HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/21/1989, 1 - REQUEST TO CERTIFY THE FINAL EIR, AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO C-C-H-PD (CENTRAL-COMMERCIAL, HISTORICAL 1I1111uY1111�Wfj city of san LUIS OBispo Meeting Date: 2/21/89
111101, COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Item No.
FROM: Michael Multari, Community Development Director; Prepared By: Jeff Hoo
SUBJECT: U
Request to certify the final EIR, amend the zoning map to C-C-H-PD
(Central-Commercial, Historical Preservation, Planned Development) from C-C-H
(Central-Commercial, Historical Preservation); and consideration of a preliminary
development plan for a 5-story mixed-use commercial project - Court Street Center.
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the attached ordinance which: 1) certifies the project EIR, 2)
amends the zoning map as requested, and 3) approves the preliminary PD plan
subject to the recommended findings and conditions.
BACKGROUND
On July 5, 1988 the City Council endorsed the project's preliminary design and use
program, extended the Exclusive Negotiations Agreement with the developer, and authorized
staff to proceed with environmental studies and preliminary negotiations. The project is
returning to the council for consideration of the final EIR, planned development
rezoning, and the preliminary PD development plan.
Council's previous discussions on February 23 and July 5, 1988 covered suitability of the
r - proposed land uses, economic feasibility, alternative uses, parking options, Osos Street
widening, building height and design, and the proposed uses and character of Court
Street.
At its February 8, 1989 meeting, the Planning Commission took two actions: it
recommended council certification of the Final EIR on a 5-1 vote (Commr. Gerety
dissenting); and recommended on a 4-2 vote (Commrs. Gerety and Schmidt dissenting) that
the council certify the final EIR, rezone the site to C-C-H-PD, and approve the
preliminary plan. At its December 19, 1988 meeting the Architectural Review Commission
supported the design concept, including building scale, massing, and height; and
requested restudy of several important areas (discussed further below).
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
The project's final EIR summarizes potential adverse impacts and includes mitigation
measures in Table 1.1-1, beginning on page 1-4 of the EIR. It concludes that the project
would have significant impacts, and that mitigation measures were available to reduce
most of the impacts below significant levels. It also concludes that certain impacts
cannot be entirely mitigated. These are downtown parking supply/demand, sunlight and
view blockage for properties along the west side of Court Street, potential disturbance
of the undercity creek culvert, demand on fire protection services, and temporary .
construction noise. It also notes that cumulative traffic noise along Monterey Street is
likely with or without the proposed project, and is not a project related impact.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT TAKING THE RECOMMENDED ACTION
In 1984, the City Council initiated a program leading to the eventual redevelopment of
this key downtown lot. The city was under no obligation then, nor is it now, to lease,
sell, or develop the site. There is no specific deadline for acting on the request;
however, if the city postpones action on the request indefinitely, the current project
may be significantly delayed or may become infeasible.
'►►11N11111112111 city of san Luis oBispo
Oft, COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 2
Situation
Interwest Investment Group has requested PD rezoning of a downtown site for a five-story
commercial project. The proposed mixed-use project, known as the Court Street Center, is
proposed on a 2/3 acre, city-owned lot bordered by Court, Osos, Higuera, and Monterey
Streets. The applicant has requested PD rezoning to allow a 78 foot tall building where
60 feet (50 feet plus 10 feet for steeples, equipment and similar projections) is
normally allowed.
Previous Review
On July 5, 1988 the council conceptually approved the project's design and land uses,
extended the Exclusive Negotiations Agreement with the developer, and authorized staff to
proceed with environmental studies and preliminary ground lease negotiations. A
preliminary ground lease has been drafted, however the draft has not been submitted for
staff review and negotiations have not yet begun.
The project is of considerable importance to the city, and as such, has required
extensive study and hearings. Before construction could begin, these additional public
hearings will be necessary: 1) Cultural Heritage Committee review; 2) Architectural
Review Commission approval; 3) Partial Court Street abandonment; 4) Planning Commission
approval of the precise PD plan; and 5) Council approval of a ground lease between the
city and the developer.
Proiect Background
The city's interest in the Court Street site began about five years ago. Since then, the
concept of developing a mixed-use commercial project at this location has been discussed
at length by the City Council, advisory commissions, business and community groups, and
city staff. Considerable effort has focused on achieving three main objectives:
1. Develop a program leading to the eventual development or sale of the Court
Street site, consistent with policies developed in the city's Strategic
Planning Program;
2. Create a quality project through a private/public partnership which would
reap public benefits and enhance downtown;
3. Work cooperatively with the developer to insure that the project's
architecture and land uses are consistent with the city's Request For
Qualifications, and with Council direction.
ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATIONS
At its February 8th meeting, the Planning Commission 5-1 to recommend EIR certification ►
(Commr. Gerety dissenting), and voted 4-2 (Commrs. Gerety and Schmidt dissenting; Commr.
Roalman stepped down due to conflict of interest) to recommend council approval of the PD
rezoning and preliminary plan. Commissioners modified four conditions, and added one `—
condition. Staff supports the revised conditions:
11111atiglml; city of san Luis oBispo
11iis COUNCIL AGENOA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 3
Condition #8: As modified, requires that existing trees be relocated on- or
offsite; or, if not horticulturally feasible to relocate, large replacement trees
planted on a 2 for 1 basis elsewhere in the city for each tree removed.
Condition #9: The condition requires solar heating for the project's lap pool,
and also the use of solar space and water heating where feasible. For additional
energy savings, commissioners also required that "natural building ventilation be
used to the maximum extent feasible."
Condition #1.3: The condition requires a.public art gallery in the project. For
flexibility, commissioners added "or other public use or non-profit cultural
facility."
Condition #16: The majority of commissioners questioned the need for widening
Osos Street. They changed the condition as follows (change in italics):
Applicant shall widen Osos Street by six feet, if determined necessary by the
City Council, between Higuera and Monterey Streets,.and install all necessary
frontage improvements...."
Added Condition #54: "Precise development plan shall be submitted for Planning
Commission review and approval." Precise plans normally require only Community
' Development Director review and approval.
Commissioner Comments
Commr. Gerety could not support EIR certification since he felt the EIR should have
considered a government center land use alternative. He also opposed the PD approval
motion due to concerns with street widening, atrium design, and public open space. He
questioned the need for widening, and preferred instead to see a wider Court Street.
pedestrian corridor. Noting that some aspects of the design were still unresolved, he
felt the commission should review the final atrium and public open space design..
Commr. Schmidt agreed with Commr. Gerety on the atrium and public open space issues, and
did not feel the project would be architecturally compatible with the downtown. He felt
the city was missing an opportunity for a more innovative project, and considered the
proposed uses to be ordinary and unexciting.
Due to San Luis Obispo's mild climate, he questioned the need for air conditioning, and
suggested that operable windows be used for natural, energy-conserving ventillation. To
enhance the atrium, he wanted to see natural illumination used.
The commission included some additional conditions to try to address these concerns.
Commr. Duerk felt the project would be an important anchor for this part of downtown.
_ Her main concerns were with the building's massing relative to light, shading, and--
downtown view corridors and with the need for upper story setbacks. She felt these
issues warranted special ARC attention.
Commr. Crotser felt the project was architecturally and functionally appropriate. His
main concerns were parking and Osos Street widening. He supported offsite parking if 141
feasible, and agreed with other commissioners that the rationale for street widening did
i
11111111111411 city or sap tuts 081sp0
AMINGS COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 4
not seem compelling. He suggested the possibility that the council might preserve the
option of future widening, but not require it at this time.
Commr. Hainline supported the project, but also questioned the need for and desirability
of Osos Street widening.
Chairperson Kourakis noted that the project had received council review and support, and
despite her reservations about the project, it was important for the commission to
provide constructive input to the council. She asked that it be noted that she does not
feel comfortable with city involvement with the speculative aspects of this development.
She was concerned that the commission would not normally see the project again after this
meeting, and wanted to add a condition requiring Planning Commission approval of the
precise PD plan.
Previous Commission Review
Planning Commissioners also reviewed Court Street Center at their April 6th, May 19th,
June 15th, and December 14th meetings (minutes attached). At the December meeting,
commissioners continued the item to tonight's meeting pending completion of the project's
final EIR. At the previous meetings, commissioners discussed a wide range of issues ,
including land use alternatives, economic issues, site design and parking, and the City's
RFQ (Request For Qualifications). On June 15th, commissioners voted 5-0 (Commr. Duerk
absent; Commr. Roalman stepped down due to conflict of interest) to forward their
comments to council.
Architectural Review Commission
At its December 19, 1988 meeting, the Architectural Review Commission conceptually
approved Court Street Center. Commissioners supported the project's scale, massing, and
height; and requested restudy of the atrium design, pedestrian access from the retail
areas to the atrium, stair tower design, Court Street character and design, noise and
privacy protection for adjacent uses, preservation of trees, and entry design at the
corner of Monterey and Osos Streets.
Data Summary
Project Address: 999 Monterey Street
Applicant: Interwest Investment Group, Inc.
Property Owner: City of San Luis Obispo
Zoning: C-C-H
General Plan: Central-Commercial, Historical Preservation Zone
Environmental Status: Final EIR has been completed and distributed for public review.
Site Description
Rectangular, gently sloping lot covering about 30,000 square feet (0.69 acre). Court
Street, a 40-foot right-of-way borders the site on the west side, with Monterey, Osos and
Higuera Streets forming its other borders. Residential and a variety of commercial uses
adjoin the site. Three historic buildings, The Sperry Flour Building, J.P. Andrews Bank
Building, and the Universal Auto Parts (formerly the Odd Fellows Hall) are also
adjacent. San Luis Obispo Creek crosses underground at the southwest corner of the site.
�, ► ilVl�llpp� ��`I city of san tins osispo
WoGa COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 5
EVALUATION
Proiect Changes
Attached is a description of the proposed planned development including objectives of the
PD rezoning, design and parking issues, development schedule, and a summary of the
project's features. Proposed land uses and the design concept haven't changed since the
council's last review in July. Recent work has focused on four areas: 1) Completion of
the final EIR, 2) Osos Street widening, 3) Court Street treatment, and 4) parking.
These are discussed below.
The applicant is studying an offsite parking concept which, if feasible, would develop of
additional parking in a new parking structure nearby, in conjunction with other downtown
property owners. It is the applicant's intent to provide two levels of subterranean
parking at this time, and to the pursue offsite parking as a separate project. The
attached memo from Dave Romero discusses the concept.
The applicant has also modified the design of Court Street to provide small outdoor
dining areas, and a loading/service area. One-way parking garage entrance and exit
driveways are from Higuera and Monterey Streets, as shown previously. Additional survey
work has verified that the project will not conflict with the undercity creek culvert.
Summary
i
The project's basic design and land use programs appear consistent with the Council's
conceptual approval, the General Plan and Goals for Downtown, and with the city's
objectives as outlined in the Court Street Center Request For Qualifications. Several
issues, including exterior architectural treatement, Court Street and parking garage
design details need further study and refinement; however staff believes the key issues
are sufficiently resolved to act on the preliminary PD plan.
Additional information will be needed before the Council reviews the ground lease and
precise PD plans: a retail management/marketing plan, updated financial information,
revised parking garage plans, and an evaluation of the proposed lease by the city's
economic consultant. Staff's recommended strategy is to determine if the preliminary PD
plan is consistent with council objective's; and if it is, consider the proposed
conditions and revise them as necessary to allow the applicant to proceed with detailed
architectural design and financial planning. This approach will help establish
performance standards for the project, and provide direction to the applicant and staff.
Final EIR
The EIR evaluates three alternatives to the proposed project: 1) a retail/office
project, 2) retail/offices/hotel project, and 3) the no project alternative. Staff
generally concurs with the EIR's main conclusions:
1
Staff Report
Page 6
1. Land Use Compatibility - The project would generally be compatible with
adjacent uses, provided that noise, traffic, and construction impacts are
mitigated. Reduced sunlight and air movement, privacy concerns, and view blockage
are cited as potential conflicts with the eight apartments in the adjacent
Anderson Hotel. It concludes that reduced sunlight and air, and view blockage are
a significant, but localized, impact that cannot be fully mitigated.
Mitigation measures are included in recommended conditions: 12 (ARC review for
privacy screening), 20-24 (alternative transportation), 37-39 (noise), 44-46
(construction management), and 53 (loading/delivery hours).
2. Traffic and circulation would not be significantly impacted, provided certain
mitigation measures were included: conditions 16 (Osos Street widening), 20-24
(alternative transportation), 25 (special parking garage review), and 53
(loading/delivery restrictions).
3. Parking is cited as an significant impact which cannot be fully mitigated.
Measures intended to reduce parking impacts and traffic-related air quality
concerns are included in conditions 15 (required on-site replacement parking), and
20-24 which encourage use of public transportation, carpooling, bicycling, and
flexible work hours to reduce peak traffic and parking demand. It is not clear to
staff that "lack of parking" is really an impact on the environment (parking is
discussed further below).
4. Visual impacts include: view blockage for buildings along the west side of
Court Street, building mass, scale and colors, removal of up to 14 mature trees,
and reduced sunlight. Recommended mitigations are included in conditions 7 (wall
setbacks and openings required), 8 (tree replacement), and 12 (special ARC review
addressing colors, massing, and privacy screening).
5. Hydrology impacts, including erosion during construction, flood hazard, and
structural damage to the undercity creek culvert are addressed in conditions 40
(erosion control, grease/oil separator, flood hazard prevention and culvert
protection), and 41-42 (fioodproofing and certification that project meets flood
regulations required).
6. Geologic impacts may include high groundwater and seismic hazards. Condition
43 addresses this issue by requiring engineering soils and geology reports, and by
requiring project to comply with the reports' recommendations.
7. Public Service impacts on police and fire services; water and wastewater
services are addressed in conditions 26-28 (utility upgrading), 29 (water
conservation plan with fines for non-compliance), and 39 (special fire safety and
security measures).
8. Noise impacts resulting from service access in Court Street, music and
entertainment, and mechanical equipment are addressed in conditions 12 (ARC
review), and 37-39 (building design evaluation and other noise reduction
measures).
Staff Report
Page 7
9. Cultural Resources are likely to be present on-site. Conditions 51-52 require
special testing, evaluation, and excavation measures to protect cultural
resources, and to document the site's historical significance.
Osos Street Widenins
The city's EIR traffic consultant has recommended a six-foot widening, and staff supports
this approach. Osos Street links the Old Town/Railroad Square/South street area with the
downtown and northbound Hwy 101. The current planline requires widening on both sides of
Osos Street, however the council waived the widening requirement on the north side during
the Sperry-Laird building remodel. Staff's understanding was that the full widening, if
determined to be necessary, would then occur on the city's property on the south side of
Osos between Higuera and Monterey Streets.
Three strategies were studied: no widening, full widening (eight feet), and partial
widening (six feet). Based on an evaluation of truck turning movements, and a comparison
of advantages and disadvantages of each strategy, the traffic engineer recommends a six
foot widening. This approach is a compromise: it allows single unit trucks to make left
and right turns onto Osos Street from Monterey Street without encroaching into opposing
lanes, but takes less of the site's area than the eight-foot widening would.
f Even with a six-foot widening, some single unit truck turning maneuvers would still be
tight. The applicant initially intended to widen Osos by up to four feet, but is willing
to widen and improve by six feet, provided that Court Street is partially abandoned to
offset the loss of floor area. Although the rationale for widening is not compelling in
the short-term, staff supports retaining the option of street widening, as it will help
maintain smooth traffic flow over the long term at two key downtown intersections.
