone Hotel.
hanlrnmt
RED FILE
MEETING AGENDA
DATE Pli ITEM # / RECEIVED
nPr 112007
I SLO CITY CLERK
VAi
s i
'TO w�` `tel
e4 vii 6-17/
6,00106f
V,,
:4v,c-
� VTW
fS COUNCIL CDD DIR
CAO FIN DIR
ACAO FIRE CHIEF
1p ATTORNEY ;PW DIR
J2 CLERK/ORIG POLICE CHF
❑ DEPT HEADS REG DIR
ia pa UTIL DIR
i 'To/auj HR DIR
!� C 6 UAA rU.C-
� Cao
�P C l,6R�-
DECEMBER 11, 2007
MAYOR ROMERO AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY HALL
990 PALM STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
93401
DEAR MAYOR ROMERO AND
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS BROWN, CARTER, MULHOLLAND
AND SETTLE:
WE HAVE RECENTLY BECOME AWARE OF PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENTS IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT OF DOWNTOWN SAN LUIS
OBISPO AND ARE WRITING TO EXPRESS OUR CONCERN FOR
FOR THE HISTORIC STRUCTURES THAT ARE THREATENED BY THESE
PENDING LARGE PROJECTS.
OUR ORGANIZATION, THE NATIVE DAUGHTERS OF THE GOLDEN WEST
WAS FOUNDED IN 1886_TO PRESERVE THE HISTORY OF CALIFORNIA AND
REMAINS DEDICATED TO THAT GOAL. WE AND OUR FRATERNAL
ORGANIZATION, THE NATIVE SONS OF THE GOLDEN WEST, WERE
INSTRUMENTAL IN THE REBURBISHMENT OF THE EXTERIOR OF MISSION
SAN LUIS OBISPO DE TOLOSA AFTER THE 1920 FIRE.
THEREFORE, AS ADVOCATES FOR THE RICH HISTORY OF OUR
BELOVED STATE AND ITS' COMMUNITIES, IT IS WITHIN OUR INTEREST AND
INDEED, OUR DUTY, TO REMIND SAN LUIS OBISPO AND ITS, LEADERS OF
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE HISTORIC BLACKSTONE HOTEL AND SAUER
BAKERY BUILDINGS.
SAN LUIS OBISPO IS ONE OF THE EARLIEST COMMUNITIES IN
CALIFORNIA TO FORM AROUND A MISSION AND IS MOST FORTUNATE TO
HAVE BUILDINGS REMAINING IN USE IN THE COMMUNITY FOR OVER ONE
HUNDRED YEARS. THIS IS IS A RARE AND UNIQUE GIFT THAT SHOULD BE
TREASURED. THE HISTORIC BLACKSTONE, HOTEL AND SAUER BAKERY
BUILDINGS ARCHITECTURALLY CONTRIBUTE TO THE DOWNTOWN AREA
AND INDEED, FRAME MISSION SAN LUIS OBISPO DE TOLOSA IN A MANNER
THAT THEIR PROPOSED REPLACEMENTS CANNOT
WE ASK YOU TO VERY CAREFULLY CONSIDER YOUR ACTIONS FOR
WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE MISSION AREA ITSELF, THIS IS THE MOST
HISTORIC BLOCK OF DOWNTOWN SAN LUIS OBISPO.
WE URGE YOU TO CONSIDER THE REHABILITATION OF THE
BLACKSTONE HOTEL AND THE SAUER BAKER BUILDINGS RATHER THAN
THEIR DESTRUCTION AND REPLACEMENT. THESE HISTORIC STRUCTURES
SHOULD BE REHABILITATED AND RECOGNIZED WITH PLAQUES AND
INFORMATION PERTAINING TO THEIR IMPORTANT PLACE IN OUR PAST.
THESE HISTORIC STRUCTURES ARE TRULY IRREPLACEABLE.
THANK YOU.
SINCERELY, c
DA N DU LAP SE ETARY FOR
EL PINAL PARLOR #163
NATIVE DAUGHTERS OF THE GOLDEN WEST
• Page 1 of 3
!N Attachments can contain viruses that may harm your computer.Attachments may not display correctly.
Council,SloCity
From: Alex Gough(adooerealty0charter.net) Sent: Thu 12/13/2007 8:00 PM
To: Council,Slo0ty
Cc:
Sub)ea:
Attachments: I N chovns pc boo sla tP-(79901(,Monterev St 1910.JPGf63SK81 Monterev Street003.1oof5M61��Sauer SakervJPGf38001�,Swiss-Amencan Assocra[on 01-01-0119001-]PG
(670K01
Ally
/yy� eco �L RECEfVED
ry �1 ,,,,. ¢= UNCIL CDD D R
1... {k CAO *FIN DIR
ACAO ;p FIRE CHIEF DFC 14 1007
I ATTORNEY PW DIR
J CLERK/ORIG POLICE CHF SLO CITY CLERK
iDEPT HEADS �:REC DIR
Alex Gough V UTIL DIR
The Sauer-Adams AOObe HR DIR
duNGK
969 Chorm St.,
San Luis Obispo CA 93401 e.4 0
(805)543-2693 � C
RED FILE
Cell:(a0S)748-5952 MEETING AGENDA
e-mail: adoberealty0charter.net
Webpape:wwwadoberealtvne[ DATEIa ITEM # PW1
To: Mayor Dave Romero and Members of the Council.
Your honor and council members:
I am sure you are aware that there is a groundswell asking you to save the Blackstone Hotel and Sauer Bakery building for
adaptive reuse.They are simply too important to San Luis Obispo to lose. Even the Tribune has come around.
In looking at these buildings it is helpful to separate architectural merit from historical significance. Some buildings, like the Mission
and Monticello, have both. But imagine if we.still had Henry David Thoreau's rough little cabin. And evidently we do have Lincoln's
birthplace,the log cabin,and as common as it is it is it is regarded as a international treasure, reassembled in a museum.
Too much happened on the corner of Monterey and Chorro to lay waste to it.The Blackstone is far more historic and older than
most people realize. It was built by the Quintanas, an early California family whose roots go back in the west to the 1500s.Then
there were the Swiss-Italians,who operated a business there when it was the Righetti block and Costume Capers was the Italian-
Swiss Union Society and of course the bricks were made by the Chinese. The Sauers were from Bavaria, ( "sauer" means sour as
in sourdough or sauerbraten).And within the past two weeks we learn that the a part of Sauer building was rented as a bookstore
by a Polish Jew. These buildings have been many things through the years and have involved one group after another.
There is no mystery,the reason the floors change levels is because the Blackstone is not one building but three. Costume Capers
was the Swiss-Italian Association headquarters,then there was the hotel building,and a small building between the hotel and the
Sauer building.
https:Hmail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycouncil/Inbox/No%2OSubject.ENIL?Cmd=open 12/14/2007
C Page 2 of 3
n
�;
Yes due to decades of neglect both of these buildings are less than stellar now, but let a talented architectural designer bring back
the original facades and we will have something truly worthwhile and infinitely superior to the proposed computer-generated
corporate monolith currently on the table. "Better than they ever were",one expert puts it. Adaptive use will allow for a variety of
configurations and if the changing Floor levels are a concern, build new Floors. Adaptive re-use gives you the best of both worlds
old buildings are allowed to live on and new,creative uses emerge.We've seen what Rob Rossi did with the Warden Building and
what the Copelands themselves did with Urban Outfitters.
And yes, it will be more expensive than starting from scratch, but we're talking about value here, not cost.
But even based on hard economics, it makes sense. Listen to the words of Jeff Speck, writing for the American Planning
Association:
"How many buildings do we need to tear down before we
learn our lesson?Almost every city that deeply regrets the
1960s destruction of its 1900s structures is happily
permitting the 2000s destruction of 19405 structures.Need
the march of time only confirm our current ignorance?
Historic preservation may be our best way to respect our
ancestors,but it is justified on economic terms alone.Don
Rypkema reminds us that in market economies,it is the
differentiated product that commands a monetary
premium.This is why cities like Savannah and Miami Beach
can point to historic preservation as the key ingredient in
recent booms.It isn't always easy to find a productive use
for an empty old building,but tearing it down makes that
outcome impossible.In these cases,remember the old
adage: 'don't do something;just stand there!'"
Ask yourself.Where which would you rather visit: San Jose or San Francisco,with It's abundance of adaptively reused gems--Ghirardelli Square,
Fisherman's Wharf,Chinatown(rebuilt after the quake)and the Ferry Building? Which towns are higher on your list: Santa Barbara,Monterey or
Ventura?
People come to San Luis Obispo because of what we have preserved and made better--The Mission, Mission Plaza,the Creek,and yes,the Downtown
Center.The Downtown Center filled a void,however,it didn't create one first.
Keep our treasures and build on the interest they generate.
Alex Gough
https:Hmail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycounciVInbox/No%2OSubject.EN4L?Cmd=open 12/14/2007
C.
• FE9TpU'fTJTf'JF.WINII ItUTt�R14\L QVARTEIWY
Y
51ih11pFat - I
r
•I�hl..�Rn IYb n1�IRpn IF�R�)IUfC ill
1.H.Chupl4li.pm ISM
122
1tt Street Scene in Safe lalis Obispo, Cal,
n NN
j/
t�
f 1,
J /�
Monterey Street, San Luis Obispo, Cal.
•
Al
� :` ' � rte. ✓
A: M1 e4
_ a..
vl. as�.�y � �I♦•f N. ..vu..:rK�,y..„ i
M�*y�~ i O A°�P0...• }G `. cosi J .. .,..
