The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCooper - (Zoning Regulations) - 07-09-2018To: SLO Planning Commission Re: Zoning Regulations Update From: Allan Cooper, San Luis Obispo Date: July 7, 2018 Honorable Chair Fowler and Commissioners - The LUCE recommends an area plan for "Upper Monterey Street" extending to the Highway 101 on- ramp. However the LUCE does not recommend an interim extension of downtown standards to the smaller area bounded by the railroad which you have recently reviewed and approved. Please rescind your approval and deny staff’s proposal to allow buildings as tall as 75 feet in this area before the City conducts an Upper Monterey Area Plan. This plan could take several years to complete and should involve community feedback. Staff’s recommendation to increase building heights is premature and will inﬂuence, if not predetermine, the outcome of the Area Plan. At the very least, direct staff to prepare a visualization model of the current building heights comparing it to the proposed building heights. This would be consistent with Chapter 4 of the Land Use Element which calls for a visual resource study to be done for all tall buildings. As for tall buildings in general, permit me to share my thoughts on this very important topic. First, the predominant height of buildings downtown is still (but possibly not for long) under 45 feet (see my list below). Second, the May 4, 1993 “Conceptual Physical Plan For The City’s Center” called for preserving “ the existing building height patterns of two and three stories”. But after a SLO Chamber subcommittee consisting of architects, designers, engineers and planners provided input to the Council urging for a moderate height limit increase to 60 feet, the Council on a narrow 3-2 vote (nays: Settle & Mulholland) approved a maximum building height increase from 50 feet to 75 feet in the SLO Downtown Commercial Core. The rationale behind this vote has proven to be specious. They argued that this height increase would increase affordable and workplace housing yet we have seen that the vast majority of these units will neither be affordable nor suitable (especially the efﬁciency units) for families working downtown. They argued that this would result in increasing pedestrian amenities and increasing view access when in fact tall buildings shade sidewalks and block views to all but the few residents occupying the upper ﬂoors. They argued that this would result in historic preservation when one- and two-story historic buildings are already being overwhelmed by their tall neighbors. Vice Mayor Christine Mulholland’s extremely prescient dissenting opinion was as follows: Mulholland “reviewed a number of sections of the proposed amendments with which she had concerns or questions. In addition, she said she was concerned with the lack of public participation in the process, applying blanket policies to all downtown properties, the complexity of the ordinance, loss of views at the sidewalk level, inadequate protection for historic structures, and an inadequate transportation plan to address increased trafﬁc in the downtown.” Third, when the Chamber, in a November 2, 2015 Newsletter complained that “since adoption, no projects in the downtown have gone to the higher limits and both Garden Street Terraces and the Chinatown project…were scaled back…”, the City decided to explore other ways to increase building heights. They put together a LUCE Citizen’s Task Force that recommended modifying zoning regulations to allow efﬁciency units and variable density in the Downtown Core. And they hired a consultant (Michael Baker International) to assist a Creative Vision Team (CVT) to update the “Conceptual Physical Plan For The City’s Center” (now called the “Downtown Concept Plan”). This resulted in recommending “three- to four-story mixed-use commercial (and public) buildings” in Block #15 (a.k.a. “signature buildings”), Block # 16, Block # 17, Block #23 (a.k.a. “landmark buildings”), Block #24, Block #25, Block #28, Block #29 and Block #18. It is telling that the professional consultant to this Creative Vision Team was architect Tom Duffy with Ten Over Studio who is now proposing a 75-foot-tall building at the corner of Chorro and Marsh Streets! Lately, you have received an MIG Consultant Team “White Paper” advocating doubling downtown densities, promoting density transfers and increasing the maximum height of buildings. Fourth, all of this ran counter to overwhelming public opposition to tall buildings downtown (or elsewhere for that matter). The public opinion results from a broad-based, City-organized engagement in 2016-2017 were as follows. A so-called “Stakeholder Focus Group” comprised of 48 participants placed 5 dots on increasing building heights while another 5 dots were in support of keeping existing building heights - hardly a mandate for increasing building heights. The ﬁrst Public Workshop comprised of 75 participants expressed its greatest displeasure with the 60 foot tall County Government Building located at 1055 Monterey Street. The second Public Workshop comprised