Phase 1 of the city's recent Circulation Study identifies Osos Street as one of several
commercial arterial streets which could be widened to increase peak period traffic
capacity on downtown streets. Another alternative could include pairing Osos and Chorro
Streets, or Broad and Nipomo, as one-way streets linking downtown with state route 101
and southern areas of the city. These and other circulation alternatives are to be
evaluated in the study's upcoming phase 2.
Court Street Abandonment
Court Street, a 40-foot-right-of-way, would be partially abandoned to allow the building
to encroach up to 15 feet into the existing right-of-way, as shown in the revised plan
(full-sized plan included with agenda packet). A 20-foot wide public right-of-way would
be retained to allow pedestrian, service, and emergency access; however, since the
building code requires a minimum setback of five feet for protected openings, the actual
building spacing along Court Street would vary from 25 to 30 feet, allowing room for
garage entrances, a 10-foot wide loading zone, plus the 20-foot wide fire lane. Outdoor
dining, displays, landscaping and other pedestrian amenities would be added, and Court
Street would have bollards or other traffic control devices to limit loading and delivery
hours. The design intent is for Court Street to be primarily a pedestrian corridor
serving the adjacent businesses.
,111111111wfcity of San LUIS OBISPO
=MoGe COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 8
Parkins
City standards require 244 spaces for the project. The city has also expected
replacement of the 118 existing public spaces on the site now. The applicant still
proposes at least 140 parking spaces onsite, with the balance of the requirement met
through in-lieu parking fees, development of off-site parking or other measures equal in
value to the required in-lieu fee contribution. The applicant is studying a joint use
parking facility which would serve this and other downtown uses. Existing surface
parking lots adjacent to the First Bank of San Luis Obispo and Security Pacific Bank
would be decked, possibly including some street front retail and office lease space on
Higuera and Marsh Streets.
If off-site parking is secured, the applicant anticipates several changes, including:
1) a pedestrian bridge would be proposed over Higuera Street to link second levels of
the parking structure and building; 2) additional storefront retail could be added along
Court Street with deletion of the garage entry ramps and underground parking; and 3) the
atrium design modified to reflect the garage deletion, and to place greater emphasis on
the Court Street building entry.
Preliminary study by Public Works and the applicant's parking consultant suggests that
the offsite parking is feasible. Property acquisition, design, environmental study, and
public review will probably require at least six to twelve months. In the interim, the
applicant intends to proceed with on-site parking, retaining the option of: 1)
developing the off-site parking instead of on-site; and 2) developing off-site spaces
in addition to on-site parking.
Condition 15 lists five options for meeting parking requirements. This approach is
consistent with the city's downtown parking regulations, and the Court Street Center
RFQ. As a minimum, the applicant is expected to replace the existing public parking
spaces by physically providing 118 public parking spaces, and paying in-lieu parking fees
for the other 244 spaces. Preliminary parking garage designs indicate that the actual
number provided on site will be about 140 parking spaces.
Historically, on-site parking has not been provided for most downtown buildings. This
project exceeds city standards by providing on-site parking, and including a
transportation systems management program to encourage use of alternative
transportation. The project will increase the net parking deficit downtown. Staff views
this primarily as a policy question, involving several complex issues. Some key
considerations include:
A. The council has established downtown parking policies and Capital Improvement.
Program to balance parking needs with economic growth, and this project appears
consistent with those policies;
B. One public parking structure has been completed, and an additional structure is
scheduled to be completed by late 1990. Should public parking continue to expand I
downtown to accommodate downtown infill and intensification; or should the city
pursue a combination of parking strategies which also rely on peripheral parking
facilities and alternative transportation?
C. If downtown parking requirements or in-lieu fees are inadequate, the .should be At
re-evaluated and if need be, revised to apply to all projects in the C-C zone. ow
�NiuilllllllllPi���lll city of san tins OBlspo
MINSra COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 9
D. The project offers significant public benefits, including public open space,
public art gallery, street and utility upgrades, parking, child care facilities,
public art, landscaping and other pedestrian amenities. These amenities would not
be economically feasible if the project were required to provide all of its
required parking on- or off-site. It is difficult to translate these community
benefits into quantitative terms. In balance, staff believes these public
benefits will enhance downtown, and outweigh the possible disadvantages of not
providing more parking.
E. It is not clear that providing parking as if this were a suburban location is the
environmentally superior alternative. Provision of parking does encourage use of
cars and discourages alternative transportation means. The city's policy, which
allows for reduced parking requirements in the downtown compared to suburban sites
and the payment of in-lieu fees directed toward city-sponsored construction of
centralized parking structures, reflects a reasoned balance among the financial
feasibility of providing parking, providing an inducement for private investment
in the downtown, and the realistic parking needs to keep downtown competitive with
other areas.
Height Exceotion
The C-C zone allows a fifty foot building height with an additional 10 feet for roof
appurtenances like steeples, antennas, chimneys, etc. The proposed design is 78 feet to
the highest roof ridge from average grade. The building's proposed net leasable area of
105,449 could be accommodated without a height exception. To provide the interior public
spaces, upper story setbacks, onsite parking, and other public amenities the developer
requests the flexibility allowed under PD zoning. Upper story setbacks and balconies
have been added to the Court Street elevation. Staff supports the exception, provided
that the building profile is stepped on all sides, with balconies, reveals, and other
similar architectural features to reduce the building's apparent mass and scale,
particularly at the upper elevations. Condition 7 addresses this issue.
Public Ooen Soaces
One of the aspects expected in the project is provision of upper story open spaces, such
as balconies and view decks, which will be open to the public. The applicants most
recent submission does not appear to provide public access to as many of the upper story
open spaces as earlier discussed. This needs to be clarified in the lease; this
requirement is included as a recommended condition.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Certify the EIR, rezone the site as requested, and approve the preliminary PD
plan. Staff supports this action since it appears that the project is
consistent with the city's objectives for the Court Street Site, and will allow
architectural design, tenant marketing, and financial planning to proceed. This
will not be a final approval action. Under the terms of the city's Exclusive.
Negotiations Agreement, either the City or the developer may withdraw from the
project until a lease agreement is consummated. Lease negotiations have not yet
begun, and a draft lease will come back for discussion and if determined
appropriate, final council action.
1
111aviiipwil; city of San lues OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPOFIT
Staff Report
Page 10
2. Continue the item with direction to staff and the applicant. The project is
not subject to processing deadlines, and may be continued indefinitely or to a
date certain. However due to the length of the review process, timely council
action on the PD request is recommended. Indefinite continuance could pose
financial hardship for the applicant, and could significantly delay or cancel this
proposal..
3. Deny the proposed rezoning and preliminary plan. If the council determines
that the project would adversely affect public health, safety, or welfare; or that
it is inconsistent with the General Plan or other applicable city regulations or
policies, it may either suggest modifications to resolve such conflicts, or it may
deny the proposed PD.
FISCAL IMPACTS
Depending on the nature of the proposed ground lease agreement with the developer, the
city could realize significant long-term fiscal benefits in terms of increased sales tax
receipts, lease payments, and related revenues depending on the nature and degree of city
equity participation. In committing the property for long-term ground lease and
mixed-use commercial development, it loses the option of selling or redeveloping the lot
for other public uses.
Ground lease negotiations would begin after the project design and amenities are fixed
through PD approval. A detailed pro forma, documenting the project's fiscal implications
for the city, would be required prior to final city action on the lease. Council lease
negotiations would involve future study sessions, and lease approval would require
separate council hearings and final action.
CONCURRENCES
Public Works, Police, Fire and the City Attorney have reviewed the project, and their
concerns and requirements are addressed in the recommended conditions.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the attached ordinance, Exhibit "A", which: 1) certifies the Final EIR; 2)
amends the zoning map from C-C-H to C-C-H-PD; and 3) approves the planned development
Preliminary Plan PD 1418, subject to the recommended findings and conditions.
ATTACHMENTS
-Draft Ordinance, Exhibit "A"
-Rezoning Map, Exhibit "B"
-EIR Mitigation Measures, Exhibit "C"
-Recommended Findings and Conditions, Exhibit "D"
-PD Application and Documentation
-Letter From SLO Arts Council
-Memo from Public Works Director re: offsite Parking -
-Council Minutes
-Commission Minutes
Enclosed With agenda packet: full size plans, final EIR
J P s
C
EXHIBIT A
ORDINANCE NO. (1989 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO CERTIFYING
THE FINAL EIR, AMENDING THE ZONING MAP FROM C-C-H TO C-C-H-PD,
AND APPROVING THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAN (PD 1418)
FOR COURT STREET CENTER, 999 MONTEREY STREET
WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning and development plan have been evaluated in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City's Environmental Impact
Guidelines, and an Environmental Impact Report prepared to address potentially
significant environmental effects and recommend appropriate mitigations, where feasible;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council have held hearings to consider
the final environmental impact report and requested planned development rezoning and
preliminary development plan for a 5-story, mixed-use commercial project known as Court
Street Center, in accordance with Section 65800 et. seq. of the Government Code; and
WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning and development plan will promote public health,
safety, and general welfare by providing onsite parking, public amenities and public open
space, utility, fire protection, and street improvements, and by enhancing retailing,
office, and recreational opportunities in the downtown; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment promotes the public health, safety,and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Con ncil of the City of San Luis Obispo as
follows
SECTION 1. That the Zoning Map shall shall be amended as shown on Exhibit 'B"
attached hereto and made a part of this ordinance by reference.
SECTION 2. After City Council review and consideration, the council hereby certifies
that the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Court Street Center has been completed
in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the city's Environmental
Guidelines.
C�
Ordinance (1989.Series) . l
Page 2
The project shall comply with recommended mitigation measures shown on Exhibit "C", as
listed in Table 1.1-1 of the EIR
SECTION 3. The proposed rezoning and preliminary plan, PD 1418 is approved subject
to the findings and conditions listed in Exhibit "D" attached hereto, and included herein
by reference.
SECTION 4. This ordinance, together with the council votes for and against, shall be
published at least five (S) days prior to its final passage in the Telegram-Tribune, a
newspaper published and circulated in this city, and this ordinance shall go into effect
at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage.
INTRODUCED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, at its meeting held on
-the day of 1988, on motion of
seconded by and on
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk /®/�
o -
Ordinance (1989 Series)
Page 3
APPROVED:
City A inistrative Officer
City Attorn
Community Development Director
�i
A
r
LK.
i
Y S •/ -
SO I
VtOr
qp
,L ] •. �.
7--,
P-
�r 'tet r♦ r .r .••' � ' � \ �� ��
.eor f d t VN.
•w•
�I
p
{ll'1!fl�+art. N
ll s•.
� �:r*{r�.g, "��;(l%/l/,(���l i�;rr'lIf , l „;'.y . } � ty '► •:� . '
'jci fii'IIIirFliiRr rtl�l/ • � � wpww. ` ` ) •i
"���. ` "�rl%.r;cr:,r.'l'' "�^xe���ai �..�,+w ?•. rws �sl° ,+ ,i t � `..i
..:�j�.'+_ � � �� er` ♦fib u�` `# "`,Vut'�'�p l?i'` 't� � .
200 �
+' L
rc.'. . ' PD 1418: Amend zoning map from C-C-H to f:� -;•
C-C-H-PD, 999 Monterey Street. �' r• • •
` �r r
BIT B
• s t �i +n' ti, ifs, ��
y`�y:.,'_ r••e cry� ./ •��e� .moi �'•'a w .w�•� _ �•�
•�• s {, ''fit,, a°'`�' ; Q , t'� � � .;a•;
� y, e►`G�►� .•>.� ori ��
i, .. �' • r•�'RS Ir �f
y' VP L
s • ` r
oLim
lB1T
TABLE 1 .1-1 . SUMMARY OF PROJECT IWACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES
PUNNING AND LAND USE (Section 3.1)
Adjacent residents would be In addition to measures incorporated
impacted by the project's bulk, as part of the projectdesign,
noise and incompatibility of uses. second floor vents should be directed
to the building roof, if architect-
urally viable, to minimize restaurant
noise and improve views from the east
side of Court Street.
There would be an intensification Stores within the project should
of project site/floor area ratios, remain open later than the evening
retail sales, traffic, public rush hour and employers should
service demands and noise resulting encourage workers to use flex hours
from the development of new and in order to reduce P.M. peak hour
expanded services businesses. traffic.
Bike racks and bus stop amenities
should be incorporated into the
project plans, to encourage alternate
modes of transportation.
Earthmoving, hauling, demolition Minimize construction dust through
and other construction activities following the measures listed in
mould result in temporary localized Table 3.1-2 (as recommended by the
impacts including construction dust San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control
and mud in project area streets. District).
Mud should be removed from the tire
treads of earthmoving equipment
before allowing them to traverse
project area streets.
Minimum 20 foot wide pedestrian and
delivery access to the businesses
fronting Court Street should be
maintained by fencing the
construction site.
TRAFFIC CIRCULATION AND PARKING
(Section 3.2)
Removal of the existing parking lot The developer should provide a
and construction of the proposed remote off-site parking facility
project would increase net parking linked to the project site by a
demand by 222 spaces. shuttle bus or located on an existing
(CONTINUED)
i
TABLE 1 .1-1 (CONTINUED) . SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES
bus route. Reserve use of 118
project parking spaces for short term
public parking to replace the
existing 118 space lot, and require
project related employees to utilize
the off-site parking facility; or
The developer should increase the
size of the proposed parking facility
and decrease project office and
retail uses to obtain a balanced
project where proposed parking meets
project demand; or
The developer should provide an Please
off-site parking facility as see
originally proposed; or Commer.
G.5
A transportation systems management
plan should be instituted for the
project to reduce parking demand.
This could include mandatory
carpooling, subsidies to office
employees for use of transit and the
provision of vans or jitneys for
employeecommute vanpooling; or
In lieu parking fees should be
increased to offset the actual cost
of providing parking in the downtown
area, or the developer should provide
a combination of in lieu parking
fees, on-site and off-site parking
which is sufficient to meet the unmet
parking demand.
In addition to the above measures,
the City could pursue development of
additional parking spaces in the
northeast portion of the core
downtown area.
. (CONTINUED)
1-5
TABLE 1 .1-1 (CONTINUED) . SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES
The existing Osos Street roadway The City should widen Osos Street by Please
does not contain adequate turning six feet to improve roadway geo- see 1
space for large vehicles. metrics at the intersections of Comment .,
Osos Street with Higuera and Monterey G.6
Streets. This widening would not 1�•!
completely eliminate encroachment of
trucks into opposing lanes.
The proposed site design and In addition to standard City design
parking garage layout could cause reviews, the parking garage layout
sight distance problems and garage should be evaluated by a parking
congestion. consultant to ensure adequate aisle
widths and geometries are provided
for the safe and efficient flow of
traffic.
The driveway aprons on Court Street Please.
should be of sufficient width to ee
allow delivery trucks to easily mmen
access it. .3
The project would increase down- The developer should provide adequate
town traffic volumes. signage to clearly indicate when
parking is available and any
restrictions to types of users.
The developer should require all
service vehicles to arrive and depart
from the site during off peak
periods.
The developer should coordinate with I!
San Luis Obispo Transit during
project design and provide transit
stops/shelters as appropriate to
promote the use of transit.
The developer should promote the use
of public transit by displaying
transit related information in
offices and retail stores and the
health club.
u
(CONTINUED)
1-6
-/ 7 R
TABLE 1 .1-4 (CONTINUED) . SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES
VISUAL AND AESTBELIC QUALITY
(Section 3.3)
Visual impacts of the project The 12_existing street trees should
present design constraints and be relocatedlic to a City park or other
opportunities.