.L C
^ r �
3+�
a d
,n.FLQSIY� u
c s S v.R
i
-) . - FL
4p T;p
_ �_... .� ..T-•_. . .._..,.....�.__.�......_.__ .._.,_..'.'rte"'
� I
i
Courlury al Na can W4 CW Wo C m MIYa.lctl II lm, _ _ -
Richard Schmidt 'W544-4247 1228/27/56 09:36 PM D1/3
RED FILE RECEIVED
MEETING AGENDA
RICHARD SCHMIDT, Architect DATER ITEM # LL DEC 13 2007
0 CITY CLERK
112 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 544-4247
e-mail: rschmidtQrain.org
December 12, 20077a vi,. er Bakery, etc.
v
IR CAO FIN DIR
City Council $i ACAO E FIRE CHIEF
City of San Luis Obispo ATTORNEY i�v PW DIR �ouauc-
CLERK/ORIG Fe POLICE CHF
O DEPT HEADSREC DIR 6.40
Dear City Council Members: 0 /Bu, �uTIL DIR
® Y HR DIR
I urge the Council to require - as recommended by the Cultural Heritage Committee --
that the buildings along the Chorro/Monterey portion of "Chinatown 11" be retained,
refurbished, and maintained as the rich and valuable part of our cultural and built
heritage that they are rather than demolished and replaced with sterile machines for
commerce.
A good city is a richly-layered composition that respects its past by incorporating old
artifacts into its everyday culture. Over the course of time, the layers multiply, as does
the richness of the resulting built tapestry. In California, today, we generally lack this
insight, and are too quick to destroy anything that sits in the path of perceived
maximized short-term profit (comforting ourselves with the bromide that"we can't
preserve everything" while actually preserving very little of value). This is a terrible
cultural and economic mistake in the long run, and it is precisely the mistake that the
applicant's short-sighted vision would produce for these already richly-layered buildings.
The lesson of cultural and historical respect by layering is an ancient one. The militarily,
economically and culturally triumphant 5th Century BC Athenians understood this when
they rebuilt their war-ravaged temple complex on the Akropolis; it was important for
them to respect past constructions even as they built the monuments we see today.
Thus, when they built new smooth stone walls around the citadel's sides (such refined
constructions being a demonstration of their prosperity), they left niches for viewing key
locations along the already ancient rough rubble walls they were refacing -- niches that
are still visible today. And, so it has been ever since.
Of particular relevance to the discussion of whether to demolish the old buildings at
Chorro/Monterey to make way for a new generic hotel was my first personal experience
of layered history within hotels. As a kid, I was fortunate enough to venture to an ancient
Italian hill town where we stayed in a hotel that had been created within an 800-year-old
stone building. On the outside and in public spaces indoors, one had the sense of
ancientness, though ancientness appointed with contemporary necessities. The hotel
rooms, however, were the most modern, most comfortable hotel rooms I've ever
- Page 1 -
Richard Schmidt IT 5444247 M18/27/56 G9:36 PM D21
C O
experienced. The hotel keepers had found;ways to,work within the network of old load-
bearing stone walls (with the result that every room was unique) while thoroughly and
unsentimentally updating their accommodations. As a kid, I was fascinated by this
juxtaposition of 12th century and 20th century, and I also had to wonder what had
happened in these rooms overall those centuries?
Wouldn't this be a much more exciting and viable way to deal with the old Blackstone
Hotel and its neighbors (advertised perhaps with the unique moniker of "historic hotel
across from San Luis Obispo's historic Mission") than Hiltonizing the corner and
creating a generic money-making machine? Wouldn't this enable the developer to
celebrate the hundreds of thousands of Ah Louis bricks in that building (and the laborers
whose sweat is embodied in them) rather than shipping their crushed remains off to the
landfill? Wouldn't this be a way to offer the public something uniquely and timelesslsy
SLO rather than something patently new, temporary and generic that in another 30 to
50 years will be replaced by something else new, temporary and generic?
There are similar wonderful potentials to the old Sauer Bakery, with its brick ovens.
What an incredible opportunity to do something truly unique and significant!
And how sustainable!
Beyond the physicality of history is the cultural history built into these structures --five
different cultures are tied to and layered within them: German, Swiss-Italian, Hispanic,
Chinese and Anglo. Are the stories these buildings can tell not worth something better
than the wrecking ball?
A memorial sign cannot make up for the loss demolition of these buildings would
produce for future generations.
San Luis Obispo is what it is today because we've managed to hang on to enough
of our history to make us something other than anyplace USA, because our
workaday buildings are not all part of a throw-away society's worst expression of
its indifference. Let's not blow it after having succeeded so wonderfully to this
point. Preservation is the future; demolition of history is the past, now proven to
be a terrible, unsustainble mistake. (I think of La Jolla, a once charming downtown,
now completely destroyed and charmless due to the sort of commercially-short-sighted
"redevelopment" now being proposed here. If it hadn't destroyed itself, today La Jolla
would be another Carmel. Or, closer to home, Santa Maria, a once charming downtown,
now a nothing-scape. People love SLO because it's different -- meaning, it has genuine
historic character based on genuine historic buildings still in everyday use. Our fine
historic and other old buildings are our commercial strength, not our weakness.)
San Luis Obispo's heritage belongs to all of us -- past, present and future residents and
visitors -- not just to the property owner of the moment.
- Page 2 -
Richard Schmidt 12'544-4247 M8/27/56 (D 9:38 PM D 3/3
I'd suggest to you that the push to demolish this sterling part of our history is due
less to necessity or desirability than to a lack of long-range civic or
commercial vision by the proponents.
The developers' claims of advanced decay are simply part of this lack of vision
rationalizations for doing something that in the longer term would be stupid. Another
developer would jump at the chance to preserve, and reuse, these historic buidings.
(We saw such disconnect between developers' visions a number of years ago with the
former Pacific Coast Railroad Grain Warehouse, now the Pacific Coast Center. The first
developer, claiming advanced decay and flimsy construction, saw value only in clearing
the site of its old tin buildings fora strip mall. After denial of his project, a second
developer optioned the site because of its old tin buildings, seeing the commercial value
in celebrating its history rather than in a vacant, generic piece of land. When the seller,
still stuck in his lack of vision, announced he intended to clear the site prior to close of
escrow, the buyers had to tell him if he did, the deal was off! Such is the blindness
caused by lack of vision. Today, the historic warehouse is both on the National Register
of Historic Places, and a thriving example of adaptive reuse. It's just a matter of vision
whether we see decay, or whether we see unique opportunity.)
Make no mistake about it, these "Chinatown" buildings are eminently savable- you've.
got a whole bunch of design professionals telling you that. Please listen.
Please act to preserve today, for once this history is gone, it's gone forever, along with
the unique place that SLO could have been.
Thank you.
Richard Schmidt
- Page 3
RED FILE
MEETING AGENDA
� RECEIVED
®ATE i? a ITEM #—M-1 DFC 1. 3 2007
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIII SLO CITY CLERK
MOAN COUNCIL MEMORANDUM
0110(
COUNCIL CDD DIR
CAO Lf FIN DIR
December 13, 2007 CACAO TFIRE CHIEF
MATTORNEY 5OPW DIR
TO: Mayor and City Council CLERK/ORIG ;; POLICE CHF
❑ DE T HEADS � REC DIR
/B
FROM: Ken Hampian, City Administrative Office i Z& �HR DIRR
Jonathan P. Lowell, City Attorney (41- ouvwl.
o GAO
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATION OF CHINATOWN PROJECT FINAL EIR ><
ON DECEMBER 18
RECOMMENDATION
Determine whether certification of the Chinatown project final EIR at the.December 18, 2007
meeting, as requested by the applicant, is appropriate, in light of the analysis below.
DISCUSSION
Attached is a letter from the applicant asking that the City Council certify the final EIR at the
December 18, 2007 meeting. The request is made because the applicant: 1) seeks greater
certainty through the EIR certification process in order to finalize the plans it will submit for
final review by the ARC in January 2008, and 2) would prefer to stay on the schedule for EIR
processing that it and City staff had been following until a change was made by City staff to that
schedule in November in order to better comport with the CEQA Guidelines, the Public
Resources Code and case law interpreting them. Below is an analysis of this request. The City
Attorney concludes that, while the most prudent course of action is to certify the EIR at the time
of final project approval, EIR certification may lawfully take place on December 18, 2007.
CEQA, CEQA Guidelines and Scheduling Issues
We address the scheduling situation first, as it has bearing on the issue of greater certainty to be
gained through earlier certification of the EIR. The meeting of December 18, 2007 was
originally scheduled by staff in order to allow for approval of a use permit and certification of
the EIR. The initial application submitted for the Chinatown project entailed building heights of
a magnitude that necessitated a use permit request to the City Council. Thus, the original
schedule anticipated certification of the EIR and approval of the use permit concurrently. In
approximately September 2007 the applicant modified its project plans to reduce the heights
below the level that would necessitate use permit consideration by the City Council, thus
resulting in final approval of the project to be considered by the ARC. The calendar for
processing review of the project, used by staff and the applicant, was not changed in light of the
proposed decrease in height, however.
Mayor and City Council
Request for Certification of Chinatown Project Final EIR
December 13, 2007
Page 2
Shortly prior to the date that the Planning Commission was to provide input on the EIR, a valid
concern was raised by a Planning Commissioner that certification of the EIR prior to final action
on the project appeared in conflict with the state CEQA Guidelines. After evaluating the issue,
staff advised the Planning Commission on November 28, 2007 that its recommendations would
be provided to the City Council, but that staff would recommend that final action to certify the
EIR would be made by the ARC in January. (The legal reasoning for this change in which body
certifies the EIR is discussed more fully below.) .
Also, at the City Council meeting of December 4, 2007, Mayor Romero raised as a
communication a concern about the Chinatown project moving ahead without final review by the
City Council. He advised that unless a majority of the Council felt differently, staff would
schedule the matter for final approval by the City Council following the ARC hearing on January
28, 2008. There was Council consensus to proceed so as to reserve for Council the ability to take
final action on the project, rather than allowing such a decision to be made by a subordinate
legislative body appointed by the City Council. It was staff's understanding that inherent in the
Council's consensus on scheduling was that on January 28, 2008 the ARC would snake
recommendations regarding EIR certification and the Council would make final EIR certification
and project approval decisions on February 19, 2008.
