The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-27-2016 PC Agenda Correspondence - Item 2 (Cooper)CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO JAN 21 2016 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT M ng' 01 WIM item; Date: 01/27/16 To: Members of the Planning Commission: Hemalata Dandekar, Michael Draze, John Fowler, Ronald Malak, Michael Multari (Vice Chair), John Larson (Chair) & William Riggs Planning Staff: Michael Codron, Tyler Corey, Xzandrea Fowler, Kyle Bell & Brian Leveille Regarding: 1101 Monterey Street One of the goals stated in the 09/18/2007 "Adoption of Ordinance No. 1509 (2007 Series) Amending the Zoning Regulations To Implement Increased Building Height And Intensity Limits In The Downtown Commercial Zone (TA #50-06)"l and in the 03/24/2011 "Initial Study Environmental Checklist Form" (ER #50-06) for the "Downtown Height Ordinance" was as follows: "Bring back alternatives for moderately increasing the downtown building height and intensity limits, in order to achieve other General Plan goals and objectives, including design amenities, housing, and retail land uses." First, this site is not included within the Downtown Commercial (CD) zone to which this height ordinance applies. This site is in the Retail Commercial (CR) zone which has a maximum building height of 45 feet. Without a zone change, increasing the maximum building height 167% (from 45 feet to 75 feet) is not a "moderate increase" particularly when one considers the many accompanying negatives impacts of taller buildings? Second, as stated in the "Initial Study" document: "The CR zone has similar standards as the CD zone, except for a greater parking requirement, including on-site parking requirements, 1 Click on the following link: http;llo engov.slocity.orglWebLink8111doc132006/Page2as}) 2 Negative Impacts of Taller Buildings: • Loss of small town ambience and associated reduction of tourist dollars (as the small town ambience is a major draw for tourists • Loss of sunlight on the sidewalks and public spaces (which is compounded by seasonal winds and cool ambient temperatures 6-8 months out of the year) • Loss of views of the surrounding hills • Wind tunnel effect • Loss of solar access to adjoining buildings • Will overwhelm landmark buildings which are essential for way -finding • Inadequate infrastructure (to accommodate significant increase in density) including water, storm water runoff, police, evacuation plans and parking • Will overwhelm both vehicular and pedestrian circulation by bringing more people into this part of town • Will drive up rents and drive out diversity (i.e., bars, franchises and chain stores that can afford the high rents will replace locally -owned businesses) • Will saturate the market for downtown housing particularly housing lacking open space amenities • "Buy in" is not likely from the residents of SLO resulting in less intense development." It should be noted that this project proposal provides adequate "on-site parking requirements", in the form of a parking garage on an adjoining site. The question is whether this parking garage will ever be built. More importantly, the City should not be held hostage to this project in its current height and form based on the developer's offer to build a parking garage and intermodal transit center at this location. The City's Mass Transportation Committee has yet to determine whether this site would, in fact, be the best location for the much-needed transit center. Third, this project at the very least should conform to the policy objectives for taller buildings in the CD Zone. It should provide the same list of amenities provided by the 60 foot tall Fremont Square project at 1009 Monterey Street. It does not. This project should at the minimum address the policy objectives for taller buildings. Buildings taller than 50 feet (and especially buildings as tall as 75 feet) proposed in the C -D zone must include features that meet the specific policy objectives outlined for tall buildings in the City's General Plan: View Access & Preservation, Affordable and Workforce Housing, Pedestrian Amenity and Energy Efficiency. 3 Fourth, a 75 foot tall building must meet all Planned Development (PD) objectives. It does not. A Planned Development can be justified based on higher design quality, including more effective and attractive pedestrian orientation, environmental sensitivity and energy efficiency.4 View Access & Preservation: Top floor restaurant deck Roof deck supportable as a public viewing deck and/or public plaza Affordable and Workforce Housing: The project should provide affordable housing at or less than 1,000 sq. ft., per City standards, at the rate of 5% for low income households, or 10% for moderate income households, as a percentage of the total number of housing units built (no in -lieu fee option) Pedestrian Amenity: No more than 33% storefront level given over to parking Solar access: maximum 3.75 floor area ratio (FAR) Energy Efficiency: Exceed Title 24 by 30% Pedestrian Orientation: Line the ground floor of the parking garage with retail (minimum 67% of street frontage) The project should incorporate a significant public plaza, where the public art requirement is met by providing the art on-site (no in -lieu fee option). Environmental Sensitivity: Adequate on-site parking provided Energy Efficiency: Roof top amenities, such as solar panels and rooftop garden (to reduce runoff) Fifth, this project needs to conform to the Conceptual Plan for the City's Center. It does not. The Conceptual Plan for the City's Center urges us to "reserve in general the existing building height patterns of two and three stories; identify opportunities for higher buildings as architectural accents, define where upper story setbacks should be required." This document also recommends that new housing units be located "above parking and behind street level businesses." This document recommends a major pedestrian connection across Santa Rosa Street (in the form of a pedestrian bridge). Shouldn't this developer be required to provide such an off-site amenity? Sixth, the project should directly implement specific and identifiable City objectives as set forth in the General Plan & Community Design Guidelines. It does not. "New buildings that are significantly taller or shorter than adjacent buildings shall provide appropriate visual transitions." This project will be three stories taller than the County Government Building (4 stories), five stories taller than the San Luis Diagnostic Center (2 stories), and 5-1/2 stories taller than the Bank of America building (1.5 stories). Seventh, in the face of near term negative impacts of climate change, water consumption uses such as hotels and restaurants should be discouraged. Low water consumption uses more suitable for this site, should they meet other criteria, include retail, office, parking and public open space. Eighth, excessive building heights place insurmountable demands on our infrastructure (i.e., storm water runoff, disaster emergency preparedness, fire and crime prevention). And ninth, our City is not addressing the unmitigable hazmat health risks associated with the build-up of nearly a century of petroleum product leakage on this site. This contaminated site is clearly unsuitable for restaurants and housing. All of the arguments above not only address consistency with our General Plan and Zoning policies but more importantly address quality of life and public health issues as related to the future use of this site and to the future of our downtown. Respectfully submitted, Allan Cooper, 756 Broad Street, SLO