Passive and active solar space and
crater heating systems should be
incorporated into the project design
policy.
The proposed structure's exterior
color and materials should be •.a
lights nonabsorbing hue with a
nonreflective finish to minimize
glare.
Buildings on the west side orf South and west facing facades and Please
Court Street would have their rooflines of the proposed building see
views blocked and sunlight should be stepped back to increase Comment
reduced by the project structure. Court Street sunlight. C• ^
C.3300
BYDROLOGY (Section 3.4)
The potential exists for soil Appropriate erosion control devices
erosion and sedimentation of the should be utilized to retain sediment
storm drainage system during the within the project area during the
construction period when soils are contraction period.
left unprotected.
Flooding hazards in the parking The underground structure should be Please
garage from large storms have floodproofed by elevating the see
the potential to impact life accesses one foot above the base Comment
and property. level of the one hundred year flood. C.33
All vehicles should be removed and
personnel evacuated from the facility
at the first sign of flooding of San
Luis Obispo Creek.
Evacuation procedures and signs
should be clearly marked throughout
the underground facility.
(CONTINUED) J
1.7
TABLE 1 .1-1 (CONTINUED) . suMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES
The culvert wall at the underground
site should be inspected periodically
by a qualified structural engineer
for cracks, leaks, or other freak-
basses.
The structural competency of the A licensed structural engineer should Plea,
undercity culvert has the potential conduct a comprehensive geotechnical see
to be significantly impacted by study further identifying and Comm
excavation and construction of evaluating both construction related C.32
the project• and long term impacts to the culvert
structure.
The developer should repair.,. rein-
force or reconstruct the culvert as
necessary to protect culvert capacity
and long term utility.
Protection of San Luis Obispo All storm drain inlets should be
Creek water quality presents periodically cleaned and maintained
design requirements. to ensure proper functioning.
Flapgates or valves should be
installed in the project's storm
drainage system to prevent San Luis
Creek waters from backing up in the
garage during high creek flows.
GEOLOGY (Section 3.5)
High groundwater and typical seismic Temporary and permanent control of
conditions of the site present groundwater during and following
potential design constraints and construction should be provided.
requirements. Where the basement extends below
water level, subdrains and
waterproofing should be provided to
reduce hydrostatic uplift forces.
A blanket drain at the bottom of the
excavation should be considered to
provide temporary dewatering below
the floor slab during construction.
(CONTIRM)
1-8
!r
TABLE 1 .1-1 (CONTINUED) . SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES
Additional specific engineering
recommendations as required by the
UBC, Seismic and Safety Element of
the City's General Plan and as
proposed by the geotechnical
engineers should be incorporated `
into the final designs of the i
proposed development.
PUBLIC SERVICES (Section 3.T)
The proposed structure would Crime prevention measures and
incrementally increase demand for standards such as adequate locks,
police protection services. lighting, and access control and two
pay phones with 911 capability per
level in the parking garage should be
installed.
The parking garage access should be
properly designed and controlled to
assure proper traffic flow to and
from the streets.
A parking garage attendent or ticket
validation system is recommended to
avoid unauthorized parking.
The proposed project would Project construction should conform Please
incrementally increase the to the "high rise package" code see
demand for fire protection requirements as outlined on page Comment
services. 3.T-5. J.1
In addition to standard fire code
requirements, emergency response
traffic congestion controllers should
be installed at the following project
area intersections: Marsh and
Chorro, Marsh and Morro, Marsh and
Broad, Monterey and Morro, Marsh and
Osos, Osos and Higuera, Chorro and
Palm, and Chorro and Monterey.
Emergency communication should be
improved by two mobile telephones
being provided by the developer to
the Fire. Department.
1
(CONTINUED)
1-9 /r�®
0
TABLE 1 .1-1 (CONTINUED)- SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES
The proposed project is expected In addition to the developer meeting
to require 35.6 AFY or 2T.4 the City's standard water and
percent of the City's potential wastewater service requirements and
water supply. Water Allocation Regulations, an
overall water conservation program
should be developed.
NOISE (Section 3.8)
.Construction noise will signif- To mitigate .construction noise.
icantly impact both residential impacts portable shrouds or temporary
and commercia_l. users in the project fencing around the equipment should
vicinity. be considered.
Construction activities at the
project site should be restricted to
the weekday hours of T:00 A.M. to
T:00 P.M. to minimize disturbance to
local residents.
The public should be informed of
proposed construction timelines and
noise complaint procedures to
minimize potential annoyance related
to construction noise. This is
especially important for Anderson
Hotel occupants and business owners
located Within a few hundred feet of
construction activity. Noise related
complaints should be directed to the
City Community Development Jr-
Department.
rDepartment. �►
Cumulative year 2008 traffic noise Noise impacts at the Anderson. Pleast
would potentially increase area Hotel, from projected cumulative see
noise up to two dBA in the project traffic volumes, would be avoidable Comm
area. This is not considered to be provided retrofit measures affecting G.9
a project related impact. the hotel were used on windows along
the Monterey Street side of the
hotel. This is not considered to be
a project related mitigation.
(CONTINUED)
1-10 �..�
/_C9
TABLE 1 .1-1 (CONTINUED) . SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES
The loading and enclosed trash areas To reduce noise impacts created by Please
which are planned to be built near the trucks at the loading area, it is see
existing hotel have the potential to recommended that the overhead sur- Comment
impact adjacent residents. face of that area be lined with G.10
acoustical absorptive treatment, with
a performance rating of at least NRC
(Noise Reduction Coefficient) 0.7.
Suitable materials Would include Type
703 unfaced board; one inch or
thicker, by Owens Corning Fiberglass
Corporation.
The hours of loading dock operation
and truck deliveries should be
limited to the hours of 8:00 A.M. to
10:00 P.M.
Consideration should be given to
routing of truck traffic so as to
minimize the extent of passbys along
the Anderson Hotel, by entering and
exiting via Higuera Street.
Building equipment and operational To minimize the transmission of
project noise would disturb the music and other sounds created at
Anderson Hotel residents. game. or aerobics sessions, it is
recommended that windows at the
exercise areas be of the fixed type.
If these are operable, however, they
should be maintained in a closed
condition during aerobics periods.
The windows should have a sound
insulation rating of at least Sound
Transmission Class (STC) 25, and
should have effective weather seals
around the perimeter.
To reduce noise transmitted from the
kitchen to the exterior, any kitchen
vents opening to the west side of the
project building should be lined with
one inch ductliner or acoustical
equivalent or should be routed to the
roof.
(CONTINUED)
1-11
TABLE 1 .1-1 (CONTINUED) . SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND M+IITIGATION MEASURES
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES
Rooftop equipment should be shielded
to muffle ventilation and air
conditioning equipment related noise.
CULTURAL RESOURCES (Section 3.9)
Archaeological and historical In addition to standard City review
resources are likely to be processes, an evaluation by the
present. City's Cultural Heritage Commission,
focusing on the project's compati-
bility with vicinity historic
structures and its archaeological
testing program, should occur and its
recommendations should be adhered to.
An archaeological subsurface testing
program should be performed by a
qualified archaeologist to determine
the contents, the integrity (if it is
disturbed) , and overall significance
of any archaeological deposits.
The developer and the contractor
`J should clearly establish, in advance
of demolition and site preparation,
how to accommodate potential delays
to the proposed construction
schedules and a prolonged reduction
in downtown parking should signifi-
cant cultural resources be found.
Appropriate clauses to respond to
such delays should then be inserted
into contracts.
1-12
I
EXHIBIT D
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL OF
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING PD 1418, COMMONLY KNOWN AS
COURT STREET CENTER, 999 MONTEREY STREET
Findines
1. The proposed uses will not adversely affect the health, safety, and welfare of
persons residing or working on the site or in the vicinity..
2. The uses are appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with
surrounding land uses.
3. The proposed project conforms to the General Plan and Goals For Downtown.
4. The Court Street Center Final EIR adequately addresses the projects potential
environmental impacts, and complies with the city's Environmental Guidelines and the
California Environmental Quality Act as amended.
5. Significant environment impacts resulting from the project will be mitigated to
acceptable levels through the inclusion of mitigation measures listed in Table 1.1-1.
of the Court Street EIR, and incorporated into the recommended conditions of
approval; or that potential impacts in connection with parking, construction and
traffic noise, view and sunlight blockage, undercity culvert stability, and fire
protection are either unavoidable, or substantially mitigated and are acceptable due !�
to the following overriding considerations:
A. Public benefits provided by the proposed project, including on-site public
parking, significant public open space, child care facilities, direct and
indirect economic benefits to downtown, and street and utility improvements
outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects.
B. Providing the total number of required parking spaces on-site would make the
project infeasible, and would be inconsistent with Zoning Regulations and city
policies regarding parking requirements in the C-C zone.
C. The unavoidable adverse impact of construction noise is temporary in nature and
can be substantially mitigated by implementation of a construction management
plan including which regulates hours of construction, noise reduction measures,
and a complaint resolution process.
D. Traffic noise impacts are the result of citywide and regional traffic increases,
and are not substantially project related.
E. Structural condition of the undercity culvert will be evaluated by a qualified
professional, and appropriate measures included in the project design to protect
the culvert.
O
Findings and Conditions, PD 1418
Page 2
6. The planned development meets the following criterion, as required by Section
17.62.040 of the Zoning Regulations:
A. The proposed project provides exceptional public benefits such as parking,
open space, landscaping, public art, and other special amenities which would
not be feasible under conventional development standards.
B. The features of this particular design achieve the intent of conventional
standards as well as the standards themselves.
sss
C�
Conditions
Plans. Studies. Aereements
1. Within six months of preliminary development plan approval, the applicant shall
file a final development plan as required by the Zoning Regulations, and
incorporate site development and architectural plans, landscaping improvements,
development phasing plans, Osos Street widening, partial Court Street abandonment
and improvement plans, and public street and utility improvement plans..
Findings and Conditions, PD 1418
Page 3
2. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall apply for partial street
abandonment of Court Street, and the City Council shall have adopted a final
resolution of abandonment as shown in the final PD development plan.
3. Applicant shall enter into a long-term ground lease with the City specifying the
terms and conditions of the planned development, proposed land uses, building
management procedures, retail marketing plan, lease payment and/or equity
participation provisions, use of public spaces or amenities, and such other
components as reasonably necessary to identify the rights and responsibilities of
the parties in the lease, to the approval of the City Administrative Officer.
4. Prior to construction permit issuance, applicant shall provide the City with a
financial statement including pro forma, names and addresses of financial
participants, and tenant lease commitments, to the approval of the City
Administrative Officer.
Design Features
5. Court Street shall be designed as a pedestrian mall with emergency and service
vehicle access, and shall include decorative paving, landscape planting,
decorative lighting and signage, public art, and similar architectural features to
enhance its appearance and function, to the approval of the Architectural Review
Commission, City Engineer, and. Fire Marshal.
6. Public amenities shall be provided in conformance with the final PD plan,
including but not limited to interior atrium, child care facility, public
balconies, art gallery, and public parking facilities, to the approval of the
Community Development Director.
7. A combination of building setbacks, balconies, wall openings, and similar
architectural features shall be used to provide a stepped building profile, in
conformance with the final PD plan and to the approval of the.Architectural Review
Commission.
8: Applicant shall relocate existing trees and memorial placques to another suitable
site in the city. Where relocation is determined to be horticulturally infeasible
by the City Arborist, the developer shall plant two 36" box sized replacement
trees offsite for each tree removed. Tree type and placement shall be to the
approval of the Tree Committee.
9. Lap pool shall be solar heated, and passive or active solar space and water
heating shall be used, and natural ventillation shall be used to the maximum
extent feasible, or the applicant shall demonstrate why such heating is
infeasible, to the approval of the Community Development Director.
10. Building design shall architecturally incorporate traffic signal controllers at
the Monterey and Osos Street, and Higuera and Osos street intersections. In
addition, the structure shall incorporate structural support and conduits to
provide mast arms and provide for their installation, to the approval of the City
Engineer. A '
/rC�/A
0
Findings and Conditions, PD 1418
Page 4
11. Mid-block bulbouts shall be installed on both sides of Monterey Street at Court
Street, consistent with the city's Downtown Improvement Manual and to the approval
of the City Engineer. If offsite parking is provided, applicant shall also
provide a mid-block bulbout on both sides of Higuera Street at Court Street, to
the approval of the City Engineer.
12. Project shall require Architectural Review Commission approval. At such review,
the commission should pay special attention to signing, building setbacks and
massing, colors and materials, Court Street pedestrian mall design, lighting,
underground garage security measures, and noise and privacy separation between the
project and the adjacent residential use.
13. Project shall include a public art gallery or other public use or non-profit
cultural facility with a net floor area of not less than 1,200 square feet.
Applicant or a non-profit arts organization shall be responsible for gallery
operation and maintenance, to the approval of the Community Development Director.
14. Mission-style sidewalks, curbs, gutters shall be provided on Higuera, Monterey,
and Osos Street frontages.
of Parking and Circulation
15. The project shall provide parking in conformance with city standards. As
proposed, 244 vehicle parking spaces are required for the planned uses, plus an
additional 118 vehicle parking spaces to replace the existing public parking lot,
for a total parking requirement of 362 vehicle parking spaces, plus 18 motorcycle
and 18 bicycle parking spaces. Parking requirements may be met as follows:
A. Applicant providing not less than 118 public vehicle parking spaces plus
bicycle and motorcycle parking on site, with the balance of the parking
requirement met through payment of in-lieu parking fees in one lump sum
payment to the City; or
B. Applicant providing not less than 118 public vehicle parking spaces plus the
requirednumber of bicycle and motorcycle parking spaces off-site but within
500 feet of the site, with the balance of the parking requirement met
through payment of in-lieu parking fees in one lump sum payment to the City;
or r
C. Applicant to provide not less than 118 public vehicle parking spaces and.
required number of bicycle and motorcycle spaces on- or off-site as provided
above, with the balance of the parking requirement met through development
of additional downtown parking or enhancement of public transit facilities
or programs, in an amount equal to the in-lieu fees otherwise required; or
D. Lease or purchase of the total required parking spaces in a commonly held
and maintained off-site parking public or private parking lot located within
500 feet of the project; or
/oa 7
Findings and Conditions, PD 1418
Page 5
E. A combination of the above measures or other measures acceptable to the City
Council which meet the intent of the city's downtown parking regulations
(SLOMC 17.42.020), and provides replacement parking for the existing
118-space surface parking lot.
16. Applicant shall widen Osos Street by six feet, if determined necessary by the City
Council, between Higuera and Monterey Streets; and install all necessary frontage
improvements including sidewalks, curbs, and pavement to the approval of the City
Engineer.
17. Applicant shall install fifteen-foot radius curb returns at the westerly corner of
Higuera and Osos Streets, and at the southerly corner of Higuera and Osos Streets,
to the approval of the City Engineer.
18. Court Street shall be designed as a one-way street with a minimum width of 25
feet, and shall be at least 30 feet wide for at least 80 feet of its length. It
shall be designed to accommodate loading, delivery, trash pick-up and emergency
vehicles, with traffic control devices to limit its use to authorized vehicles, to
the approval of the City Engineer and Fire Marshal.
19. Applicant shall repair streets and other right-of-way improvements damaged during
construction, including pavement, curb, gutter, sidewalk, signs, traffic signal
controllers, street lights, street trees, and utilities, to the approval of the
City_Engineer.