The California Environmental Quality Act is codified in the Public Resources Code. Section
21003 provides that it is the policy of the state that local agencies integrate the requirements of
that division [CEQA] with planning and environmental review procedures otherwise required by
law or by local practice so that all those procedures, to the maximum feasible extent, run
concurrently, rather than consecutively.
The CEQA Guidelines are promulgated by the California Resources Agency. The California
Supreme Court has yet to rule definitively as to whether.the Guidelines are mandatory or merely
aids to interpretation of CEQA. However, that Court has stated that "at a minimum," courts
should `-`afford them [CEQA Guidelines] great weight...except when a provision is clearly
unauthorized or erroneous."
The CEQA Guidelines at section 15202, regarding public hearings, provide that "[i]f an agency
provides a public hearing on its decision to carry out or approve a project, the agency should
include environmental review as one of the subjects of the hearing." Section 15090, regarding
certification of the final EIR, states that "prior to approving a project a lead agency shall certify
that...the final EIR was presented to the decision making body of the lead agency and that the
decision making body reviewed and considered the information contained in the final EIR prior
to approving the project, and the final EIR reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and
analysis." The Guidelines define the term decision making body broadly, so as to encompass
appointed advisory bodies such as the ARC. The Guidelines acknowledge that a non elected
decision making body may be called upon to certify a final EIR.
Thus, CEQA provides local agencies are to make CEQA related determinations to the maximum
feasible extent concurrently with other planning and environmental decisions, rather than
Mayor and City Council
Request for Certification of Chinatown Project Final EIR
` December 13, 2007
Page 3
consecutively. Similarly, the Guidelines encourage certification of the EIR at the time of
consideration of project approval..
Also, the CEQA Guidelines urge that if a public hearing is held regarding a decision to approve a
project, environmental review should be one subject of that pubic hearing. Thus, encouraging
that final EIR certification should be part of the public hearing held to consider approval of a
project, thereby allowing the opportunity for additional environmental information to come to
light prior to final EIR certification and project approval.
And, the CEQA Guidelines provide that prior to approving a project, the lead agency shall
certify that the final EIR was presented to the decision making body and that body reviewed the
information in the final EIR prior to approving the project. Thus, whichever decision making
body is to consider approving the project should also review the final EIR.
There is also case law on the issue of final EIR certification and project approval. In Bakersfield
Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield, the appellate court explained:
"City appears to have thought that the public's role in the environmental review process
ends when the public comment period expires. Apparently, it did not realize that if a
public hearing is conducted on project approval, then new environmental objections
could be made until close of this hearing. (§ 21177, subd. (b); Guidelines, § 15202, subd.
(b); Hillside, supra, 83 Ca1.App.4th at p. 1263.) If the decision making body elects to
certify the EIR without considering comments made at this public hearing, it does so at
its own risk. If a CEQA action is subsequently brought, the EIR may be found to be
deficient on grounds that were raised at any point prior to close of the hearing on project
approval."
Thus, the court ruled that certifying the Final EIR prior to project approval does not preclude
further comment on the EIR until actual project approval.
The above paragraphs give a brief.explanation of why staff modified the project processing
schedule as it did, thereby moving consideration of final EIR certification to the ARC hearing on
January 28, 2008, and then, after Council's expressed desire to make the final decision on this
project, rescheduling the final EIR certification for February 19, 2008.
Applicant's Need for Greater Certainty in the Process
The applicant believes that certification of the final EIR on December 18 will give it the certainty
and direction needed in order to ensure plans submitted to the ARC are complete and consistent
with the requirements of the final EIR. To an extent, the applicant is in a Catch-22 situation, it
can't submit final plans until it knows how the significant environmental impacts are to be
handled, i.e. will it be subject to all the mitigation measures or might there be some instances
where statements of overriding considerations are appropriate? While this situation is not unique
(the nature of EIR processing puts many applicants in this same box), in this instance, where the
1 /
Mayor and City Council
Request for Certification of Chinatown Project Final EIR
December 13, 2007
Page 4
applicant is also under a special timeline (the Option Agreement to purchase the underlying land
specifies that financing, a construction contract and a building permit must be in hand by early
May 2008), the need for greater certainty earlier rather than later makes perfect sense. Also,
while comment from the Council on the final EIR on December 18 could be helpful, it does not
have the same certainty or binding effect as actual certification. The applicant is seeking that
certainty and binding effect. Now, we tum to the issue of whether or not final EIR certification
can be accomplished at the December 18, 2007.
Why Council May Certify on December 18
The CEQA Guidelines are, indeed, guidelines. They are not mandatory. In addition, careful
inspection of the language of the CEQA Guidelines excerpts cited above reveals permissive
rather than directive language, i.e. the use of the term "should" rather than "shall." Thus, while
the policy behind having final EIR certification occur at the same time as project approval is
clear, the CEQA Guidelines appear to leave room for variations in tinning of final EIR
certification, depending upon the specifics of a particular situation. However, the Guidelines
make fairly clear, and the Bakersfield case noted above reinforces that, if final EIR certification
occurs prior to final approval of a project, comments on the environmental review must be
considered up until the time of final approval. Thus, provided Council and the applicant
recognize that notwithstanding certification occurring on December 18, 2007, there is always the
possibility of additional environmental issues being raised up until the time of project approval,
the Council could decide to certify the EIR on December 18, 2007. In the event of new and
significant issues (i.e. beyond the scope of the certified EIR) raised between December 18, 2007
and February 19, 2008, staff and the environmental consultant would evaluate them, and
recommend the Council "supplement" the EIR if circumstances, CEQA and the Guidelines so
warrant (this could involve rescinding the final EIR certification and recertifying a modified final
EIR).
Other Considerations
Another consideration is whether final EIR certification on December 18, 2007 would violate the
Brown Act. Notice under the Brown Act is to be reasonably calculated to inform the public of
items to be discussed. The agenda description and the staff report clearly note that the Council
will be discussing certification of the final EIR for the Chinatown project. While there is not a
staff recommendation in that report to certify the final EIR, the Council would always have the
option to do so, as taking an action different from the staff recommendation is not unexpected —
it would be unusual if a City Council always followed the staff's advice. In addition, this
memorandum and a follow-up communication from staff (providing a draft resolution should
Council choose to certify the EIR) offer added advance public notice of the possibility of this
action being taken. Thus, certification of the final EIR on December 18, 2007 would not be a
violation of the Brown Act. In addition, under the Brown Act, if a violation is alleged, the City
Council must be provided an opportunity to cure the violation. Hence, if necessary, the matter
could be re-noticed and the Council could take the same action again (first considering,
consistent with the discussion above, any new environmental information submitted).
Mayor and City Council
Request for Certification of Chinatown Project Final EIR
December 13, 2007
Page 5
Finally, as part of the City of San Luis Obispo's standard Reimbursement Agreement in
conjunction with CEQA processing, in the event of legal challenge to any actions taken by the
City in relation to the project, the City reserves the right to not defend against third party claims,
or if the City decides to defend against any such action, the applicant is obligated to pay the
City's costs in such proceeding and any award in the event the City is not successful in
defending against such a challenge.
CONCLUSION
Thus, while not the most conservative course of action, a decision to certify the final EIR on
December 18, 2007 is legally permissible and should not expose the City to any additional
liability, provided any additional environmental review comments are considered up until the
time of consideration of project approval.
ATTACHMENT
December 12, 2007 letter from Tom Copeland
GAMemosWemo to Council.Request for Certification of Chinatown EIR
0 O
COUNCIL 2'LDD DIR RECEIVED
CAO , FIN DIR
ACAO Q;lRE CHIEF SLO Chinatown, LLC
,Z ATTORNEY ;;,PW DIR P.O. Box 12260 DEC 12 2007
,'CLERK/ORIG ZPOLICECHF
❑ D PT HEADS PIREC DIR San Luis Obispo, California 93406 SLO CITY CLERK
� 8' I DIR _K (805) 593-0200
HR
'- (100 FAX# (805) 593-0109
i December 12, 2007
Mayor Dave Romero HAND DELIVERED
Vice Mayor Paul Brown
Council Member Andrew Carter
Council Member Christine Mulholland RED FILE
Council Member Allen K. Settle
City of San Luis Obispo ME ING AGENDaA������"
990 Palm Street DATE ITEM #,�3 l
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: Final EIR Review for Proposed Chinatown Project
Dear Mayor,Vice Mayor and Council Members:
We respectfully request that you take action to certify the Final EIR for the proposed
Chinatown project at your Council meeting on December 18, 2007. We believe that the City
Council has the authority to certify the EIR at that meeting under the CEQA Guidelines.
It is our understanding that during this meeting the Council w11 also provide direction to
the Architectural Review Commission ("ARC") in connection with the project's final design
approval at a future date. As you are aware, we met with the ARC on November 19, at which
time we received a positive review of the project and were given a short list of additional
information the ARC would need for us to provide for final approval. Your certification of the
Final EIR on December 18 will give us the certainty and direction we need in order to insure that
the package we submit to the ARC is complete and consistent with the requirements of the Final
EIR.
By separate letter, we are requesting that the City Attorney prepare an appropriate draft
Resolution prior to the December 18 meeting to facilitate the ability of the Council to certify the
Final EIR at that time.
Should you have any questions,please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
SLO Chinatown, LLC
,ZA-- /1
Tom Copeland
cc: Ken Hampian
Shelly Stanwyck
Claire Clark
Jonathan Lowell
_ RED 1-Im __. n rz V l=i V G LJ
MEETING AGENDA
DATE TEM #. DEC 13 1001
council McMORAn YCLERK
O'CAO D DIR
H'ACAO FIN DIR
December 12, 2007 ATTORNEY �W DIRiIEF
ZCLERK/ORIa 2-POLICE CHF
❑ 0 PT EARS D'REC DIR
TO:_ City Council OrUTIL DIR
i E!rHR DIR
FROM: Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officev.
Bill Statler, Director of Finance & Informationechnology �
CA cw-
SUBJECT: CHINATOWN FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
Attached. for your information and consideration is a report prepared by Allan D. Kotin &
Associates (in association with CBRE Consulting) analyzing the fiscal impact of the Chinatown
project on the General Fund and Parking Fund.
SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS
Results Driven By Assumptions. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a brief
summary of the report's findings. However, a full understanding of these.findings is only
possible by reviewing the assumptions that underlie them along with the methodology used in
estimating project-related revenues and costs. These are fully detailed in the attached report.
The Very Short Story. Based on the key assumptions detailed in the attached analysis, the report
concludes that on annual basis the project will have a favorable impact on the General Fund of
$592,200 and an adverse impact on the Parking Fund of$369,000, summarized_as follows:
General Fund
pact
-General Fund Annual F iscallm
Revenues 798,700
The positive results largely speak for TOT* 366,000
themselves. As outlined in the Sales Tax ' 195,600
sidebar chart, the favorable results are Property Tax 97,100
largely due to projected Transient Other Revenues 140,000
Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenues, OnLoing Costs 206,500
which are projected to be a "net" I Net 83661 lm act $592,200
$366,000 (after adjusting for Net of estimated transfers from existing businesses
estimated transfer affects from
existing hotels and motels) and Parking Fund Annual Fiscal Impact
account for almost half of total new Meeting Net New Demand 1 127,000
revenues. Net Operating Revenues(2) 16,000
Debt Service Costs 3 143,000
Parking Fund Net Surface.Lot Revenue Loss 2 242,000
Net Fiscal Impact $369,000
The adverse impacts on the Parking 1. Based on updated EIR analysis;assumes use of
Fund are due to two key factors: structured parking for 144 spaces
2. Net of operating costs
3. Debt service costs for construction after projected
parking in-lieu fees and proceeds from land sale
Chinatown Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 2
1. Accommodating 144 "net demand"spaces through added structure spaces. There are two
components to the cost of mitigating the 144 space "net loss" identified in the Updated
Environmental Impact Report (EIR): acquisition and ongoing operations afterwards.
a. Acquisition. These are based on our most recent experience with the 919 Palm structure,
with actual "per space" costs of $40,900 (including land). This results in an acquisition
cost of$5.8 million for 144 spaces. This is offset by the estimated parking in-lieu fees of
$1.8 million as recommended by the Updated EIR, based on the current fee of $12,767
per space. This is further offset by the allocated proceeds from the sale of surface
parking lots of $1.9 million, resulting in net cost of $2.1 million. Debt service costs on
this net amount are estimated at $143,000 annually.
b. Operations. Based on a detailed cost analysis prepared as part of the Parking Enterprise
Fund review in May 2007, net revenues from our structure operations (revenues less
operations and maintenance) are $110 per space, resulting in $16,000 in ongoing net
revenues for 144 spaces.
2. Loss of revenues from the existing surface lots. After adjusting for minor operating cost
savings, the net impact of this is estimated to be $242,000 annually.
The following factors should be considered in placing this adverse impact in perspective:
1. Parking Fund capacity to absorb the fiscal impact. Placed in context, the $369,000 impact
represents about 10% of Parking Fund resources. New revenue sources have already been
adopted for the future — and others are under consideration based on Council direction from
May 2007 in planning for the Palm-Nipomo structure — that will help offset this. In short,
this is within the rate-setting capacity of the Parking Fund to absorb.
2. Role of parking as a key redevelopment tool. The City does not have a redevelopment
agency. As such, the Parking Fund is one of our key tools in achieving our Downtown goals.
The fact is that any conversion of surface parking to structured parking will place added
fiscal pressure on the Parking Fund. However, this is the role we have specifically assigned
to the Parking Fund in helping the City financially achieve our broader goals for the
community.
3. Surface lots purchased by the .General Fund These lots were purchased prior to
establishing the Parking Fund in 1977, and as such, were acquired through the General Fund.
Stated simply, the existing revenue capacity enjoyed by the Parking Fund at the surface
parking lots was provided by the General Fund. While it will no longer receive these
revenues, the fact is that the Parking Fund benefited from revenues generated from the use of
this land for many years.
4. Upcoming parking in-lieu fee review. As part of the Parking Fund analysis in May 2007,
the Council directed the staff to return to the Council with an analysis of parking in-lieu fees.
We plan to do so in February 2008, when the Council will be presented with a number of
parking in-lieu fee options. The recommended Updated EIR mitigation measure is for the
applicant to pay whatever the parking in-lieu fee is at the time of building permit issuance,
Chinatown Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 3
which will occur well after the Council considers updating the fee in February 2008. While
we are still finalizing the results of our analysis, staff is likely to recommend that the Council
retain our current policy of setting the fee at 40% of the cost of acquiring a new structure
space, but based on an updated cost of doing so. If, for example, the Council approved such
a recommendation, the parking in-lieu fee would increase from $12,767 per space to $16,360
per space; and this would become the amount due from the project under the Updated EIR's
recommended mitigation measure. This would increase the project's parking in-lieu fee
obligation by$517,000, reducing annual debt service costs by$35,000.
NEXT STEPS
As outlined in the Council agenda report, we had originally planned to formally present the
results of this analysis to the Council on January 8, when more time will be available (and yet
still ahead of final action on the project). However, based on the high level of interest that
several Council members have recently expressed to staff on this topic, Allan Kotin has
rescheduled his calendar in order to attend the December 18 meeting.
Accordingly, we plan on making a concise presentation of these results and answering any
questions that the Council may have at the December 18 meeting. With this change, unless
unanswered questions remain at the end of the meeting on the project's fiscal impacts, we do not
plan on returning with this analysis on January 8.
T:Chinatown/Fiscal Impact Study 2007/Transmittal Memorandum
RDK&II
310.620.0900
213.623.3841
Fax 213.623.4231
Allan D. Kotin &Associates
Real Estate Consulting for Public Private Joint Ventures
949 S. Hope Street, Suite 200, Los Angeles,CA 90015 akotin@adkotin.com
Memorandum
TO: Claire Clark,Economic Development Manager, DATE: December 12, 2007
City of San Luis Obispo
CC: Shelly Stanwyck, Bill Statler, and Robert Horch
FROM: Ross S. Selvidge and Allan D. Kotin
RE: CHINATOWN FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS—GENERAL FUND AND PARKING FUND
At your request, Allan D. Kotin & Associates in association with CBRE Consulting is pleased to
present this analysis of the potential fiscal impacts of the proposed redevelopment of a portion of the
Chinatown block in downtown San Luis Obispo. The analysis is based primarily on project
information provided by Copelands' Properties as well as financial and other data from several
departments of the City of San Luis Obispo. With respect to the impact of the project on the General
Fund, the approach and format for the fiscal impact follows that used in a similar study for the
proposed San Luis Marketplace in 2002. In this instance, a supplementary analysis of the impact of
the project on the Parking Fund has also been included at the City's request
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Summary Findings
The proposed project, known as "Chinatown", consists of 43,750 square feet of retail space, 4,600
square feet of office space, a 67 room hotel with associated meeting space and a 6,000 square foot
restaurant, 36 residential units, and 122 underground parking spaces.I
The project should generate a positive annual General Fund net fiscal impact measured at stabilized
operations. In 2007 dollars, annual fiscal revenues are estimated at $798,700. Annual operating costs
of funding the necessary municipal services are estimated at $173,900. This produces an annual
General Fund surplus of $624,800. After an allowance of $32,600 for a share of the City's capital
improvement plan costs, the General Fund's annual net fiscal surplus is estimated at $592,200.
ANNUAL IMPACT ON GENERAL FUND(2007$)
Revenues $798,700
Less Municipal Service Costs17( 3,900)
Net Fiscal Revenues-Operations $624,800
Less Allocation to Capital Improvements3( 2,600)
Net Fiscal Revenues (with Capital) $592,200
Note that these specifications reflect the revised and reduced project description of November 2007, not the larger
project described in the original application.
RDIGR
Memorandum
RE: CHINATOWN FISCAL IMPACT AND PARKING ANALYSIS
Note that these estimates of general fund impact consider only direct impacts and do not consider the
potential catalytic effect this project may have on other spending and property values in Downtown
San Luis Obispo. This approach is consistent with prior fiscal impact analyses.
Due to the need to compensate for the loss of public parking spaces now provided on the project site
and to provide the additional parking needed for the added project improvements, the project will
have a modest adverse impact on both the operating and capital budgets of the Parking Fund. Part of
the adverse capital impact will be offset by the allocation to the parking fund of a portion of the sales
proceeds the City will realize from the sale of the site to the developer. The parking fund analysis
acknowledges that the project's internal parking requirements are apparently satisfied by the
proposed provision of onsite parking.
ANNUAL IMPACT ON PARKING FUND(2007$)
New Revenues From Transferred Demand $ 16,000
Less Loss in Revenue from Lot Closure24( 2.000)
Net Fiscal Loss from Operations ($226,000)
Less Annual Debt Service for New SpacesZ ($143,000)
Net Fiscal Loss (with Capital Charges) ($369,000)
Categories of General Fund Revenues and Expenditures
The four largest components of the revenues make up more than 82% of the total. The largest of all
is the $366,000 in transient occupancy tax (TOT) generated from the hotel operations. New taxable
retail sales are expected to generate sales and use tax revenue (at 1% of sales) and Measure Y
revenue (at 0.5% of sales) equal to approximately $130,400 and $65,200, respectively. The City's
share of property tax revenue is estimated to be approximately $97,100 based on the expected value
of the new improvements. The remaining $140,000 in revenue is derived from other sources such as
utility and franchise taxes, business license tax, vehicle license fees, and investment earnings.
The three largest components of the new municipal service costs are police protection, parks and
recreation, and general government. They constitute more than 77% of the total. Police protection at
$68,000 is the largest new cost followed by parks and recreation at $42,500 and general government
at $24,900. Three categories of transportation costs combined equal $18,100. The remaining costs
are attributable to several social services and community development categories.