20. Enclosed bicycle lockers shall be available, free of charge, to all employees. A
minimum of 15 lockers shall be located on-site, to the approval of the Community
Development Director. Employees shall be notified of locker availability at least
semi-annually, and the applicant shall be responsible for administering the
bicycle locker program.
21. Showers and clothing lockers shall be available free of charge to all employees
who bicycle to work on a regular basis (at least three days per week). Employees
shall be notified of the availability of showers and clothing lockers at least
semi-annually, and the applicant shall be responsible for providing and
maintaining at least four shower stalls and thirty clothing lockers on site.
22. Applicant shall institute a transportation systemsJmanagement plan to reduce
parking demand, to the approval of the Community Development Director. The plan
shall include no less than two of the following measures: subsidies to employees
using public transit, provision of vehicles or subsidizing employee carpools of
two or more persons, hour or pay incentives for employees using alternative
transportation, and employee information programs on alternative transportation
programs. Evidence of compliance with the plan shall be submitted to the Director
annually, and the plan shall include a provision for fines for non-compliance.
23. Applicant shall provide a permanent transportation bulletin board, coupled with a
literature display in at least five prominent locations describing alternative
transportation available, to the approval of the Transit Manager.
Findings and Conditions, PD 1418
Page 6
24. Applicant shall coordinate with Transit Manager during project design and
construction to provide a transit shelter on or near the site.
25. In addition to standard City design reviews, the parking garage layout shall be
evaluated by a parking consultant to ensure adequate aisle and space widths and
geometrics are provided for the safe and efficient flow of traffic, and the
results of the evaluation submitted to the City prior to building permit issuance.
Utilities
26. Applicant shall install the following water main improvements, to the approval of
the Utilities Engineer.
a. Replace 4" water main in Higuera Street with a 10" main between Osos and
Court Streets.
b. Replace 6" water main in Monterey Street with a 10" main between Osos and
Morro Streets.
Note: City plans to install an 8" replacement water main in Court Street as part of the
Capital Replacement Program, and applicant shall coordinate construction with City work.
27. Applicant shall install two new fire hydrants, and replace three undersized
hydrants to serve the project and to ensure adequate fire flow is available, to
the approval of the Utilities Engineer and the Fire Marshal.
28. Applicant shall contribute toward cost of upgrading sewage treatment facilities on
a pro rata basis in an amount not to exceed $7000.00, as determined by the
Utilities Engineer.
29. Applicant shall submit a water conservation plan describing construction,
operation, and maintenance measures to befollowed to achieve at least a 15%
reduction in water consumption annually compared with average water demand factors
for similar uses in the city. Plan shall also include provisions for fines, water
fee surcharges, or comparable:measures for non-compliance, to the approval of the
Community Development Director.
Public Safety
30. Applicant shall maintain a 20-foot wide fire lane in Court Street, exclusive of
loading, delivery or parking areas, to the approval of the Fire Marshal and City
Engineer.
31. In addition to standard UBC and UFC requirements, the building shall be
constructed using the "high rise package" as set forth in the Uniform Building
Code Chapter 18, Section 1807. This shall include a specialized alarm system with
a graphic annunciator panel (zone indicating), video monitors at stairwells and
main assembly areas on each floor, and a computer-generated, voice-assisted
evacuation system.
A;2
i�
Findings and Conditions, PD 1418
Page 7
32. The fire department connection for Anderson Hotel on Court Street shall be
relocated and/or connected to the service on the Monterey Street frontage, to the
approval of the Fire Marshal.
33. Traffic control systems such as the "Opticom" priority control system or equal,
shall be installed at six downtown intersections to improve emergency response, to
the approval of the Fire Marshal.
34. Two additional mobile telephone units such as "Smartnet" units or equal shall be
provided, to the approval of the Fire Marshal.
35. All building stairwells shall be designed to provide roof access, thereby allowing
multiple access points for Fire Department aerial ladders, to the approval of the
Fire Marshal.
36. A securityplan shall be submitted to the
P approval of the Police Department. The
plan shall include design, operation, and education measures to enhance building
security and crime prevention, such as parking garage/Court Street access and
monitoring,.locks and alarm systems, security lighting and signage, and the
installation of at least two pay phones with 911 emergency response capability in
the parking garage.
37. Applicant shall submit a noise attenuation evaluation, prepared by a qualified
professional, prior to building permit issuance. It shall include design
recommendations to insure that the project conforms to noise standards as
established in Chapter 9.12 of the Municipal Code.
38. Appropriate noise attenuation measures shall be incorporated into the project to
minimize noise transmission adjacent or into Court Street, to the approval of the
Chief Building Official. All rooftop or wall-mounted mechanical equipment shall
be muffled.
39. Live music or entertainment shall require prior approval by the Police Department
and Community Development Director. Failure to comply with the City's noise
standards or security plan provisions may constitute grounds for revocation of the
approval.
Water Oualltv and Flood Protection
40. Site drainage shall be designed to the approval of the City Engineer, including:
a. Erosion control devices shall be installed to retain sediment and reduce
runoff from the site during construction.
b. A system of pumps and grease and oil separator or separators shall be
installed in the basement parking garage to prevent discharge of flammable
or toxic materials into the the creek, to the approval of the City Engineer
and Fire Marshal. Applicant shall clean and maintain the separators on a
regular basis (not less than once every six months or more often as
necessary) to insure their effectiveness.
Findings and Conditions, PD 1418
Page 8
C. Flapgates or valves shall be installed in the storm drains to prevent creek
water from backing up into the parking garage during high creek flows.
d. The structure must be designed so as not to adversely affect the undercity
creek culvert, to the approval of the City Engineer. The culvert wall and
deck adjacent to the site shall be inspected before, during, and after
construction periodically to evaluate their condition, and to recommend
appropriate protection measures. The results of such inspections submitted
to the City Engineer.
e. Applicant shall be responsible to repair any damage to the culvert as a
result of grading or construction, to the approval of the City Engineer.
41. The structure is located in Flood Zone A-O (depth = 2 feet). It must be raised or
fioodproofed to one foot above the 100-year storm elevation, including utilities
and other facilities as required by the Flood Hazard Prevention Ordinance, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
42. Prior to building permit issuance, a registered civil engineer shall certify that
the project.complies with flood regulations, and supply calculations indicating
Cthe effects of this project on adjacent properties+during a 100-yr. storm.
43. Engineering soils and geology reports shall be submitted prior to building permit
issuance, to the approval of the Chief Building Official. All requirements of the
soils engineer and/or engineering geologist shall be met, and, are incorporated
herein by reference.
Site Preparation and Construction
44. Grading and construction plans shall be accompanied by a parking and construction
management plan describing measures to be followed to minimize temporary parking,
noise, dust, and traffic impacts during construction. The plan shall also include
a developer-managed complaint resolution process to monitor compliance with the
plan and to act on citizen inquiries or complaints.
45. Construction vehicle traffic shall use only city-approved truck routes, and no
construction equipment shall operate on the Higuera, Osos, or Court Street bridges
(creek culvert) without specific approval by the City Engineer.
46. Dust abatement procedures, 'including moistening`exposed soils and moistening or
covering loading trucks entering or leaving the site are to be used during site
preparation and construction. Applicant shall specify in grading plans that City
Engineer may suspend work if dust generation, tire tread dirt or mud on streets,
site runoff, construction worker parking, or noise create a nuisance or hazards to
neighboring persons, properties, streets, or businesses.
C? 47. A construction traffic impact fee will be required prior to building permit
issuance, to reimburse City for damage to streets by project-related construction
traffic, as determined by the Public Works Director.
J
Findings and Conditions, PD 1418
Page 9
48. Grading plans shall include a note that a qualified archeologist is to be on site
at all times during site excavation and grading. Work shall stop upon discovering
any cultural resources to allow the archeologist to assess the find and recommend
appropriate measures.
49. Construction shall commence within 12 months of final development plan approval,
and continue in a timely fashion with the project completed in a single phase.
Applicant shall post a bond to guarantee faithful performance of contract
documents, to the approval of the Community Development Director.
Miscellaneous
50. Applicant shall submit a plan outlining procedures for maintaining Court Street,
public interior spaces, and the parking garage in a clean; safe, and orderly
manner, to the approval.of the Public Works Director; and shall agree to reimburse
extraordinary city maintenance costs resulting from non-compliance with the plan.
51. A subsurface testing program shall be performed by a qualified archaeologist prior
to construction to determine the contents, condition, and significance of cultural
resources at the site. Applicant shall prepare a contingency plan to preserve
significant cultural resources and accommodate potential construction delays
resulting from their assessment and removal.
52. Applicant shall install an historical marker on or adjacent to the building and
visible from a public street, documenting the site's historical and cultural
significance, to the approval of the Cultural Heritage Committee.
53. Delivery and loading activities in Court Street shall be limited to the hours
between 7:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m., and 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. The Community
Development Director may modify delivery and loading times upon finding that there
would be no significant noise or safety conflicts resulting from such activities.
Lockable traffic control devices shall be installed, and the applicant shall be
responsible for managing delivery and loading access. Court Street and the
building shall be designed to allow 24-hour emergency access by police and fire
personnel and vehicles.
54. Precise development plan shall be submitted for Planning Commission review and
approval prior to building permit issuance.
55. Public access to all upper story open areas (eg: view decks and balconies) should
be provided to the maximum extent practical; provisions for such public access
shall be included in the precise plan and lease agreement.
jh4/pol418s
i 133tl1S A3U31HOn-
rl ❑
FMA
❑ ❑
uj
J
U
oy <Q
uW Wo'
i G N
� u
i
sa - ❑ d ❑
i.-. /
.� �o
(7,' 014 �s
OC'
w O I � i 9Tim I
CMFJ m
r' JL '• ;Lagl ma
([f G W O
C a f
CpQ I W
m
e . 41Eul
] m m a a a I s
\ .a c m I m o o
I II 1W �� i t
7
•.:� �1 og I dUSU W
i
1 i Ml
I O
/ .DE
1
•�I J
m cr I
W.
` u
2m SZ
W W-.
G '�..Zi 1
m a I
I
U m
13'3 tl1S Vtl3f1'JIN
GS.
s
I ^.WiN
\-V
F Q 71 ♦NN I'�
E- E Q
p p 1
�x
6
o n`W Q
= O
_
u W
N
N -
1 _ _
m T
N
Q I �
< �. -13
` a
u� r�
I R 2s 1
W
N� LL
O Q
N
♦ O
� I
:- .o-oz
ru
W 2
NW
— p
mu
C3
I
•
1�+
I � a
a
❑ ❑ '❑ O_.. ....
I D ❑ ❑ �-
I _ ❑ ___ — — — — _ _ _ —
i
LLJ
I
1I
W u
m ,r
U)cr 01
m
O N I we -�
U W� I
�J
I _
Z
i O
i ❑ 13 ❑ .. . .
i
� S
4
m ,07
02
� I
I � I
-. w100 dMn!-011e ._..
1 I
i I
I jy I
t
��� iMHiS d83h,9IH
C
-- cl ❑ \ =�
❑ ❑
W
W4 �`
u ¢W H
u �
Ir: f
II
/ I
a'c. d.- - Wks ❑
6
.21g
m mm�CL
6 (!
a
HIE I OE-
WEuCA ,
i J
I `J
a ❑ ❑
I
J W _
❑ ❑ 16-a ❑ ❑
' T rn
cr
i
WW1
2.
tWI
6
b
❑ ❑ ❑
6
i
t
N
I
I I
I � �
S
0
Z
cc
W i
❑ I a
iL _ 5m ❑
cmc
m J
o0
w _
wo
�� I gm
Q LEI ❑
'1 II . r'--. Q:FiE a
paoE
i.ol 1. io� 1000 qU
o mi a
I� ice: w(n
❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
JW
�U
<<
�a
Wy
Q
❑ ❑ ❑
� I
N I
•
147
C
'L
I I a
Y� ° ° r N
I
i I I I z
I I
I I
LL¢ lol
LLQ I c I
O
Iwl �
❑ o = i ❑ �W ❑
oa
0
I I u I
! I W Im l
1 I
gE
❑ d g LD
❑ Ld
cc
zoo
i
Ip 3 I ---�
^ 1 °
�1 c I
I V1W r I I O I
ml
d ❑ - d
I �
I � I
w W
..w I "W
U_cc
o I I o
❑ I i ❑ ❑ ❑
I I I
a C3
I I i I
I I I I
m
kpie
C
C
� rz
I I I z`o L1.
uj
I I
LLCr I a
oa IJ
� � I m
ui
u I
° ° 15 1 ° "uj
I � I
I c
m �I
i i I ml
w 0
m
Big�
° la a
I , r i
iOI �J
W u ti
►V+W .I C. UJ J .
o� i51 04 m
I I
I I �
I I �
I �
° °
o o I
m
a
' C
c
. ❑ ❑ m I Z
I
H m
Q�
O J Z
CL V
m ;
❑ ❑ ❑ - C�
p
J
W
p ml
C �
gm
e i ❑ ❑ m -
=� I
sm
m � I
12gig'
P I
6W U
' JI
_J
m
z o� I
z (n
cm N ca m
M
a
x
F U J
J N mm
m
•
I� i7 i0141
ove r7-
ma's, mac.
I I'
T!
II 'IFIM
�
aimr mar_—mea ®M21
I
Iml -m .Rsr
U;
■:��I�r-�nu�l �r
� r =
2
1_
1I
1
ff■\iii ►. � �Tt�II Y
r®iii Ike®�
11
71
71
I.11�
• Jr� Z
10,
lulu j:
w
a
w
H
w
w
a .
H
If
x
0--4
=tea
I to
41
Wl mill '
To
i
tg;
O
.yam
Q
.
J.................
W
Ila
11
C
z
a
all
I�
i
Y"!
i
I� t
G
r
•
'NOW
�100001
7
IfEl 7
cl
SEE]
WE
INS
?33
r- r
I L
LIJ
Z
0 LLj
133 NIS A3 kl.31N0M
Q
10
r Oil
ri
LU
a
6 ! I
•::•••�•i:•:
tit:�i li• u
''::' '::• :::• W o 0 7 I
{` :• � � mai 1
;a•'. ;:ti; rcco
a o
acwE
••• nw -l I I N
O
W < u�•
V •�. uW• I I
0 13
13.3NLS VV3n VlW
O
... ?;:;.ti;:
n
; {:ter'.•'.•' =}:v: .....;
-•. ?:• i
Kip
v:: ';:•::•:•' @
:. •:::•::.:•:: . : .............
•: :ti � ^
❑ ❑ ❑
En
A
W
MJ
❑ ❑ �a ❑ ❑
¢N
t
ww
: 1
¢z. i
o"
W iSWI
m p _ ❑ ❑ Q
a -
N
!- G
• O
w
" ' — Q
:a
-N -
::K•:
...........
.....
J53b.
z
--_
7i O
-4
I•
U
} {
:
w:
�¢ W.:€:-
:z•:
:...:
�I�
::
0
z
:�•:
i
a <= a
}X'
:r. •.::•: ;:;•:.
coo
:.
Mom
❑..`: : :': W z
.......;.�.;::;:: :titi•::• m p 7
::•':• titi•}::•::•}:::•.:X ... .. G m
: : ::..... ........; '
o
r�::'r:bt•. . vcn
o575 E O
X.