These municipal service costs are net of any revenues received directly in some of the categories that
offset the gross costs. The amount of these new costs is largely based on the increase in new
'` Based on a 30-year bond at 5.5% interest to service a net cost of$2,097,000 which reflects a total cost of$5,869,000
for 144 spaces at$40,900 reduced by$1,832,000 in parking in lieu fees (current rates) and$1,940,000 in allocated land
proceeds. (See Exhibit P-1 for details)
Allan D. Kotin&Associates Page 2 12/13/2007
RDIGIR
Memorandum
RE: CHINATOWN FISCAL IMPACT AND PARKING ANALYSIS
residents or new daytime population including residents, employees and hotel guests. Consistent
with prior fiscal impact analyses, no added incremental costs (after revenue recovery for fee-based
services) are shown for fire costs. This is based ontwo factors: 1) from a staffing perspective, the
City is currently meeting its policy goals for three-person engine companies at all stations at all
times as well as its constant staffing standards; and 2) given the project's location, it is within the
City's four minute response time goal. Accordingly, unless the City changes its fire protection plans
and policies (which are currently under review as part of a strategic planning effort approved in the
2007-09 Financial Plan), no added "net" fire costs are projected to be incurred in serving this
project.
DETAILED SUPPORTING CALCULATIONS—GENERAL FUND
General Fund Summary
Exhibit G-1 presents a summary tabulation of the amount of the annual individual fiscal revenue and
cost components. Exhibits G-2 through G-9 show the detailed derivation of the amounts presented in
Exhibit G-1. Each of the major steps in the analysis associated with these exhibits is discussed
below
General Fund Input Assumptions and Factors
The fiscal impact is based primarily on 1) the project specifications, 2) the number of residents,
employees and hotel guests, and 3) city demographic and fiscal factors. The project description by
use type and area is presented in Exhibit G-2. The use types, areas and parking specifications were
provided by Copelands' Properties and are consistent with the Updated EIR dated November 2007.
Estimates of resident, employee and hotel guest counts are presented in Exhibit G-3 along with the
current City population and number of employees working in the City. Based on average unit
occupancy provided by the City, it is estimated that the project will contain 69 new residents. The
estimate of 222 employees in the project is based on industry average employee densities. The 88
hotel guest person years is based on estimates of the average room occupancy and number of guests
per night per room. The equivalent residents figure of 379 is based on an employee or hotel guest as
being equivalent to 0.50 residents for the purpose of estimating certain.municipal costs. That is .a
commonly used factor in fiscal analyses.
General Fund Derivation of Specific Taxes
Property Taxes
The property tax revenue derivation is presented in Exhibit G-4. The City's receives approximately
14% of the 1.00% general levy on the assessed value of real estate in the City. The areas of the
different project components were multiplied by estimates of their values per square foot (or room
count multiplied by the value per room in the case of the hotel) to determine the assessed value that
Allan D. Kotin&Associates Page 3 12/13/2007
RDIGe
Memorandum
RE: CHINATOWN FISCAL IMPACT AND PARKING ANALYSIS
would be taxed. The estimated combined assessed value of the residential and non-residential
portions of the project is $79.9 million. That assessed value would initially produce an annual
general levy of $799,000. The City's share would be $111,900. Since current property taxes are
approximately$14,800, the City's net new property tax would equal $97,100.
Sales Taxes
The City will receive sales tax revenue equal to 1.00% of the taxable sales that will occur on the
project site. Exhibit G-5 presents the derivation of the estimated taxable retail sales that will be
generated by the project and the net tax the City will receive. The estimates of sales per square foot
prepared by Copelands' Properties and are within a range that is considered reasonable. It is
estimated that there will be $19.6 million in annual taxable sales at the project. This is approximately
a 20% to 25% increase in taxable retail sales in the downtown area. Given that scale of additional
retail sales in the downtown area, there will be some transfer of sales from existing retailers, at least
initially. Given the amount and character of the existing retail sales, it is estimated that the transfer
will initially be in the range of 25% of sales at the project. That transfer may decrease over time as
retail demand grows. The existing retailers project site that will be displaced currently generate
$17,000 in annual sales tax for the City. Adjusting for the transfer effect and existing taxable sales
on the project site, it is estimated that the City will receive a net increase of $130,400 in sales tax
revenue. The City will also receive Measure Y revenue equal to 0.50% of the net new taxable retail
sales or$65,400.
Hotel Taxes
The derivation of the impacts from the hotel operations are presented in Exhibit G-6. The annual
daily room rate, occupancy levels and estimated spending on food and beverages used were
provided by PKF Consulting, a specialist in the hospitality industry. Based on the level of
competition for the proposed hotel and the growth in hotel demand projected by PKF Consulting, it
is estimated that upon stabilization, approximately 15% of the hotel's business will be transfers from
existing hotels. Net of the transfer effect, it is estimated that the hotel will produce $366,000 in TOT
(Transient Occupancy Tax), $2.6 million in taxable spending, and$623,000 in other spending.
Other Revenues
A derivation of the business license tax, real property transfer tax and vehicle license fee swap
revenue is presented in Exhibit G-7. The business license tax is essentially a tax on the receipts of
businesses. The rate is 0.05% of gross receipts. Based on estimates of the gross receipts (after
transfer effects) for the businesses in the project, the City can expect to receive $10,300 in annual
business license tax.
The City will receive a real property transfer tax equal to 0.055% of the value of real estate sold each
year in the project. Each residential unit is assumed to sell at an average eight year interval. Based
on the value of the residential components, this would produce approximately $2,200 in annual real
Allan D. Kotin&Associates Page 4 12/13/2007
ADIGe
Memorandum
RE: CHINATOWN FISCAL IMPACT AND PARKING ANALYSIS
property transfer tax revenue for the City. The non-residential portions of the project would sell at
irregular intervals that make it too speculative to include in this projection.
The vehicle license fee swap revenue is based on the annual percent increase in the City's assessed
value. The project would constitute approximately a 1.28% increase in the assessed value in the
City. This would produce a$48,400 increase in the City's annual vehicle license fee swap revenue.
A summary tabulation of the factors by which the different revenue and municipal cost line items are
estimated is presented in Exhibit G-8. These are consistent with common practices in fiscal analyses
and the previous fiscal analysis conducted in 2002 for the San Luis Marketplace.
General Fund Derivation of Estimated Expenditures
The derivation of the municipal cost factors and several revenue factors are presented in Exhibit G-
9. These factor derivations are based on cost and revenue patterns in the City's 2007-2009 Financial
Plan budget. In the case of some of the cost categories, there are offsetting revenues that reduce the
gross costs on which the factors are based. These factors are combined with other parameters such as
the project's new residents or new equivalent residents to obtain a category's cost for the project.
DETAILED SUPPORTING CALCULATIONS—PARKING FUND
Parking Fund Calculations -Summary
Exhibit P-1 provides a summary of the parking impacts.
According to the City parking regulations, the project will create a parking demand for a total of 206
spaces. The residential component will require 43 parking spaces while the hotel, restaurant, retail,
and office components will require 163 spaces. According to the City code, existing uses on the
project site constitute a demand for 95 spaces. Consequently, the project will produce a net increase
in demand of 111 spaces.
The project site currently has 155 public and private parking spaces. Those 155 spaces will be lost
with the development of the, project. Upon completion, the project will provide 122 parking spaces
on-site in an underground parking garage and on the surface.
Given the net new demand, there will be a parking deficit of 144 spaces.
Project Demand 206
Less Existing Demand (95)
Plus: Existing Parking Lost 155
Less: New Parking Provided (1122)
Parking Deficit 144
Allan D. Kotin&Associates Page 5 12/13/2007
Memorandum
RE: CHINATOWN FISCAL IMPACT AND PARKING ANALYSIS
The potential annual financial impact to the City of this plan would equal the net revenues from the
143 space City parking lots on the project site that would be lost with an offset for any increased
utilization of existing or new City-owned lots or structures (and thus net revenues) resulting from
those facilities absorbing all or part of the parking deficit demand. The annual net revenue lost from
the 143-space City lots is estimated at $242,000. If all the parking deficit demand were to relocate to
existing or new facilities, the net increase in City revenues is estimated at approximately $16,000.
This would produce an overall annual loss of approximately$226,000 for the City.
The net capital cost of providing spaces to eliminate the 144 space parking deficit is equal to the cost
of the structure less the parking in lieu fee that would be levied and allocated proceeds from the sale
of land. The cost including land to provide a parking in the vicinity of the project is estimated at
$40,900 per space or approximately $5.9 million for the entire deficit.
The City's $12,767 fee per deficit space would offset $1.8 million of that cost. Further offsetting the
cost with the $1.9 million in proceeds from the sale of the two City-owned lots on the project site
leaves a net cost of approximately $2.1 million. In the current capital markets, that cost could be
financed over 30 years at an annual cost of approximately $143,000.
Combining the annual operating deficit produced by the elimination of the two City-owned lots with
the annual burden of the net capital cost of providing parking spaces to offset the parking shortfall,
produces an annual deficit of$369,000. The derivation of this figure is presented in Exhibit P-1. The
details behind the derivation in Exhibit P-1 are presented in Exhibit P-2 through P-5.
Parking Fund - Supporting Calculations
The back up computations for the parking deficit and costs are presented in Exhibit P-1. Details on
which those back up computations are based are contained in Exhibits P-2 through P-5. As shown in
Exhibit P-2, the two existing City-owned parking lots on the project site contain 143 spaces
(excluding a loading zone) and generate approximately $242,000 in annual net revenue.
The "net" revenue is estimated at $110 per space, based on the detailed analysis of structure
revenues and costs that already developed by City staff as part of the parking fund review in May
2007.
The derivation of the parking demand for the project is presented in Exhibit P-3. The residential
derived parking demand of 43 spaces for the residential component and 163 spaces for the remainder
of the project is consistent with the demand derived in Final Updated EIR. The existing buildings
and improvements on the project site would require 95 parking spaces according to the City's
parking regulations. A credit against the demand for the proposed project is allowed for the demand
from the existing uses. The net increase of 111 spaces in the parking requirements for the project site
is satisfied by the 122 spaces to be provided in the project.
Allan D. Kotin&Associates Page 6 12/13/2007
Memorandum
RE: CHINATOWN FISCAL IMPACT AND PARKING ANALYSIS
Exhibit P-4 presents the derivation of the current 95 space demand for the existing uses on the
project site. It also presents an additional derivation of the parking requirements for the residential
component of the project.
The specifications of the project by component and the amount of parking provided are presented in
Exhibit P-5.
SLO Chinatown Fiscal Impact Analysis 121207v2.doc
Allan D. Kotin&Associates Page 7 12/13/2007
I
RDIGA
Memorandum
RE: CHINATOWN FISCAL IMPACT AND PARKING ANALYSIS
EXHIBIT G-1
SAN LUIS OBISPO - CHINATOWN PROJECT
ANNUAL FISCAL REVENUES AND COSTS (2007$)
Percent Source
Amount of Total Exhibit(s)
Annual Revenues
Sales and Use Tax 130,400 16.3% GF-5
Measure Y 65,200 8.2% GF-5
Property Tax 97,100 12.2% GF-4
Transient Occupancy Tax 366,000 45.8% GF-6
Real Property Transfer Tax 2,200 0.3% GF-7
Utility Users Tax 29,200 3.7% GF-9
Utility Franchises. 15,900 2.0% GF-9
Business License Tax 10,300 1.3% GF-7
Gasoline Tax 1,300 0.2% GF-3&GF-8
Vehicle License Fee/VLF Swap 48,400 6.1% GF-7
Other Revenues 100 0.0% GF-9
Investment Earnings 32,600 4.1% GF-8
Total $798,700 100.0%
Annual Municipal Service Costs
Public Safety
Police Protection $68,000 39.1% GF-3&GF-8
Transportation
Transportation Planning 4,600 2.6% GF-3&GF-8
Streets Maintenance 9,400 5.4% GF-3&GF-8
Flood Protection 4,100 2.4% GF-3&GF-8
Leisure,Cultural and Social Services
Parks&Recreation 42,500 24.4% GF-8&GF-9
Cultural Services 1,600 0.9% GF-3&GF-8
Social Services 900 0.5% GF-3&GF-8
Community Development
Planning and Building 2,600 1.5% GF-3&GF-8
Natural Resource Protection 2,100 1.2% GF-3&GF-8
Engineering 9,500 5.5% GF-3&GF-8
Community Promotion 2,500 1.4% GF-3&GF-8
Economic Development 1,200 0.7% GF-3&GF-8
General Government 24,900 14.3% GF-8
Total $173,900 100.0%
Net Recurring Operating Surplus $624,800
Capital Improvement Plan Costs $32,600 GF-3&GF-8
Net Fiscal Impact $592,200
Allan D. Kotin&Associates Page 8 12/13/2007
Memorandum
RE: CHINATOWN FISCAL IMPACT AND PARKING ANALYSIS
EXHIBIT G-2
SAN LUIS OBISPO- CHINATOWN PROJECT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Hotel Residential TOTAL Parking
Level Retail Restaurant Office Sq Ft Rooms Sq Ft Units SO FT Sq Ft Spaces
Monterey 14,200 6,000 8,500 26,000 60
4,600 7,500 2,400 _
18,800 6,000 16,000 28,400 60
Plaza 7,450 4,600 15,000 13 28,000 62
Palm 3,900 14,500 27 10,400 10
2,900 4,000
7,600 3,000
1,200
1,000
900
17,500 21,500 27 10,400 10
Palm 14,500 27 25,470 16
Palm 3 21,700 10
Total 43,750 6,000 4,600 67,000 67 57,570 36 178,920 56,400 122
Source:Copelands'Properties
Allan D. Kotin&Associates Page 9 12/13/2007
RDIGA
Memorandum
RE: CHINATOWN FISCAL IMPACT AND PARKING ANALYSIS
EXHIBIT G-3
SAN LUIS OBISPO-CHINATOWN PROJECT
PROJECT AND CITY DATA
CITYWIDE
Residents 44,440
Employees 39,000
Equivalent Residents Resident
Residents or Equivalent Equivalent
Employees Factor Residents
Residents 44,440 100% 44,440
Employees 39,000 50% 19,500
Total 63,940
Non-Residential improvements
Square Feet 8,030,000
PROJECT Units Per Unit Total
RESIDENTS
Amount 36 1.92 69
SF Per Employees Total
Sq Ft Employee Rooms Per Room Employees
EMPLOYMENT
Retail 43,750 500 88
Restaurant 6,000 125 48
Office 4,600 250 18
Hotel 67,000 67 1 67
Residential 57,570 1
Total 178,920 222
HOTEL GUESTS
Guest Days 32,100
Hotel Guest Person Years 88
Resident
Residents or Equivalent Equivalent
Employees Factor Residents
EQUIVALENT RESIDENTS
Residents 69 100% 69
Employees 222 50% 222
Hotel Guest Person Years 88 50% 88
Total 379
Source:CBRE Consulting and City of San Luis Obispo
Allan D. Kotin&Associates Page 10 12/13/2007
INDIGA '
Memorandum
RE: CHINATOWN FISCAL IMPACT AND PARKING ANALYSIS
EXHIBIT G-4
SAN LUIS OBISPO- CHINATOWN PROJECT
PROPERTY TAX
Assessed Value Property Tax
Square Feet Units or PSF or General
Unit/Room Total Rooms Room Total Levy City Share
NEW PROPERTY TAX
RETAIL
Monterey 18,800 $375 $7,050,000 $70,500 $9,900
Plaza 7,450 375 2,794,000 27,940 3,900
Palm 17,500 375 6,563,000 65,630 9,200
Subtotal 43,750 $16,407,000 $164,070 $23,000
RESTAURANT 6,000 in Hotel
OFFICE 4,600 $375 $1,725,000 $17,250 $2,400
HOTEL 1,000 67,000 67 $450,000 $30,150,000 $301,500 $42,200
RESIDENTIAL 1,599 57,570 36 $550 $31,664,000 $316,640 $44,300
COMBINED $79,946,000 $799,460 $111,900
EXISTING PROPERTY TAX
Amount $10,550,000 $105,500 $14,800
NET NEW PROPERTY TAX $69,396,000 $693,960 $97,100
Amount
Notes: 1.Assessed value estimates provided by Copelands'Properties
2.Existing assessed vaue provided by City of San Luis Obispo
Allan D. Kotin&Associates Page 11 12/13/2007
Memorandum
RE: CHINATOWN FISCAL IMPACT AND PARKING ANALYSIS
EXHIBIT G-5
SAN LUIS OBISPO - CHINATOWN PROJECT
SALES TAX
Sales Taxable Sales Sales
Sq Ft PSF Total Percent Total Tax
NEW SALES TAX
RETAIL
Monterey 14,200 500 $7,100,000 100% $7,100,000 $71,000
4,600 500 2,300,000 100% 2,300,000 23,000
18,800 $9,400,000 $9,400,000 $94,000
Plaza 7,450 500 $3,725,000 100% $3,725,000 $37,300
Palm 3,900 200 $780,000 100% $780,000 $7,800
2,900 200 580,000 100% 580,000 5,800
7,600 200 1,520,000 100% 1,520,000 15,200
1,200 200 240,000 100% 240,000 2,400
1,000 200 200,000 100% 200,000 2,000
900 200 180,000 100% 180,000 1,800
17,500 $3,500,000 $3,500,000 $35,000
Subtotal 43,750 380 $16,625,000 $16,625,000 $166,300
RESTAURANT
Monterey 6,000 In Hotel
HOTEL FOOD&BEVERAGE $3,017,000 100% $3,017,000 $30,200
COMBINED
Total 49,750 $19,642,000 $19,642,000 $196,500
NET OF TRANSFER FROM OTHER SLO RETAILERS
Transfer Factor 25% $14,731,500 $14,731,500 $147,400
Amount
EXISTING SALES TAX
Amount $1,700,000 100% $1,700,000 $17,000
NET NEW SALES TAX
Amount $13,031,500 $13,031,500 $130,400
NET NEW MEASURE Y TAX
Amount $65,200
Notes: 1.Retail sales estimates provided by Copelands'Properties
2.Transfer factor estimated by CBRE Consulting
3.Existing sales on project site provided by City of San Luis Obispo
Tax Rates
Safes Tax 1.00%
Measure Y 0.50%
Allan D. Kotin&Associates Page 12 12/13/2007
Memorandum
RE: CHINATOWN FISCAL IMPACT AND PARKING ANALYSIS
EXHIBIT G-6
SAN LUIS OBISPO - CHINATOWN PROJECT
HOTEL OPERATIONS
Specifications
Square Feet 67,000
Rooms
Number 67
SF Per Room 1,000
Rooms
Average Daily Rate $235
Occupancy 75%
Annual Revenue $4,310,000
Number of Guests
Guests Per Room 1.75
Guest Days Per Year 32,100
Person Years 88
Transient Occupancy Tax
Rate 10%
Amount $431,000
Food &Beverage Spending
Percent of Room Revenue 70%
Amount $3,017,000
Other Revenues
Percent of Room and F&B 10%
Amount $733,000
Net of Transfer From Other SLO Hotels
Transfer Factor 15%
Net New
Room Revenue $3,663,500
Transient Occupancy Tax 366,000
Food& Beverage Spending 2,564,000
Other Revenues 623,000
Notes: 1. Hotel operations estimates provided by PKF Consulting
2.Transfer factor estimated by CBRE Consulting
Allan D. Kotin&Associates Page 13 12/13/2007
Memorandum
RE: CHINATOWN FISCAL IMPACT AND PARKING ANALYSIS
EXHIBIT G-7
SAN LUIS OBISPO - CHINATOWN PROJECT
OTHER REVENUES
BUSINESS LICENSE TAX
PSF Total
Net New Gross receipts
Retail $262 $13,031,500
Office 150 690,000
Hotel & Restaurant 102 6,850,500
Combined $20,572,000
Business License Tax