•••• 5•_y•• :•:.:•:•:
H
W
A
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
JW
HV
a`
uia
ui in
cr
cl 13
❑ — a----- n
C
O
C
C
N
�4
r - - - - - 13Ll
--- --�-- -� E-
I
m
N �
❑ ❑ m I Z
H m
O J i
CL N U o
V
m
' I
0
'e
m g
mE m
J�
C O •� m�
W = mm I
J. W m
i Z ❑ ❑ Q O
� J
w G 1
E- I
i ma I U
13;o so• - H
..n.J.i.
WQ j - of
Wf V m
N7 t
NW 1
m u
6W I I ;I
f I
j. m
/\
.'.'. .......
::..:.�• H m c I
.•.:::•.•.:•i.•:.:•:.:: . Q 7 U
i:•:µ................. OJ J t
CLU
:•�:• N 'm
I
I
I
I
r 00
O ••:Y �C'. �i�i
:w m
........... _
01 _
0
Court Street Center
San Luis Obispo, California
Planned Development
Zoning Application
1. Planning application form complete. (See Attached.)
2 Property owners list and map showing the area included in the list.
(See Attached.)
3 Map (8-1/2' X 11') from the official zone map, with the area to be
changed shaded or outlined with a heavy, black line, and the pro-
posed change clearly labelled. (See Attached.)
4 Preliminary development plan, to include.
A A legal description of the total site;
The site consists of approximately 34,000 square feet (0.78 of an
acre) bounded by Monterey Street, Osos Street, Higuera Street,
and the Court Street right-of-way. The site includes three parcels
owned by the City of San Luis Obispo (APN 002-433-001,APN 002-433-
002,and APN 002-433-033),the northeast sixteen feet of the forty foot
wide Court Street right-of-way which is proposed to be partially
abandoned and combined with the adjacent City parcels to
create a single lot. A more precise legal description will be refined
as part of the Parcel Map for lot combination and partial street
abandonment applications related hereto.
B. A statement of the objectives to be achieved by the planned de-
velopment through the particular approach .proposed;
The Planned Development Zone is intended to encourage inno-
vative development by allowing more variation in project design
than normal standards, and to provide benefits to the project oc-
cupants and/or to the community as a whole which could not be
provided under conventional regulations. The Planned Devel-
opment rezoning provides the City with a more precise means of
insuring that development reflects the community's unique char-
acter by approving a preliminary development plan and sched-
ule for a specific project concurrent with rezoning.
0
� Q
GENERAL GOALS
The proposed Planned Development, the innovative design
criteria allowed under the Planned Development Zone, would
allow the site to be developed to achieve the following general
goals:
Reinforcement of the downtown commercial core by provid-
ing a strong anchor on the northern end of the retail center. This
reinforcement is further complemented by the provision of the
diagonal pedestrian way through the site which strengthens the
link between the County Government Center and the retail
core.
The provision of interior public spaces,the significant setbacks to
reduce building mass on the upper floors, the design require-
ments of the desired tenant types, and the other public and pri-
vate amenities.
The development of a project which, by sensitive design and
intensive combination of mixed-uses, provides a landmark
building which reflects the historic character of the surrounding
buildings and the site.
The development of an economically viable project which will
increase vitality in the downtown by expanding the variety and
volume of retail sales and related uses; thereby reinforcing the
downtown's role as the cultural, social, entertainment, com-
mercial, and professional activity center of the County.
ADDITIONAL OBJECTIVES
Additional criteria for evaluating the Court Street Center's consis-
tency with City objectives are found in the Urban Land Use and
Growth Management Element, the Downtown Improvement
Manual, and the Court Street Center Reauest for Qualifications
(See Item 'I').
REQUIRED FINDINGS
In order to achieve these multiple-stated goals and objectives,
Planned Development rezoning is requested to allow flexibility in
developing the parcel. The Development Team believes that the
proposed Planned Development rezoning meets the following
required criteria: '4. Features of the particular design achieve the
intent of conventional standards as well as or better than the stan-
dards themselves.'
2.
. o
•
C. A schedule indicating the approximate dates when construction of
the development or phases of the development are to be
started and completed
07/01/89 Commence Construction on the Project
12/01/89 Completion of the Parking Levels
10%01/90 Completion of the Retail Levels
02/01/91 Completion of the Office, and Recreational Levels
D. A statement of the applicants intentions regarding future sale or
lease of all or portions of the planned development;
It is the Developer's intent to master ground lease the property
from the City of San Luis Obispo. The Developer's business plan is
to hold the property and sublease the tenant spaces. There is no
sale of the project contemplated.
E. A summary of the total number and type of dwelling units, parcel
sizes, coverage, modified and natural open space, grading, rest
C' dential densities, and areas devoted to non-residential uses;
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Monterey/Osos entrance is characterized by two-story arches
which open into the atrium and the second story public balcony. It
is an arcade which links the County Government Center with the
retail core and blends the project into the fabric of the downtown.
A two-story public space interior atrium is proposed to include such
public amenities as a sculptural element, water fountain, plantings,
benches, and space for public service displays, or arts and craft
shows of local artisans. The atrium will always be 'public' because
of the general attraction of the local public to distinctive and
unique environments and facilities.
The ground floor has streetfront and atrium retail, and an art gallery
opening out onto Court Street. Access to the second level is via
an escalator and two elevators. The second level is pedestrian
oriented with a restaurant with a street side cafe atmosphere, bal-
conies and more retail shops. It gives San Luis Obispo a new
place to walk,talk,sit and watch.
The third and fourth floor levels will be the executive office levels.
Two elevators will provide direct access from the parking levels.
3
,J
The fifth floor will provide health club facilities including three indoor
racquetball courts, an aerobics area, circuit and free weights,
cardiovascular equipment, a pro shop, saunas, whirlpool, a lap
pool, and a cafe. If the proposed recreational facility does not
prove to be financially feasible, the fifth floor will be converted to
an additional floor of executive offices with a cafe.
Two parking levels below ground provide self-parking spaces for .
140 cars, 100 public parking spaces and 40 spaces reserved for
tenant use.
PARCEL SIZE
34,000 square feet(0.78 acres)
This figure includes the three existing City parcels, the northeast six-
teen feet of the forty foot wide Court Street right-of-way which is
proposed to be partially abandoned, and provides for a poten-
tial offer of dedication which would result in a four foot increase in
the width of the Osos Street right-of-way.
COVERAGE
100%
AREAS DEVOTED TO PROPOSED USES
Program Areas
Net Sauare Feet
Retail 30,503
Art Gallery 1200
Restaurant 72136
IGtchen 2,140
Executive Offices 42,155
Fifth Floor
Recreational Facilities/Executive Offices 22M
Net Leasable Area 105,449
Parking 62.375
Total Net Square Footage 167 4
The program areas indicated above are the areas necessary to
meet the functional requirements of the individual spaces. These
4
-o
c
areas have been determined by a detailed analysis of each
functional space.
PARKING
The Planned Development net leasable floor areas for the com-
bination of uses proposed within the Court Street Center total
approximately 105,449 square feet. With the allowed 20% mixed-
use reduction, the proposed Planned Development would re-
quire 174 off-street parking spaces based on the gross floor area
of the retail, restaurant, office, and recreational facility. The re-
placement of the 113 metered existing public parking spaces and
the provision of 174 off-street parking spaces to meet the Planned
Development's own needs, result in a total requirement of 287
spaces.
The Planned Development provides two subterranean parking
levels providing approximately 140 spaces on-site. Due to site
constraints, expansion to additional depth or extension into ad-
joining street rights-of-way is not feasible. To assure conformance
with the City's requirements, the Planned Development rezoning
proposes that the Developer would make a financial contribution
c' to provide off-site public parking, specifically by agreement to
pay City established in-lieu fees for required and replacement
spaces not provided on-site. The Developer is prepared to work
with the City to provide alternate solutions to the.payments of in-lieu
fees up to the value of the required contribution.
F. Identification of portions of the development which would other-
wise require a variance, and reason for deviation from normal
standards;
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONE
The City's Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.50.010, purpose and appli-
cation, must be amended, or clarified, to enable consideration of
the PD, Planned Development zone to be applied to parcels of
less than one acre in combination with the CC, Central Commer-
cial zone as well as parcels of at least one acre in combination
with any other zone.
c
5 _ V
S
HEIGHT
The Central Commercial Zone (CC) allows a fifty foot maximum
height with an additional 10 feet of appurtenances. Assuming
standard design criteria, a four story building could be accom-
plished within the height limit, with components such as solar en-
ergy systems, chimneys, screened mechanical equipment, vents,
antennae and steeples extending not more than ten feet above
the maximum building height, allowing a total height of 60 feet.
The interior public spaces, the significant upper story setbacks, and
the other provided public and tenant amenities can not be ac-
commodated in a standard 100% coverage fifty foot envelope,
but require the innovative design criteria allowed under the
Planned Development Zone. Although the building's net square
footage of 105A49 could be accommodated in a four story build-
ing,-the provision of the design requirements of the desired tenant
types and the package of public amenities necessitates the
Planned Development rezoning. To fulfill the City's multiple-stated
goals and objectives in an economically feasible package, the
proposed five story building design (excluding the two subter-
ranean parking levels) requires a maximum height of 68 feet with a
10 foot allowance for appurtenances. J
G. A site plan and supporting maps, drawn to a suitable scale and
clearly labelled, showing, if applicable:
a. Existing site conditions, including contours, vegetation and
water courses; (See Attached.)
b. Proposed lot designs;
c. Location and floor area of existing and proposed-buildings or
outlines of areas within which buildings may be located; (See
Attached.)
d. Location and size of aU areas to be conveyed or reserved as
common open-spaces or for public or semi-public uses, (See
Attached.)
e. Existing and proposed circulation system of arterial, collector,
and local streets; off-street parking, loading, and emergency
access areas; points of access to public rights-of-way; pro-
posed ownership of circulation routes; (See Attached.)
L Existing and proposed sidewalks and paths; (See Attached.)
6
O
g. Existing and proposed utility systems, including sanitary sewer,
storm drainage, water, electricity, gas and telephone; (See
Attached.)
K A general landscape plan; (See Attached.)
L A general grading plan. (See Attached.)
H. Information on land area adjacent to the proposed develop-
ment, indicating Important relationships between the proposal
and surrounding land uses, circulation systems, public facilities, and
natural features;
EXISTING LAND USES
The project site is composed of a half-block property presently
used for 113 public surface parking spaces. The site is the largest
undeveloped parcel in the San Luis Obispo CBD.
ADJACENT LAND USES
On the southwest side of Court Street, adjacent properties include
the Anderson Hotel, one of the downtown's tallest buildings, An
gelo's restaurant, McCarthy's Bar and The Assembly Line restaurant.
Across Monterey Street is the historic J.P. Andrews Building
containing streetfront retail/office and second story office. Diago-
nally north of the site is the block containing the San Luis Obispo
County Government Center and a small parking lot. It is a two and
three story complex containing multiple buildings with an expan-
sive lawn area on the portion of the block closest to the site. To the
northeast across Osos Street is the historic Sperry-Laird building
used by several restaurants and bars, a movie theater and County
Government offices. Diagonally east of the site is the one story
Firestone dealership and its attendant small parking lot. To the
southeast across Higuera Street is the First Bank of San Luis Obispo,
which also contains legal and stock brokerage offices.
The San Luis Obispo downtown pedestrian shopping area ex-
tends along Monterey and Higuera Streets beyond the immedi-
ate project area in both directions. The major portion of the area's
retail uses can be found in the direction of the tourist oriented San
Luis Obispo Mission and its Plaza, while restaurants, services and
other less pedestrian oriented uses extend beyond Osos Street. In
this way, the Court Street Center site can be considered to be the
existing northern edge of the downtown's pedestrian retail area.
O
7
1
The project site is designed for Retail Commercial uses on the City
of San Luis Obispo General Plan Land Use Map. Surrounding
properties are also a part of the Retail Commercial District, with the
exception of the County Governmental Center to the north of the
site.
The zoning classification of the Court Street Center site is Central
Commercial with a Historical Preservation Zone Overlay (CCH).
The site is surrounded by properties which are also zoned CCH.
CIRCULATION SYSTEMS
Vehicular access to the project site is provided by Higuera, Mon-
terey, Osos, and Court Streets,. Project traffic will enter the site from
Higuera Sheet and will exit to Monterey Street.
Monterey Street is a major east/west arterial in the City of San Luis
Obispo extending northeasterly from the project site as a two way
sheet to U.S. Highway 101. Monterey Street is classified as an arte-
rial in the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan.
Higuera Street is a major east/west street in the City of San Luis ,
Obispo extending northeasterly as an arterial to Johnson Avenue
and southwesterly approximately parallel to U.S. 101. Higuera
Street serves as the westbound sheet of a pair of one way sheets
(Marsh Street is eastbound) between Johnson Avenue and its in-
tersection with Marsh Street at the southwestem edge of the central
area of the City. Higuera Street coupled with Marsh Street serves
as the primary east/west arterial through the downtown area.
Court Street is the southwesterly portion of the existing City parking
lot which presently occupies the site. Court Street extends be-
tween Monterey Sheet and Higuera Street.
Osos Sheet, located directly west of the project site, is a major
north/south roadway in the central area of the City extending
southerly from U.S. Highway 101 to Santa Barbara Street. No ac-
cess is proposed to the project site from Osos Street. Osos Street,
together with Santa Barbara Street, also links the downtown area
with State Route 227.
PUBLIC FACILITIES
The City of San Luis Obispo Police Department provides police
services to the downtown area which includes the project site.
8
c
The City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department provides fire services
to the downtown area which includes the project site. The nearest
fire station is located at the intersection of Pismo and Garden
Streets.
Water and sewer facilities for the project area are provided
through the City of Son Luis Obispo and administered by the Utilities
Division of the Department of Public Works. Aten inch water main is
located along Osos Street and six inch water lines exist along
Monterey and Higuera Streets. A two inch water line exists along
Court Street. Six inch sewer lines are located along Monterey and
Higuera Streets.
NATURAL FEATURES
The site is presently developed as a surface parking lot with no ex-
isting significant natural features other than the existing street and
parking lot trees. San Luis Obispo Creek is contained in an under-
city culvert which is located under Higuera Street adjacent to the
site.
9
I�
L Any additional information which may be required by the director ✓✓
to evaluate the character and impact of the planned develop-
ment,
The following excerpts are from applicable sections of the Urban
Land Use and Growth Management Element, the Downtown
Improvement Manual, and the Court Street Center Request for
Qualifications and formed the development parameters for the
project:
URBAN LAND USE ELEMENT OBJECTIVES
The primary purpose of the Urban Land Use and Growth
Management Element is to define policies and proposals con-
cerning community development, including the general
distribution and composition of existing and planned public
and private development. Specific objectives to be
achieved include:
The City should provide for Infill, intensification, and expansion
within the present City limits.
The City reaffirms its support of the Central Business District as
a historic, architecturally unique and economically essential
part of the community.
The Central Business District shall remain the principal location
for the greatest variety of comparison retail commercial ac-
tivities in San Luis Obispo.
Additional space in the Central Business District should rein-
force the role of downtown as a regional shopping area,
while also serving the needs of the community.
DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENT MANUAL OBJECTIVES
The portion of the General Plan that relates to visual and aes-
thetic resources for the downtown is contained in the City's
Downtown Improvement Manual. The primary policies, which
are relevant to the proposed Planned Development rezoning
include:
SIZE AND SCALE. New buildings must respect the scale of
downtown buildings and streetscopes .
RHYTHM. In downtown San Luis Obispo, the buildings which
line the streets are usually 25, 50 or 100 feet in width, reflecting
10
0
the original lot frontages. This regular and repetitive rhythm of
building widths should be recognized and observed in the
design of any new construction.