Rate 0.05%
Amount $10,300
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX
Residential Property Value $31,664,000
Annual Trunover
Average Holding Interval in Years 8
Percent Sold Each Year 12.50%
Value $3,958,000
Transfer Tax
Rate 0.0550%
Amount $2,200
VEHICLE LICENSE FEE
Current Assessed Value $5,419,334,000
Current VLF Revenue 3,781,900
Assessed Value Added by Project
Amount $69,396,000
Percent Increase 1.2805%
New VLF Revenue from AV Increase
Amount $48,400
Source: CBRE Consulting and City of San Luis Obispo 2007-2009 Financial Plan
Allan D. Kotin&Associates Page 14 12/13/2007
Memorandum
RE: CHINATOWN FISCAL IMPACT AND PARKING ANALYSIS
EXHIBIT G-8
SAN LUIS OBISPO - CHINATOWN PROJECT
REVENUE AND COST ESTIMATION FACTORS
Revenue Factors
Property tax allocation to City 14.0% Percent of General Levy
Direct sales tax rate 1.0% Percent of Taxable Sales
Measure Y tax rate 0.5% Percent of Taxable Sales
Transient occupancy tax 10.0% Percent of Room Receipts
Real property transfer tax 0.055% Percent of Annual Residential Sales
Utility franchises Per Capita and SF of Non-Residential
Utility users tax Per Capita and SF of Non-Residential
Business license tax 0.05% Percent of Gross Receipts
Gasoline Tax $18.65 Per Resident
Vehicle License Fee Percent Increase in Assessed Value
Other revenues $1.69 Per Resident
Investment and property 5.5% of other revenue factors minus cost factors
Cost Factors
Public Safety
Police protection $179.36 Per Equivalent Resident
Transportation
Transportation planning 12.20 Per Equivalent Resident
Streets maintenance 24.76 Per Equivalent Resident
Flood Protection 10.71 Per Equivalent Resident
Leisure, Cultural and Social Services
Parks& Recreation 112.04 Per Resident
Cultural services 4.10 Per Equivalent Resident
Social services 2.30 Per Equivalent Resident
Community Development
Planning and building 6.91 Per Equivalent Resident
Natural resource protection 5.51 Per Equivalent Resident
Engineering 25.10 Per Equivalent Resident
Community promotion 6.62 Per Equivalent Resident
Economic development 3.27 Per Equivalent Resident
General government 13.7% Percent of Other Costs
Capital improvement plan 86.10 Per Equivalent Resident
Source:CBRE Consulting and City of San Luis Obispo 2007-2009 Financial Plan
Allan D. Kotin&Associates Page 15 12/13/2007
ADI(se
Memorandum
RE: CHINATOWN FISCAL IMPACT AND PARKING ANALYSIS
EXHIBIT G-9
SAN LUIS OBISPO-CHINATOWN PROJECT
FISCAL REVENUE AND COST FACTORS
PART 1 OF 3 -General Fund Expenditure Relationships
Service Cost 2007-2008 Functional Cost Unit .
See Notes Relationship Cost Revenues(l) Net Cost Base Cost
Public Safety
Police protection Equiv Res $12,699,000 $1,231,000 $11,468,000 63,940 $179.36
Fire&environ safety 9,918,000 836,000 9,082,000
Transportation
Transportation planning Equiv Res 801,000 21,000 780,000 63,940 12.20
Streets Equiv Res 1,614,000 31,000 1,583,000 63,940 24.76
Flood protection Equiv Res 788,000 103,000 685,000 63,940 10.71
Leisure,Cultural&Social Services
Parks&recreation Per Capita 6,012,000 1,033,000 4,979,000 44,440 112.04
Cultural services Per Capita 364,000 0 364,000 44,440 8.19
Social services Per Capita 204,000 0 204,000 44,440 4.59
Community Development
Planning&building Equiv Res 2,712,000 2,270,000 442,000 63,940 6.91
Natural resource protection Equiv Res 352,000 352,000 63,940 5.51
Engineering Equiv Res 2,055,000 450,000 1,605,000 63,940 25.10
Community promotion Equiv Res 423,000 423,000 63,940 6.62
Economic development Equiv Res 209,000 209,000 63,940 327
General Government 2 Cost Ratio 7,181,000 249,0001 6,932,000 na I na
Total Operating Programs 4A332,000 6,224,000 39,108,000 _
Capital Improvement Plan(3) Equiv Res 5,505,000 5,505,000 63,940 86.10
Debt Service n.a. 1,464,400 1,464,400 n.a. n.a.
TOTAL 52,301,400 6,224,000 46,077,460
Notes
1. "Functional'revenues are deducted to arrive at a"net cost"to be supported from general purpose revenues
2. General government costs will be incurred in proportion to total direct costs
3. CIP costs are based on the four year average General Fund contribution for"capital maintenance"costs:
200546 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Average
Total $2,837,900 $3,012,500 $8,479,700 $7,690,000 $5,505,000
4. No future General Fund debt service costs are projected as a result of the Chinatown project
Allan D. Kotin&Associates Page 16 12/13/2007
RDIGe
Memorandum
RE: CHINATOWN FISCAL IMPACT AND PARKING ANALYSIS
EXHIBIT G-9
SAN LUIS OBISPO-CHINATOWN PROJECT
FISCAL REVENUE AND COST FACTORS
PART 2 OF 3-General Fund Revenue Relationships
2007-0a
Source Revenue Relationship Revenues
Taxes
Sales tax--General Percent of Retail Sales $ - 14,032,000
Measure Y Percent of Retail Sales 5,100,000
Sales tax--Prop 172 Functional revenue--police protection 333,000
Property tax Percent of Assessed value 8,771,000
Transient occupancy tax Percent of Room Revenues 5,007,000
Utility users tax Percent of Utility Usage 4,188,000
Franchise fee Percent of Utility Usage 2,288,000
Business tax Percent of Gross Revenues 1,699,000
Real property transfer tax Percent of Value of Real Estate Sold 350,000
Fines&forfeitures Functional revenue--police protection 224,000
Investment&property Estimated as percent of any net annual fiscal impact 716,000
Subventions&grants
Motor vehicle in lieu Increases at rate of increase in assessed value 3,782,000
Gasoline tax Percapita 829,000
TDA Functional revenue--transportation planning 21,000
Homeowners subvention Not applicable to annexation under current City/County agreement 88,000
Other in-lieu taxes Existing agreements--no direct relationship to annexation area 16,000
SB 90 reimbursements Functional revenue--general government
Police training(POST) Functional revenue--police protection 70,000
COPS grant Functional revenue--police protection 100,000
OTS Grant 179,000
School resource officer Functional revenue—police protection
Maint of State highways Functional revenue--streets 31,000
Zone 9 revenues Functional revenue--creek&flood protection 103,000
Other grants No relationship to Chinatown project 22,000
Service charges
Police protection Functional revenue 325,000
Fire&environ safety Functional revenue 836,000
Transportation Functional revenue -
Community development
Planning&building Functional revenue 2,270,000
Engineering Functional revenue 450,000
Leisure,cult& soc sery Functional revenue 1,033,000
General government Functional revenue 249,000
Other revenues Per Capita 75,000
Total Revenues $_ 53,187,000
Source:City of San Luis Obispo 2007-2009 Financial Plan
Allan D. Kotin&Associates Page 17 12/13/2007
RDI(&W*
Memorandum
RE: CHINATOWN FISCAL IMPACT AND PARKING ANALYSIS
PART 3 OF 3 -Other General Fund Revenue
Utility Users Tax
Estimated at 60%of revenues from residential uses and 40%from non-residential uses.
Revenue Revenue 2007-2008 Revenue Unit
Relationship Base Percent I Amount Revenue
Residential Per capita 44,440 60% $2,512,800 $56.54
Non-Residential Per sq ft 8,030,000 40% 1,675,200 0.21
Total Revenue
Residential 69 $3,900
Non-Residential 121,350 25,300
Total $29,200
Franchise Fees
Estimated at 60%of revenues from residential uses and 40%from non-residential uses.
Revenue Revenue 2007-2008 Revenue Unit
Relationship Base Percent I Amount Revenue
Residential Per capita 44,440 60% $1,372,800 $30.89
Non-Residential Per 1000 sq it 8,030,000 40% 915,200 0.11
Total Revenue
Residential 69 $2,100
Non-Residential 121,350 13,800
Total $15,900
Gasoline Tax
Revenues estimated based onpopulation:
2007-2008 Revenue Unit
Revenue Base Revenue
Gasoline tax $ 829,000 44,440 $ 18.65
Other Revenues 2007-2008 Revenue Unit
Revenue Base Revenue
$ 75,6601 44,440 1 $ 1.69
Residential 69 $100
Source:City of San Luis Obispo 2007:2009 Financial Plan
Allan D. Kotin&Associates Page 18 12/13/2007
Memorandum
RE: CHINATOWN FISCAL IMPACT AND PARKING ANALYSIS
EXHIBIT P-1 SAN LUIS OBISPO - CHINATOWN PARKING COST SUMMARY
Required Parking
Project Parking Requirements - 206
Less Credit for Existing Improvements -- 95
BASELINE New Parking Required 111
ANALYSIS OF Required vs.Provided Parking
Parking.Provided in Project 122
PARKING GAINED Less New Parking Required 111
AND LOST Surplus or(Deficit) 12
Full Parking Impact of Project
Surplus or(Deficit) 12
Less Lot 3 and 11 Spaces Lost 143
Less Other Spaces Lost 12
Full Surplus or(Deficit) (144)
Annual Net Revenue Per Deficit Parking Space Relocated $110
OPERATING COST Lots 3&11 Annual Net Revenue Lost (5242,000)
IMPACT ASSUMING Estimated Revenue Impact of Relocating Deficit Parking
Annual Net Revenue Per Space 5110
NEW PARKING New Annual Net Income 16,000
CONSTRUCTED Combined
Existing Lots and Structures - ($242,000)
Deficit Spaces Located to New Structures 16,000
Total ($226,000)
Full Parking Deficit Before Any Relocation 144
ANNUAL AMORTIZED Cost Per Deficit Space Relocated to New Structure S40,900
Total Cost for New Structured Spaces Required 5,869,000
COST OF
Parking In Lieu Fee(Based on Current Fee)
PROVIDING Per Deficit Space $12,767
Total 1,832,000
144
Offsets to Cost for Land Purchase Price 1,940,000
ADDITIONAL SPACES
Net Cost After Impact Fees and Purchase Price Offsets 2,097,000
Annual Amortized Cost
Bond Constant Factor(5.5%interest and 30 years) 6.81%
Amount $143,000
COMBINED COST IF Annual Operations ($226,000)
ADDITIONAL SPACES Annual Amortized Capital Cost (143,000)
ARE TO BE BUILT Total ($369,000)
Notes:
1.Operating and capital cost assumptions from City of San Luis Obispo
2. Demand is based on parking analysis provided in the updated project EIR
3 Annual net revenue per parking space based on proratedcost of view structure per William Steller
from City parking review in May 2007
Allan D. Kotin&Associates Page 19 12/13/2007
RDI(&e
Memorandum
RE: CHINATOWN FISCAL IMPACT AND PARKING ANALYSIS
EXHIBIT P-2 PARKING OPERATING REVENUES AND COSTS
Exiisting Surface Lot Operating Revenues and Costs
Annual Gross Revenues Annual Annual Net Revenue
Surface Lots Spaces Meter Fines Total Expenses Total Per Space
Metered
Lot 3 79 $39,785 $104,421 $144,206
Lot 11 64 37,064 74,037 111,101
Total 143 $76,849 $178,458 $255,307 $13,200 $242,000 $1,692
Unmetered
Total 12
Parking Structure Operating Revenues and Costs(See Note)
Revenues 1,134,400
Operating and Maintenance Costs 1,004,600
Net Revenue 129,800
Total Structure Spaces 1,179
Net Revenue Per Space $110
Note: Based on revenue and cost analysis by activity presented to the Council on May 31,2007 as part of the
Packing Enterprise Fund review for 2007-09
Source:City of San Luis Obispo Parking Services
Allan D. Kotin&Associates Page 20 12/13/2007
ADIGe
Memorandum
RE: CHINATOWN FISCAL IMPACT AND PARKING ANALYSIS
EXHIBIT P-3 COMPUTED PARKING STATUS
Sq Ft of
Project Project Spaces Units Per
Sq Ft Units - Per Space Per Unit Space Total
Proposed Development
Apartments
Residents 36 1 36
Guests 36 5 7
Hotel
Rooms 67 0.50 34
Meeting 3,000 350 9
Lounge 1,600 350 5
Manager 1
Retail 43,750 500 88
Restaurant 6,000 350 17
Office 4,600 500 9
Total 58,950 139 206
Credit for Existing Buildings 95
New Parking Required After Credit for Existing Buildings 111
Parking Provided On Site 122
Surplus or(Deficit) 12
Source: Copelands' Properties
Allan D. Kotin&Associates Page 21 12/13/2007
RDIGe
Memorandum
RE: CHINATOWN FISCAL IMPACT AND PARKING ANALYSIS
EXHIBIT P-4 REQUIRED PARKING FOR EXISTING AND PROPOSED
NEW IMPROVEMENTS ON SITE
Blackstone Sauer Muzio 955
Hotel Building Building Bello's Morro Yung Total
Apartments 15 0 6 7 0 0 28
Hotel 17 0 0 0 0 0 17
Retail 0 20 10 0 0 0 30
Restaurant 0 0 0 0 0 5 5
Office 0 0 0 0 11 4 15
Total 32 20 16 7 11 9 95
REQUIRED PARKING FOR PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL
Unit Type
Live/
2 Br 3 Br 4 Br Work Total
Palm Level 6 0 0 4 10
Palm Level 2 10 6 0 0 16
Palm Level 3 1 8 1 0 10
Total 17 14 1 4 36
Source: Copelands' Properties and City of San Luis Obispo
Allan D. Kotin&Associates Page 22 12/13/2007
RDK&W*
Memorandum
RE: CHINATOWN FISCAL IMPACT AND PARKING ANALYSIS
EXHIBIT P-5 CHINATOWN - SAN LUIS OBISPO PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS
Hotel Residential Parking
Level Retail Restaurant Office Sq Ft Rooms Sq Ft Units Sq Ft Spaces
Monterey 14,200 6,000 8,500 26,000 60
4,600 7,500 2,400
18,800 6,000 16,000 28,400 60
Plaza 7,450 4,600 15,000 13 28,000 62
Palm 3,900 14,500 27 10,400 10
2,900 4,000
7,600 3,000
1,200
1,000
900
17,500 21,500 27 10,400 10
Palm.2 14,500 27 25,470 16
Palm 3 . 21,700 10
Total 43,750 6,000 4,600 67,000 67 57,570 36 56,400 122
Source:Copelands'Properties
Allan D.Kotin&Associates Page 23 12/13/2007
OUNCIRECEIVE®
�ACAO N C RIR DEC 12 2007.
er-��A,tC ORNEY FIRE CHIEF 1
To whom it may concern: ya�.LERK/ORIG )a'POL CE CHF /r9'lTY CLERK
gT EA0S 12-REEDTR
la UTIL DIA 7 'c "
HR ®IR
t
In response to the Tribune's 12/09/07 article regarding salvation of historic buildings within the
Copeland's"Chinatown Project", I would like to submit the following:
We applaud the Tribune's position to consider every option before destroying San Luis Obispo's precious
architectural heritage. The Blackstone Hotel and Sauer Bakery buildings are fine examples of turn of the
century San Luis and once demolished,they will be lost forever. It is these examples of historic
architecture and others,which exemplify San Luis's unique personality and draw. Of course the
restoration of these old charmers would be expensive, but four times that of demo and replacement, I
wonder...
This family knows a little about the subject,as we have recently finished the complete restoration,
retro-fit,and virtual preservation of a historic building on the opposite (Monterey St)corner of the
proposed "Chinatown Project." The old Call Building can be seen in any number of historic photos of
San Luis Obispo over the last century,and has been a landmark in the downtown for decades. Over that
time,the building has been a familiar sight to local residents and travelers alike, and has served a myriad
of uses. For many of us SLO natives,there is comfort in knowing that the relic will continue to proudly
stand,serving the citizens of this fine place, present and future. This fact has been tremendously
rewarding. And it is for this reason that my father went to great toil and expense to see that this would
be the case. As one might expect,there was an inordinate amount of cost involved in the preservation
of this building. And many compromises had to be made,such as the loss of several upstairs windows in
strengthening process.
And this incurred by a family who has already made significant sacrifice years earlier, by having its
neighboring properties,the building now occupied by SLO city offices at 879 Morro St.,and the property
adjoining that one on the corner of Morro and Palm,taken from us by eminent domain back in the 70's.
The reason given at the time was to make way for a much needed parking structure. It is no secret that
this plan was never followed. Those properties,which were taken for the betterment of the citizens of
San Luis Obispo all those years ago, may now finally be used for a higher purpose. They are included in
the proposed"Chinatown Project'and are now the property of the Copeland family. It is not the
position of this family to challenge this interesting outcome, except to point out,that after we have
compromised much for the city we love,and furthergone to such great lengths to save an old and
beautiful building in downtown SLO(the Call Building,or Feliciano building),we are now faced with a
new challenge.
When the Copeland project goes forward next year,the plan is to demolish the immediately neighboring
building to the south of us on Monterey Street,and replace it with a new and conspicuously"taller"
version. The new plan calls for this replacement structure to butt directly up against and tower over the
Feliciano building,effectively blocking every single window of the south facing side and rendering the
upstairs office areas useless. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
RED FILE
MEETING AGENDA DEC 1 1 2007
DATETEM #2�h
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Dan Carpenter raised the question at the last Planning Commission meeting about the potential
damage this would do to the viability of the upstairs areas of the property. It seems that there are many
concerned citizens already on record about the conundrum and it beckons the greater question: How
much sacrifice should one family shoulder in the name of progress? Simply ignoring the hard work and
passion already spent in the preservation of San Luis,might be the direction of the"New"San Luis
Obispo, but I sincerely hope not. The trend is of grave concern to many of us natives,and newcomers as
well.
We are simply a three generation San Luis Obispo family,trying not to make waves, but to stand up for
the place we love and make a lasting contribution to its cultural and historic heritage. By the way,the
"Chinatown" representatives at that most recent Planning Commission meeting on 12/04/07,responded
matter of factly,that they were planning to fix the problem by installing skylights in the Feliciano
building.
For the record,we have never been approached with such a plan,as it was represented at that meeting,
nor is the idea remotely acceptable to the family. It is absurd to assume that after such great lengths
have been taken to preserve the integrity of such an antiquity,that the idea of cavalierly destroying its
aesthetics(and 50%of its usage) would be considered.
Although we as a family support the Chinatown Project,and see may potential benefits for the citizens
of San Luis Obispo as a result of it, we sincerely hope that further decimation of the historic Call building
is not part of it. We pray some type of more effective and fair remedy might be found to preserve the
upstairs windows,the overall aesthetics and feelings of all those involved as we march forward together
in progress. Thank You.
John Feliciano Jr.
Page 1 of t
Council, SloCity
From: Bob Vessely [rvessely@callamericacom.net] Sent: Fri 12/21/2007 5:18 PM
To: Council, SloCity
Cc:
Subject: Chinatown
Attachments: —�
I just wanted to thank you for your hard work &thoughtful deliberations ' ,last Tuesday. I know it was a difficult process but many of us are very DE2007.
pleased with the outcome.
Thanks again, FII-E:CE-OD
CCOUNq�,
Bob Vessely
Ollll/xa".. .
https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycouncil/Inbox/Chinatown.EML?Cmd=open 12/27/2007