PROPORTIONS: Most of the existing buildings in downtown
now have facade proportions that range from slightly verti-
cal, to square, to slightly horizontal. Buildings with very hori-
zontal or vertical proportions should be avoided.
TYPE AND SCALE: Commercial storefront structures tradition-
ally are built to the property line along the street, thus creat-
ing a line or wall of storefronts which define and give char-
octer to the streetscope.
COURT STREET CENTER REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS
OBJECTIVES
In the RFQ, basic goals and objectives to be achieved through
this concerted public/private approach were outlined. Addi-
tionally, the framework for development contained in the RFQ
encouraged innovative land use concepts, specifically a
mixed-use project which should reinforce the downtown's role
as the economic, professional and cultural hub of the County.
The RFQ also defined certain planning factors to establish
ground rules for the project such as uses, development intensity,
height, bulk, setback, parking, access and other criteria. It
stated that variation from these guidelines is possible depend-
ing on project specifics and planning considerations. The fol-
lowing excerpts restate the City's stated objectives in the RFQ:
The CHy's Goods
Like many local governments, Son Luis Obispo Is seeking
ways to achieve community goals through improved fiscal
management. As part of its Strategic Planning Program, the
City is combining land use and financial planning functions,
particularly with regard to the management of real property.
The Court Street Development Program is a key step in this
comprehensive effort.
The City's concerns encompass more than the 'bottom line'
of a real estate venture. Through a concerted pub-
lic/private approach, the city .is committed to achieving
broader goals in the public interest These include:
O Enhancing downtown's economy by expanding the variety
and volume of retail sales and related uses.
11
AS1 .
Reinforcing downtown's historic role as the hub of cultural,
social, entertainment, and commercial activity in the County.
Developing an attractive, economically feasible project
with minimal public costs and optimal private investment
opportunities.
Encouraging efficient use and development of existing and
planned parking facilities.
,Promoting opportunities for local participation and invest-
ment in the project.
Insuring that development reflects the community's unique
character, spirit, and pride.
Framework for Development
The framework for development sets the ground rules for the
project. It also guides the development of specific de-
sign/land use proposals later in the. process. These ground
rules govern uses, development intensity, height, bulk, set-
bock, parking, access, and engineering requirements.
However, they are .not absolutes. Variation from these
guidelines is possible depending on project specifics and
planning considerations. Rather, they explain and summa-
rize pertinent zoning requirements, and are aimed at ensur-
ing sensitively designed, functional, and attractive devel-
opment.
Development should complement and reinforce the
downtown's unique blend of Victorian and California Spanish
architectural influences.
Project design should maximize pedestrian access and en-
hance the pedestrian's experience through the use of
architectural detailing, sun/weather protection, landscaping,
storefronts allowing changeable display, and decorative
paving. Interior spaces should encourage exploration and
discovery, and offer spatial excitement and diversity.
Innovative land use concepts are encouraged. A mixed-
use project featuring high-quality retail, office, hotel or rest-
dential uses is preferred. Due to its prominent downtown
location, the project is expected to be a focal point for resi-
dents and tourists. The land use mix should reinforce the
12
1-,Nd 0
O
downtown's role as the economic, professional, and cultural
hub of the County.
On-site parking facilities will be required to supplement
nearby municipal parking facilities. Participation in and/or
development of off-site parking may help meet the pro-
ject's parking needs.
Building Program
The concept should be based on 100% lot coverage, uti&-
ing 4 or 5 stories above street grade and two levels of
subterranean parking. Court Street should serve as the pri-
mary vehicle entry/exit, and maintain adequate access,
spacing, light, and air for adjacent uses. Ground floor uses
should emphasize retail cchvity, with maximum opportunity
for pedestrian access and storefront exposure.
Land Use
The City should expect two floors (entrances from two differ-
ent levels off Monterey and Higuera Streets) of high quality
C) shops representing a mix of local, state, and national retail-
ers. .
Retailing should augment and expand downtown shopping
opportunities — with emphasis on high quality gifts, apparel,
housewares, specialty items; and local products. The City
would support a 'festival retail' character which incorporates
a CARE package - culture, amusement, recreation, and
entertainment activities — into the project's design and
operation.
Design Concept
Due to its size and location, the project will be a landmark
building and will set a design precedent for future downtown
development. its building program, site planning, and
architectural style must sensitively reflect community char-
acter and values, as well as client program. Innovative and
expressive use of traditional 'downtown Son Luis Obispo'
forms and materials is encouraged. And above all, the
project must reflect quality - from its preliminary design
through final implementation. in short- a source of pride and
excitement for both the developer and the community.
C'
13 l
Site Planning
Shoppers and visitors are attracted downtown by the variety
of things to do, see, and experience. The ideal project will
provide a variety of spatial experiences for the users.
Recessed entries, alcoves, display windows, pedestrian ar-
cades, awnings, corner pass-throughs, balconies, and
atriums are used effectively in the downtown and should be
considered in the project design. Interior layout should allow
safe, convenient pedestrian movement between the four
street frontages. Landscape planting, street furniture, public
art, paving, and signage should encourage shopping, sit-
ling, people-watching, and walking.
Court Street should be considered as a fourth street frontage
and allow safe pedestrian movement, as well as delivery,
parking and trash collection. Primary access to under-
ground parking sholl be from Court Street, with the possibility
of an entry-only from Osos Street.
Architectural Style
The projects architecture should establish its own identity,
while reflecting important design elements of major
downtown buildings. Its identity will be established by sensi-
tively integrating the building with the downtown, and pro-
viding a focus for people and commercial activity.
Me building design should provide variety in massing, form,
textures, and detailing. Well articulated roofs and walls will
be essential to modulate the building's scale and create vi-
sual Interest. Building walls should be stepped back, and
carefully sculpted to avoid large expanses of unbroken wall
or roof planes. Distinctive detailing, particularly at pedestrian
level, is encouraged. Materials should be selected for natu-
ral beauty, durability, and compatibility. Some materials, like
copper or clay file, develop added interest or 'patina' over
time and are particularly encouraged.
Consistent with the City's policy of energy conservation, the
building should be designed with special consideration
given to reducing energy and maintenance costs. Passive
and active solar space and water heating systems, and
skylighfing are encouraged.
14
/oG�
C
Public Amenities
Project design should be of extraordinarily high quality, and
include amenities which will benefit the whole community.
Examples include:
A 'stepped' building design to reduce the building mass
on upper floors and provide for balconies and terraces.
Public art, seating, landscaping, and display windows.at
street level, interior and exterior.
Atrium space with multi-use potential for pedestrian circu-
lation, dining/retail sales, art display, and public assem-
bly/performing arts.
Sidewalk bulbouts at the intersections of Court Street and
Monterey Street:
Mission-style sidewalk and street trees along entire project
frontage.
C A bus/toxi loading area.
Rooftop focal point, eg. the roof, clock- or bell-tower,
architectural detailing.
Upgraded street lighting (to City Council approved fluted
style pole) and upgraded signdlization at
Monterey/Osos and Higuera/Osos intersections per new
City standards.
5. An 8-1/20 X 11' transparency showing the major features of the .site
plan. (See Attached.)
15
San Luis Obispo County Post Office Box 1710_
San Luis Obispo
ARTS COUNCIL California 93406
(805)544-9251
February 6, 1989
Members of the City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
P.O. Boz 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403
To the Members of the San Luis Obispo City Council:
Because the arts play a vital role in shaping the cultural character of a
community, the Board of Directors of the San Luis Obispo County Arts Council
applauds the inclusion of publicly accessible space for cultural use in the
proposed Court Street project. We have been in contact with the developer,
Tom Sykes, and fully support his intention to provide a highly visible
location in downtown San Luis Obispo that would be an ideal showcase for
art exhibitions.
We are aware that the many details of such an arrangement need further
negotiation. Based on our current knowledge of the proposal, and given our
large volunteer base and ties with other arts groups, it is feasible for the
Arts Council to manage the location that would be open to the public during
normal gallery hours. In order to effectively manage a large gallery, the "
Arts Council would need both office and storage space appropriated out of
the total proposed square footage (a minimum of 400 sq. ft., a maximum of
600 sq.ft.)
We look forward to further consideration on this matter.
Sincerely,
a12,
Barbara Burke
President
cc: Jan Hagaman-Jercich RECEIVED
Tom Sykes
FEB 71999
City of San Luis Obispo
�iIlaoll�InllI�IIII���I�� ��Illllllll� .
C
. 0ty of sAn tuts oaspo
955 Morro Street • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
December 29, 1988
John French
P.O. Box 1796
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
Dear John,
As you suggested, we have investigated the possibility of building
a parking structure between Marsh and Higuera Streets on properties
now occupied for parking for Security Bank and First Bank. We are
able to develop a structure that would clear the walkup teller
window alcove to the First Bank and the parking lot entry structure
into the Security Bank (however it would be necessary to change
access to the entry to be only from Marsh Street because of the
proximity of the parking structure) . We would propose a structure
4 levels high, extending 35 feet above street grade. This could
generate 316 spaces (although roughly 90 existing spaces would be
lost) . Total cost for the structure, including design and
contingencies, would be approximately $3 million dollars. This
does not include land acquisition costs.
Our design would allow for vehicle entry from both Higuera and
Marsh Street but exit only onto Marsh Street. This configuration
will discourage motorists from- driving through town on Higuera
Street, but will still allow. convenient access to the structure
from two different streets. The structure configuration would be
quite similar, although with a simpler circulation pattern, to the
Palm Street structure completed last year. Development of the
structure would require acquisition of the rear of the Haroutunian
property and the French property alongside the Pro Spoke Cyclery,
thus eliminating the back row of parking in each of these lots.
There would be a remainder property for both the First Bank and the
Security Bank, thus allowing continuation of some private parking
on each of these parcels, with access to Osos Street.
The height of the structure at 35 feet would be considerably higher
than the Security Bank building, slightly higher than the First
Bank. building about equal in height to the Hart building and much
lower than the Anderson Hotel or the proposed Court Street project.
C
French
Page Two
I have no knowledge as to whether the affected property owners
would be receptive to sale of their property and construction of
such a structure. I believe you are in contact with several of them
and I would appreciate you discussing the matter with them to see
if there is any interest in the City proceeding with more detailed
studies.
Very truly yours,
David F. Romero, Director
Public Works Department
Attachment: aerial photo print
cc Wayne Peterson
John Dunn
Mike Multari
french/dfr#15
}
Mt4 , � J•' fiC�� �� � �y�
�' _' � LR�"r�� Z�`-qui � � � + •^
'��, t www.� .•�...�. r.F,.�F.. ) .; r
]r. 1
�t
11 t
.. „tip•' , ;i,.�
•y
Ar
zj
awl
Ai
7. •�IrA YY_
G
.. �, � l� JJ/ • � - Y� 177
Y>.
13'L
r-
M I N U T E S
SPECIAL ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
TUESDAY. JULY 5. 1988 - 4:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBER, CITY HALL, 990 PALM STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO. CALIFORNIA
ROLL CALL
Councilmembers
Present: Peg Pinard (Arrived at 4:05 p.m. ) , Vice-Mayor Penny Rappa,
Jerry Reiss. Allen K. Settle and Mayor Ron Dunin
Absent: None
City Staff
Present: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer; Roger Picquet, City
Attorney; Pam Voges, City Clerk; Michael Multari, Community
Development Director; Toby Ross, Assistant Administrative
Officer; Jim Gardiner, Police Chief; Bill Hetland, Utilities
Manager; Bill Statler, Finance Director; Jeff Hook
Associate Planner
------------------------------------- ---------
---------------------------
1 . 4:00 - 5:30 P.M. COURT STREET (File #435)
Council reviewed land use alternatives for the Court Street Center project
at 999 Monterey Street (continued from 2/23/88) .
Mike Multari, Community Development Director, reviewed the agenda report
with the recommendation •that Council; 1) endorse the conceptual building
design and a use program with two floors retail with art gallery,
restaurant, and conference rooms; 2) authorize staff and developer to
proceed with development review; and 3) extend Exclusive Negotiations
Agreement with Interwest Investment Group for six months as recommended by
the staff report.
Presentations and introductions were made of members of the Court. Street
Development Team. These included Mr. Silverman, Marshall Ochylski, Jerry
Jones, Tom Sykes, Norm Lyval, Ted Kopecky, Pierre Rademaker, Rob Strong,
Keith George. Frank Morro, Al Lundberg and Susan Simmons.
J
/®fig
133
City Council Minutes Page 2
Tuesday, July 5, 1988 - 4:00 P.M.
Mayor Dunin asked for public comment.
Kevin Kennedy, representing the Nautilus Health Club, spoke in support of
the project.
Doug Warschauer, owner of ET CETERA, urged against the amount of retail
space being proposed in the new structure.
Maggie Cox, representing the. Chamber- of Commerce, stated the Chamber was
in support of the project but urged that Council not subsidize the project
in any way.
Robert Miller, 955 Partnership, stated he was basically in favor of the
project but was concerned with the amount of parking to be provided. He
felt there would be a net gain of only 27 spaces for a 90,000 sq. ft.
complex and would like this addressed.
Gary Hollgrapher, partner in ownership of 955 Partnership and Franklin
Real Estate was concerned about having at least a 40 ft. easement on Court
Street rather than that currently proposed.
Terry Connor. 215 Albert Drive, spoke in support of- the project concept of
the fitness center on the fifth floor.'
Mayor Dunin closed the public portion of.the meeting.
Councilman Settle stated that he could support the project concept. He
felt it was in a good location which was the key to its success.
Financial feasability was also key in providing the project with what it
would need in order not to be City subsidized in any manner. He could
support retail on the first two floors, offices with whatever kind of
mixed use necessary to support the project financially. He supported
office use or residential on the fifth floor. He would not be,supportive
of an inn at this time because he did not feel it was financially
feasible. He felt that an atrium was important for the first two
floors. He would like to see as much parking as possible made
available. He would consider a setback between 4-5 ft. rather than 8 ft.
on Osos Street. Parking was more- important than the in lieu fees. Court
Street should not be widened so much that it would jeopardize the
project. Large office space is in demand so he could endorse that as well
and authorize the staff to proceed and extend the agreement for six months
as recommended.
Councilwoman .Pinard stated she was still concerned about how the goals for
the downtown complimented this project. She would like to see it
pedestrian oriented. She felt the scale of downtown and the width of the
streets and the parking on the street make people feel safe and would be
�) desirable. Residential in the downtown is extremely important and she
preferred an inn, luxury apartment or any alternative that provided for
residential use in this project. She was not concerned with the parking
134
City Council Minutes Page 3
Tuesday, July 5, 1988 - 4:00 P.M.
issue. insofar that the City should not look at accomodating more cars when
she would rather see more pedestrian use. She did think that the mixed
use was good.
Councilman Reiss stated he was most concerned with the parking problem.
It is important to him that the project provide the downtown vitality. He
would not want to see the project subsidized by the City in any way. The
City should get a reasonable return for its investment. With regard to
the housing issue, he did not feel that it had to be a part of this
project. The width of Court Street was also a concern., He suggested
eliminating deliveries if at all possible on the street and make it more
pedestrian-oriented. He would not be supportive of widening of Osos
unless staff had a concern not yet presented that would give .reason that
the street would make more sense to be widened. He could support the six
month time extension with a "No fault" clause, if at all. possible.
Councilwoman Rappa stated she could support the two floors of retail.
meeting areas, residential. office space on the upper floors with a health
club and restaurant. She felt that Osos Street should not be widened.
She was supportive of working out something with the owners of the
Anderson Hotel for a pedestrian arcade. Upper stories should be recessed
to provide lighting for those units. Although she would support
residential if it were found feasible in the project, she did not feel it
to be absolutely necessary. She urged staff to provide quarterly or
monthly reports on the project.
Councilman Settle stated he would also like to see some type of interim
parking made available during the construction period.
Mayor Dunin stated he could support thle staff's recommendation and retail
for the first two levels but felt that more parking should be provided for
the project. He would like to see some type of garden arcade approach for
the Court Street area. He suggested that rather than a sidewalk,
eliminate deliveries on Court Street and reduce the need for street
widening. He felt it important that the Anderson Hotel be addressed. He
would be opposed to any outright subsidizing of the project. Banquet
facilities should be included and possibly having something on the roof
itself.
Moved by Settle/Rappa (5-0) , to grant a six month time extension for an
Exclusive Negotiations Agreement with Interwest Investment Group.
Moved by Settle/Mayor Dunin (4=1, Pinard voting no) , to endorse the
project concept to allow the developer and staff to pursue with the
development review.
Councilwoman Pinard stated she voted no because there was no mix of
residential in the project, not because she did not support the project.
Upon general consensus, staff was directed'to report back regarding
Council concerns expressed regarding parking and set back of Court 'J
Street. Also to review the Osos Street widening only if staff felt there
were strong reasons to do so.
5U
City Council Minutes Page 2
Tuesday, February 23, 1988 - 7:00 p.m.
C
After considerable discussion, ed by Settle/Reiss (3-2, Pinard and
Rappa voting no) , to adopt R lution go. 6394 (1988 Series) , approving
the revised agreement with rown and Caldwell. Consulting Engineers with
amendment as submitted t ay by the. Utilities Manager.
Upon general consensu staff was directed to write a letter to the Water
Quality Control Boar stating the City's desire to comply with the State's
requirements.
C-2 FINANCIAL ADVIS (File *223)
Council . considered a req for authorization to enter into negotiation
for financial services' estim to cost $69,750 (continued from 2/16/88) .
Bill Stat ler, Finance Director, brie reviewed the agenda report with
the recommendation that Council select a joint proposal of Evensen Dodge
and Vertex- Cost Systems contingent upon ccessfu:l contract negotiations.
Councilwoman Pinard expressed her conc that the City's debt service was
becoming too large..
Councilwoman Rappa expressed desire to see the consultant study come
back to the Council as so s possible.
CMayor Dunin felt the udy was too expensive.
After additional scussion, moved by Reiss/Settle (3-2. Pinard and Mayor
Dunin voting no) , o approve the proposal by Evensen Dodge and Vertex Cost
Systems with the C authorized to-award the contract upon successful
contract negotiations rovided that the contract does not exceed
S69.750. -
B U S I N E S S I T E M
1 . COURT STREET PROJECT (File *435)
Council held a presentation and discussion on the Court Street Project;
this included an introduction by Mike Muitari , Community Development
Director and. Jeff Hook, Associate Planner. They reviewed the history and
gave an overview of the project. The project presentation was conducted
by Rob Strong, Planning. Mill , Marshall Ochylski of Interwest Investment
Group, Peter Freeman, Finance. Director of Dillingham Corporation, Norman
Lyle. Sykes Group, and Pierre Rademaker, designer of the project. Each
reviewed the project from his perspective. Slides were shown and Council
asked questions and made comments.
At 8:50 p.m. , Mayor Dunin declared a recess. At 9:05 p.m. , City Council
reconvened, all Councilmembers. present.
Mayor Dunin asked for public comment on the project.
City Council Minutes Page 3
Tuesday, February 23, 1988 - 7:00 p.m.
Maggie Cox, representing the Chamber of Commerce, stated that they were
very interested in the project and were anxious to see development on this
site..
Dodie Williams, Administrator of the Business Improvement Association,
stated that Mr. Ochyiski had reviewed the project with the BIA and that
they were anxious to see this go forward.
Janet Kourakis, Planning Commissioner, stated they had not reviewed the
project and felt Commissioners would have several comments and questions.
Brian Starr, Architectural Review Commissioner, also stated that the
A.R.C. had not reviewed the project and he was sure they would have
comments.
Charles French, Cuesta Valley Development, stated he looked forward to
seeing this project proceed. .
Mike Multari, Community Development Director, stated that Council needed
to give direction to staff: specifically, staff needed to know if the
Council felt that this project would fit in the downtown and what kinds of
land uses and public benefits the Council would want to see made a part of
this project.
Marshall E. Ochylski made closing comments.
Councilwoman Rappa stated she was concerned about the retail use and the
amount of retail space being made available in the project.
Jan Hagaman-Jercich, President of the Board of Directors San Luis Obispo
County Arts Council, spoke on behalf of the Arts Council stating they had
worked with the development team and were anxious to see this project
proceed. D
Councilman_ Settle stated that he liked the mixed use and had no problem
with the retail. He was also pleased to see the on site parking and the
development plan thus far, which consisted of more amenities than he had
expected. He felt the project complied with the mixed use concept and
could be a real asset to the City. He also liked the joint venture
approach and the ground lease proposal . He did have concerns which
included the financial aspects of the project and that the project not
place the City in a vulnerable position should the project run into
financial problems later.
Councilwoman. P-inard stated she had no problems with the. architectural
plans. She felt there needed to be a better justification of the mixture
of uses. She saw conflict with having luxury offices and athletic
activities in the same building. She would have preferred one large
' department store instead of having the project broken down into smaller
spaces .and asked for feedback on the possibilities that exist for
providing for a major anchor store.. She questioned whether there really
was a need for luxury office space and felt that much of the residential
use in the downtown had been lost. She would have preferred a hotel
providing for 24-hour use and/or a conference center.
i
Uzi
City Council Minutes Page 4
Tuesday, February 23, 1988 - 7:OO p.m.
Councilman Reiss stated the primary question he had was how the project
would affect the vitality of the downtown. He preferred to see a use that
would be on a 24-hour basis and felt that the largest single space
proposed was too small to be considered a true anchor. Other concerns
included the economic viability of the project and how this joint-project
benefits the City.
Councilwoman Raona agreed with the comments made by Councilman Reiss. She
felt there should have been a hotel included in the proJect, retail space
should not have been broken up, and that the City secure a dependable
anchor store for this use.
Mayor Dunin stated it was his desire that the downtown be considered
primarily for a shopping area. He felt the most important part of the
project should be retail use and that 18,000 square feet in one space was
insufficient. He would like to see a close relationship with the Chamber
of Commerce and the Business Improvement Area with the Development Team.
He also felt the financial needs should be addressed. The space proposed
for "art in public places" was an enhancement but the amount of parking
spaces was too small (as the 140 sites only allowed for an additional 22
parking spaces than currently exists) . The recreational facility was of
concern to him and the kind of activities a club would attract. He'd like
to see a time projection as to construction and completion of the
C project. He felt a followup meeting within six weeks was important in
addition to regular reports throughout the project.
Upon general consensus, staff and the development team to report back
after review by the Planning Commission not to exceed six weeks. Council
to receive monthly reports and meet again in a timely manner to review the
project progress.
At 9:55 p.m. , Mayor Dunin declared a recess. At 10:05 p.m. . City Council
reconvened, all Councilmembers present.
P U B L C C 0_ K M E N T P E R I O D
A-1 BALLOT MEASURES
After brief discussion. it was mZballot
ettle/Pinard (5-0) , Resolution
Nos. 6400 and 6401 (1988 Series) pied calling and consolidating
the election for June 7, 1988, rpose of placing two mobilehome
rent regulations. ordinances o tand Resolution Nos. 6391 and
6393 in conflict rescinded as r .
C 0 M M T I O N S
COMM 1 WATER MANAGEMENT '
CAfter brief discussion, staff was dicted to report back on the six
issues raised by Councilwoman Rappa's of 2/23/88 concerning
additional information on local water pr cts before May. 2
/� 47Z
P ,C . Minutes —
December 14 , 1988
Page 6 .
-------------------------/t �
------------------- J
Item 6 . Public Hearing: Zonin Re ulations AmendmR1424 .
onsi eration of amen ung ItTe Zoning Reg ations y�adding a
section establishing procedures and re irements for development
agreements ; City of San Luis Obispo , - plicant .
-------------------------------------------- ----------------------
Jeff Hook presented the staff report and ecommended concurrence with the
negative delcaration and recommendation hat council approve the text
amendment .
Chairperson Kourakis opened the pu is hearing.
Betty Sanders , 1811 Chorro, de rmined that property owners did not have to
enter the agreement.
Chairperson Kourakis close the public hearing .
Commr . .Roalman moved to oncur with the negative declaration and recommend
that council approve a text amendment.
Commr . Crotser Seco ded the motion .
VOTING : AYES - ommrs. Roalman , Crotser , Duerk , Schmidt and Kourakis .
NOES None.
ABSE - Commrs . Gerety and Hainline.
The motion p sses .
Item 7 . Public Hearing: Planned Development PD1418 . Consideration of
amending the zoning map toentra - ommercial , Historical and
Architectural Preservation , Planning Development (C-C-H-PD) from
Central -Commercial , Historical and Architectural Preservation ( C-
C-H) and consideration of a 'preliminary development plan allowing
a S-story mixed-use project ; 999 -Monterey Street.; Interwest
Investment Group , Inc . ( Marshall Ochylski ) , applicant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commr . Roalman stepped down .
Michael Multari presented the staff report and recommended the commission
review the plan, take testimony , . and continue the item to the next regular
meeting of January 11 , 1989.
C h a i r p e r s o n Kourakis Was losing her voice due to a cold, and asked that Vice-Chairperson
Duerk chair the item.
Commr. Duerk opened the public hearing .
P .C' Minutes
December 14 , 1988
Page 7.
/---,4.arry Stabler, 3057 S. .Higuera , was concerned with the height allowance
changing the complexion of the downtown area .
Marshall Ochylski , 979 Osos ; stated the ARC would be reviewing the project
and suggested the commission forward their comments to the ARC . He stated
the skylights were changeddue to council direction .
Commr . Schmidt was concerned with the towers in the design and the lack of
usable outdoor space.
Commr . D u e r k w a s concerned with mass , underground parking in a flood zone, vehicle
and pedestrian circulation, the location of the art gallery, and the interior design details.
Commr . Schmidt was also concerned about the safety of the parking garage in.
a flood zone.
Commr .. Duerk closed the meeting .
Chairperson Kourakis moved to continue the item to the January 11 , 1989
meeting .
Commr . Crotser seconded the motion .
VOTING: AYES - Commrs . Kourakis , Crotser, Duerk , and Schmidt .
NOES - None.
�—, ABSENT - Commrs . Gerety , Hainline and Roalman.
The motion passes .
The meeting adjourned at 11 :45 p .m. to the next regular meeting of January
11 , 1989 .
Respectfully submitted ,
Lisa Woske
Recording Secretary
draft
MINUTES - CITY PLANNING COMMISSION _
City of San Luis Obispo , California
June 15 , 1988 Regular Meeting
PRESENT: Commrs . Charles Crotser , Patrick Gerety , Linda Hainline,
William Roalman , Richard Schmidt , and Chairperson
Janet Kourakis .
ABSENT: Commr. Donna Duerk .
OTHERS
PRESENT: Jeff Hook and Glen Matteson , Associate Planners ; Michael
Multari , Community Development Director and Lisa Woske,
Recording Secretary.
The minutes of the April 27, 1988 and May 19 , 1988 meetings were approved
as amended .
There were no changes to the agenda or public comments .
Chairperson Kourakis announced the upcoming General Plan forums and
discussed previous forums.
---- p-----------------------------------------------------------
Item 1 . Public Hearing : Court Street Center. Review and discuss status
report an an use---aTternative� the Court Street Center
project at 999 Monterey Street. ( Continued from May 19, 1988 )
Commr . Roalman stepped down , due to a conflict of interest.
Jeff Hook presented the staff report and recommended the commission forward
their comments and concerns to council for their consideration .
Commr. Schmidt felt the marketing study was incomplete and did not address
the unique possibilities of this site .
Michael Multari passed around a sketch of site lines that an adjacent
property owner submitted concerning possible shade impacts .
Chairperson Kourakis noted the commission had received a petition from the
Anderson Hotel complex and from Monterey Street business owners concerned
about parking , building setbacks along Court Street , and the mass of
building ; and from Don Brown, who was concerned with possible hidden oil
tanks on site and with possible noise .
Chairperson Kourakis opened the public hearing.
Marshall Ochylski , 979 Osos , project representative , summarized the HR&A
report and he noted the Chamber of Commerce and the BIA boards supported
the project.
1
CP.C. Minutes
June 15 , 1988
Page 2 .
He discussed several modifications to the original plan , including the
deletion of two racquetball courts to allow additional building setback ;
the deletion of another court to allow more room at the corner of Higuera
Street , and installing a 3000-square-foot cafe on the fifth floor to allow
additional public use.
Commr . Crotser asked about .housing options . Mr . Ochylski replied that he
did not feel on-site housing was feasible without public subsidy and that
it was a difficult use to incorporate .
Commr . Hainline noted that the city ' s Ad-Hoc Committee on housing was not
in favor of subsidized housing downtown , except for the elderly.
George Moylen , 1072 San Adriano., _Housing Authority representative , did not
feel the Section 202 program was viable for this project , due to the highly
competitive application process and limited availability of grant funds .
He noted there were few government housing programs available, but added
that there were tax credits available to developers of low-cost housing .
Commr Gerety asked staff about charging for public use of required parking .
Staff responded that there are no laws prohibiting property owners from
charging for public parking , however the council could make those policy
C' calls .
Chairperson Kourakis closed the public hearing.
Commr . Schmidt stated he felt the site was special and he did not favor the
uses being proposed. He favored a plan with a major retail anchor for the
entire building with greater public access .
Commr . Crotser felt the proposal was generally acceptable , but ideally
would like to see some housing included . He was very concerned with the
parking demand and felt the city should study the effects of large scale
projects on downtown parking supply and demand .
Commr . Gerety felt the uses were in conformance with the General Plan and
zoning ordinance. He felt the city needed to treat this site carefully and
did not agree with the city ' s Request for Qualifications on the Court
Street Center. He wanted to see more outdoor public space incorporated.
Chairperson Kourakis moved to forward a commission recommendatio"n to
council as follows : 1 ) the project should provide more exterior open space
on ground level ; 2) an analysis should be conducted on potential sun/shade
impacts ; 3) the general quality of the HR&A report was lacking and relied
too much on secondary sources; 4') the Court Street design was too narrow,
and 5) the commission felt the mixed uses were in accordance with the
General Plan and _RFQ.
Commr . Crotser seconded the motion.
bw
/ (
P .C. Minutes •
June 15 , 1988
Page 3 .
Commr. Crotser did not feel additional outdoor open space was required or
that the Court Street design would be a problem.
Commr. Schmidt did not agree with the uses being proposed and felt the
building should be stepped back from the corner to provide open space.
Commr . Gerety did not agree with the mixed uses proposed.
VOTING : AYES - Commr. Kourakis .
NOES - Commrs . Crotser , Gerety , Hainline, and Schmidt .
ABSENT - Commrs . Duerk and Roalman.
The motion fails.
Commr. Crotser moved to forward previous and present meeting comments to
council for their review.
Commr . Hainline seconded the motion .
VOTING: AYES - Commrs . Crotser , Hainline , Gerety , Schmidt and Kourakis .
NOES - None .
ABSENT .- Commrs . Duerk and Roalman.
The motion passes . J
Commr . Schmidt moved to forward a commission recommendation to council ,
including all the comments in Chairperson Kourakis ' earlier motion , but
deleting a recommendation on appropriateness of uses .
Commr. Gerety seconded the motion .
VOTING: AYES - Commrs . Schmidt, Gerety , and Kourakis .
NOES - Commrs . Crotser and Hainline.
ABSENT - Commrs . Duerk and Roalman.
The motion passes .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item 4. Public Hearin _Rez��oni�ns R1372 . Request to amend the Zoning
e�rations , ectio�7.f4 t7—rough Section 17.48, concerning
maximum lot coverage allowed for churches , synagogues , and
temples; Grace Church , applicant. (Continued from May 11 , 1988)
Commr. Roalman rejoined the meeting .
Glen Matteson presented the staff report and recommended the commission
recommend to council that they deny the zoning amendment application .
/s 79
MINUTES
SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
San Luis Obispo, CA
Special Meeting - May 19, 1988
PRESENT: Commrs. Charles Crotser, Donna Duerk, Patrick Gerety, Linda Hainline,
Richard Schmidt, and Chairperson Janet Kourakis
ABSENT% Commr. William Roalman
OTHERS
PRESENT: Michael Multari, Community Development Director; Jeff Hook, Associate
Planner, Toby Ross, Assistant City Administrative Officer
1. Court Street Center. Review and discuss status report and land_ use alternatives for
the Court Street Center project at 999 Monterey Street.
Michael Multari, Community Development Director, presented the staff report, and
explained the purpose of the meeting. He reviewed previous City Council/Planning
Commission action on the project. He noted that new uses were being considered for the
site in place of the health club, including a restaurant/conference facility.
General discussion of the project ensued.
Commr. Crotser felt the concept had a lot of merit but felt that filling the structure
with county offices or a hotel would be inappropriate. He thought mixed uses would be
acceptable such as mid-size retail uses with luxury profession offices. He liked the
amount of public open space provided by the atrium. He wanted to see the on-site parking
retained. He felt that residential uses probably would not work on its own, but could
support the possibility of subsidized housing in some form with a preference to low-cost
housing in association with the Housing Association. He thought the architecture was
rich (and expensive) looking; the scale and bulk of the building was good but felt the
structure could be a higher if more amenities were proposed (such as a_ conference and
banquet facility).
Commr. Hainline agreed with Commr. Crotser's comments on the architecture and the use of
interior space, but could not support a low-income residential use. She felt the city
should do everything possible to make the project economically viable to minimize the
city's financial risks and maximize public benefits. The city should not require
infeasible conditions or uses which require city subsidy to be viable. She suggested
reducing the parking requirement to its barest needs and using in-lien fees for parking
on nearby downtown sites. She, felt an independent outside accounting firm should handle
construction finances to protect the city.
x.
p:-
' PC Minutes
May 19, 1988
Page 2
Commr. Schmidt felt this was a fine opportunityto a lot of what get t the city wants such
as a hotel complex, conference center, large retail anchor. He would like to see housing
proposed for the top floor, perhaps around an interior courtyard. He was concerned that
Court Street may become oppressive and not sun lit because of beingadjacent J e t to a 60 foot
high building. He suggested more first floor cut back and strategies to provide a view
of the Andrews Building from Higuera Street through the end of an arcade/corridor. He
also wanted to see major public open space provided. He felt the RFQ process was
inferior to the RFQ approach.
Commr. Gerety was most concerned with the nature of the city's involvement, and preferred
to see the city either sell the property or building the project itself. He was not
comfortable with the city ground leasing the property. He had no problems with building
height and could consider an even higher building. He felt the proposed uses were not a
desirable mix and preferred to see outdoor open space. He felt that the proposed
architecture was boring, that the second floor retail space would be difficult to make
work financially, and that the indoor atrium was a waste of precious floor space. He
also could not support a health club use. He suggested selling the property or possibly
trading it for an option on the Fremont Theater. He felt the top floor could be used for
high-income residential uses or executive offices, with the retail uses located on the
ground floor, possibly with a laundromat and grocery. He wanted to move on with the
project and was ready to send it on to the Council with the commission's comments.
Commr. Duerk felt the city should deal with the following issues: (1) Should.parking be •
on-site? (2) How big should the building be? (3) Should the building be built over Court
Street or just taller, with most of the building's mass in the center? (4) What uses are
wanted? (5) What will make the uses viable? She had concerns with the expense of the
project and potential flood hazards. She felt there should be a cohesiveness of uses and
this should be further studied, including any proposal to mix high-end offices with
low-income housing. She was not opposed to a ground lease approval.
Commr. Kourakis expressed her disappointment with the RFQ. She felt the project would be
a trendsetter and landmark for this section of the downtown and hoped the developer would
conform to the RFQ. She felt the city should retain the land and agreed with Commr.
Duerk about the need for cohesiveness among uses. She felt the plan is "too small' and
that a multi-block scope would be better. This could result in a total redesign. She
was particularly concerned with the treatment of Court Street, preferred public exterior
spaces to interior ones, and felt the proposal was redundant with the existing downtown,
not special.
The commission decided to continue discussion of the Court Street project at its June
15th regular meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 6:30 pm. to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission
scheduled for May 25, 1988, at 7:00 p.m., Council Chamber, City Hall, 990 Palm Street.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael Multari
Recording Secretary
I
O
ti. fING ' ' AGENDA ,
DATE —m2' ITEM #
Oenotes action by Lead Person,
San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce Respond by:
1039 Chorro Street • San Luis Obispo. Caldornla 93:01 • (805) 543.1323 L.tGouncil
David E. Ganh • E>ecuuve nsanaoer &60
City Atry.
Jerk-orig.
M. O<TifAt I
7-
march
March 30, 1988
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
City of San Luis Obispo
P.O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
Dear Mayor Dunin and Council Members:
The San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce urges your support
of the proposed Court Street project. This endorsement
comes to you following lengthy study and review by members
^ of our Economic Development and Retail Committees, and final
�1 approval by our 21 member Board of Directors. All .groups
voted unanimously in support of the proposal.
The Chamber applied the following criteria to its review of.
the proposal:
- Overall communit benefit.: The Court Street project will
fortify San Luis Ob spo' s downtown as the commercial, social
and cultural hub of our community. Downtown will be
enhanced by the project, and, due to its range of uses, the
project clearly offers amenities to residents, visitors and
workers alike. It will make good use of a parcel of land
that is a gateway to our downtown core.
-- Appropriate land use: The Court Streetproposal offers
San Luis Obispo a unique mix of uses which we feel are ideal ,
for the site. The retail, office and recreational uses,
combined with such public amenities as gallery space, and
interior atrium and exterior balconies, creates a project
which can both succeed economically and protect the
character of our downtown. The developers have hired the
best available experts to devise an ideal use mix. The
proposed mix reflects these acknowledged experts ' opinion of
uses likely to succeed in the building. We feel the retail
proposal is a sound one and will boost San Luis Obispo
downtown's role as a shopping center. Information we have
gathered also points to a need for high quality office spac
near the courthouse. The fitness center provides an
- ' additional service for downtown users which is important to
maintaining the viability of our downtown as a hub of all
R E C E I V E CACCREDITED
c.w•t■a Co. Nu
FE0 Z 1 99
.,.............
YY
Q7vCLERK /• �� /
_._.........e,e en rA
types of activity.
Most importantly, we urge you to recognize that a building
incorporating uses which are not economically viable would
be of no community benefit and would ultimately be a drain
on community resources. We need to construct a building
which can succeed in the free enterprise marketplace, and we
believe the Court Street proposal represents those ideals.
-- Special Amenities: We are gratified that the project
developers recognize the delicate interplay of factors in
the success of our downtown, and have offered a building
which is not only economically viable, but additionally
gives our community such features as the interior atrium,
gallery space and meeting facilities. The building is a
stunningly attractive one, and creates a proud cornerstone
for our downtown.
-- Parking: . While the project does provide more than the
,
required number of parking spaces, we do feel it will
further impact our downtown parking supply. We urge the
developer and the City to continue their work in developing
nearby off site parking.
We are pleased that the developers recognize the sensitivity
and importance of this project to the continued health of
downtown. They have contracted with the best experts in the
development industry to devise a:, project which is both
economically sound and philosophically desirable to our
community. We urge you to join with us in applauding this
project and moving forward in making it a reality for San
Luis Obispo.
Best regards,
Conrad Byars
Chamber President
E � -2/- (TEN1 #
CI S IUDW
IS OBISPO
AMiami, I
yO SM
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
ORDINANCE NO. (1989 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO CERTIFYING
THE FINAL EIR, AMENDING THE ZONING MAP FROM C-C-H TO C-C-H-PD,
AND APPROVING THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAN (PD 1418)
FOR COURT STREET CENTER, 999 MONTEREY STREET
On February 21, 1989, the San Luis Obispo City Council voted to
introduce Ordinance No. (1989 Series), which certifies the Final Environmental
Impact Report, rezones a city-owned downtown parcel from C-C-H to C-C-H-PD, and approves
the preliminary development plan for a five-story, mixed-use commercial project known as
Court Street Center.
The ordinance includes environmental impact mitigation measures, and sets numerous
conditions which must be met as part of the project's development. Required conditions
address land use compatibility, traffic and parking, utilities and public services,
visual and esthetic quality, geology, noise, and cultural resource protection. It also
cites public benefits of the project, including: onsite public parking, public landscape
amenities and open space, public art gallery; utility, fire protection, and street
improvements; and improved commercial and recreational opportunities in the downtown.
The Council must vote again to approve the ordinance before it can take effect. That
action is tentatively scheduled for at a regular City Council meeting to
begin at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 990 Palm Street.
Copies of the complete ordinance are available in the City Clerk's Office in Room #1 of
City Hall, 990 Palm Street. For more information, contact Jeff Hook, Associate Planner,
Community Development Department, at 549-7176.
jh4/ordsyn
RECEIVED
F i FEB 17 1989
,�
CITY CLERK
We/t r4 k
SAN WrneISQO C4
I
4.
ORDINANCE NO. (1989 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO CERTIFYING
THE FINAL EIR, AMENDING THE ZONING MAP FROM C-C-H TO C-C-H-PD,
AND APPROVING THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAN (PD 1418)
FOR COURT STREET CENTER, 999 MONTEREY STREET
WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning and development plan have been evaluated in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City's Environmental Impact
Guidelines, and an Environmental Impact Report prepared to address potentially
significant environmental effects and recommend appropriate mitigations, where feasible;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council have held hearings to consider
the final environmental impact report and requested planned development rezoning and
preliminary development plan for a 5-story, mixed-use commercial project known as Court
Street Center, in accordance with Section 65800 et. seq. of the Government Code; and
WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning and development plan will promote public health,
safety, and general welfare by providing onsite parking, public amenities and public open
space, utility, fire protection, and street improvements, and by enhancing retailing,
office, and recreational opportunities in the downtown; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment promotes the public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as
follows:.
SECTION 1. That the Zoning Map shall shall be amended as shown on Exhibit "B"
attached hereto and made a part of this ordinance by reference.
SECTION 2. After City Council review and consideration, the council hereby certifies
that the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Court Street Center has been completed
in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the city's Environmental
Guidelines.
o
Ordinance (1989 Series)
Page 2
The project shall comply with recommended mitigation measures shown on Exhibit "C", as
listed in Table 1.1-1 of the EIR.
SECTION 3. The proposed rezoning and preliminary plan, PD 1418 is approved subject
to the findings and conditions listed in Exhibit "D" attached hereto, and included herein
by reference.
SECTION 4. A summary of this ordinance, approved by the City Attorney, together with
the council votes for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its
final passage in the Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this
city. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after
its final passage. A copy of the full text of this ordinance shall be on file in the
office of the City Clerk on and after the date following introduction and passage to
print and shall be available to any interested member of the public.
INTRODUCED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, at its meeting held on
the day of 1988, on motion of
seconded by and on
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST: ,
o
Ordinance (1989 Series)
Page 3
APPROVED:
City A inistrative Officer
City Attorn
Community Development Director
w
MEL,,NG AGENDA /
DATE �a 2t reg ITEM # .�
*.Denotesby lead Pe,
Mike Multari February 6, 19
Community Developement Director City of San Luis Obispo gR/
Dear Mr. Multari, � �-F,i,.E✓
I have just become aware of a proposal currently in the works to widen
Osos Street between Monterey and Marsh to accomodate truck.. traffic. I
am writing this letter to let you know that, as a business owner along this
stretch of the street, I am opposed to this..
Increased truck traffic would be hazardous in this area due to the amount
of pedestrians. Our downtown area is designed to encourage foot traffic,
and with the increasing parking problem, people are parking farther away
and walking to their destinations. Having trucks routed along Osos Street
would make it more dangerous.
it would also increase the traffic noise level in our business, as we are
located below street level and our windows are right at street level. I
would prefer to keep Osis Street as it is, and continue routing the trucks
along Santa Rosa Street.
I would also like to take this opportunity to offer n-ig support for the Court
Street Project. I am very much in favor of the building, and what it will
contribute to the downtown. My only concern is with the ever present
parking problem. While the new structure by Riley's will help when it is
completed, we will have a rough few months while it is under
construction. If we can include the maximum amount of parking possible
in the Court Street Project, the problem will not be any worse than it is
of
now.
My other,concern is with our delivery drivers. The current loading zone in
front of our shop does not allow them to pull up for a few minutes to pick. .
up delivery orders, and with the removal of the parking lot across the
street, it will be extremely difficult for them to firm a spot to park their
cars within a reasonable distance. My suggestion would be to look at the
possibility of changing the current yellow loading zone to a white loading
U RECEI VED
FEB 21
dr►CLtD n
zone to allow them to park there, and also extending the zone back further
towards Higuera Street. Our peak delivery times are between 11:00 and
2:00, when parking is most difficult, and will not conflict with the
current morning deliveries that use the yellow loading zone.
Thank you for your attention to these matters, and if you have any
questions or comments, E can be contacted at the telephone number below.
Sincerely,
Polly Derr
Osos Street. Subs
1050 Osos Street
San Dais Obispo, CA 93401
541 -8520
U
A
U
a
ME._AG `r AGENDA
DATE f O 21 "88 ITEM #
CFebruary 14 , 1989 Denotes action by Lead Person
Respond by:
C�'Cbuncil
[rCAO
City of San Luis Obispo ay Any.
990 Palm Street (-
t-Cfrk-orig.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 GYm. mus.YAR-+
&77 T
Q'Fii.�✓
Dear Mayor Dunin and City Council:
Ever since coming to work in San Luis Obispo in June
of 1948 I have enjoyed our City and want to maintain the
charm that we have. I have not advocated closing the gate
so others could not enjoy our City, so this is not written
from that viewpoint .
Our downtown has survived the downfall that so many other
cities have experienced because, I believe, we have not had a
closed in feeling, but instead a more open feeling with trees
and ground level parking. The one main drawback with our down-
town now is a severe lack of convenient parking.
If you will unwisely allow a private developer to take
City property that my tax dollars helped pay for, and construct
a downtown Los Angeles type structure that will compound the
parking problem, then you can no longer complain when some
private citizen, unwisely, wants to over develop private land
with inadequate parking.
The City should be developing landscaped parking lots not
parking garages, and must not remove any present parking lots.
Please do not allow the "Court Street" project .
Sincer y
.c�
Robert L. Newby
RECEIVED
FEB 2 1 '1989
GTrCLVtK
dAIWL M-A O.C