of 110 participants overwhelmingly agreed that “heights should stay as they are”. The top reply in an Online Survey comprised of 393 responders stated that what they most liked about Downtown SLO was its “look and feel”. Finally, a Neighborhood Meeting comprised of 35 downtown residents broadly supported limitations on new building heights. Below, I have summarized for your convenience the aesthetic and practical arguments and the popular and expert opinions which mitigate against tall buildings. Thank you for devoting your time to this important matter! _____________________________________________________________________________ Representative Heights of Downtown SLO Buildings New Palm Parking Garage: Palm Street Façade: 54 feet Mid-street on Morro Street to top of tower: 77 feet Anderson Hotel (lobby plus four stories): 64 feet The former Loobliner/Schwartz Building (Monterey opposite Phoenix Bookstore): 51.5 feet Court Street Project On Monterey: 45 feet On Osos, by steps: 44 feet On Osos, at Higuera: 43 feet Wineman Hotel (Chorro and Higuera, old Copeland’s): 41 feet Cornerstone Building (Chorro opposite Mission): 38 feet Fanny Wrappers: 37.5 feet Maino Building (Garden and Higuera): 36.5 feet Barnes and Noble, side opposing Post Ofﬁce: 31 feet Former Bali’s Yogurt Building (Morro and Higuera): 28 feet The former Forum (Marsh and Garden): 25 feet The Gap (Monterey Street): 27 feet Ah Louis building: 22 feet You should know that the City freely ignored any design oversight provided by the ARC on the Palm Street Parking Garage because this was a City-ﬁnanced project and providing parking was then considered an “overriding consideration”. I did not include the Paciﬁc Bell Company building or the County Government Center for the following reasons. The Paciﬁc Bell Company building was designed and built in the early 60’s when there was no design oversight provided by the City. Nor did the City have design oversight on the County Government Center @ 1055 Monterey Street because the County was the lead agency and therefore beyond City purview. A Chronology of Events Which Led to Increasing Building Heights From “Two-Three Stories” to a Maximum of 75 Feet ________________________________________________________________________________ May 4, 1993 A Conceptual Physical Plan For The City’s Center “Community Character: a city in a park” “c. preserve, 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.” “Area 10: (between Marsh & Higuera, Nipomo & Archer) Standards: As a condition of new development, property dedication should be required for all lots in the block bound by Nipomo, Marsh, Carmel and Higuera Streets, in order to create a mid-block pedestrian right-of-way and a terminus park as illustrated. Historically valuable buildings in this area should continue to be used, or be preserved and re-used. Other structure of historical or aesthetic value which are jeopardized in other areas may be moved to the Heritage Park. New buildings may be permitted but should be in scale and character with the older buildings (this is where the 59.5 foot tall San Luis Square project will be located). Guidelines: Appropriate uses would include food service, ofﬁces, visitor accommodation, shops and private residences. Mixed uses in one building should be acceptable. A limited amount of onsite parking may be permitted in this area but parking lots should not larger than about 10 spaces. The intent is to allow a small amount of parking for the convenience of employees, residents or customers of some businesses, but not develop large lots that would adversely affect the park- like character. One larger surface lot should be provided in the center of the block to serve customers and Jack House visitors. “Area 4: (between Marsh & Higuera, Nipomo & Chorro) Public Projects: Garden Street should be converted into a one-way street with angled parking (one way, Marsh to Higuera). Guidelines: Commercial development at the pedestrian level, built to the sidewalk should be required in this area. The mid-portion of each block should be used for public walkways and small plazas, with landscaping and seating. Residential uses should be encouraged on upper stories, oriented away from the street frontages and toward the mid block walkways and plazas. Where possible, connections to Higuera and Marsh should be encouraged between the interior plazas and paths, whenever buildings are upgraded or replaced.” Area 1: (between Paciﬁc & Monterey, Chorro & Osos) Public Projects: Narrow Marsh Street to reduce the width of the travel lanes, provide bulb-outs at corners and other appropriate locations. On the block bounded by Osos, Marsh, Morro and Higuera, develop multi-level parking structure, located in the center of the block. The structure could also accommodate residences above. Expand the existing parking structure on Chorro between Marsh and Paciﬁc, north along Paciﬁc, behind the Post Ofﬁce. Guidelines: Include pedestrian paths, either outdoor or through buildings, from Rose Alley to Higuera, include public open spaces in any redevelopment in the block bounded by Osos, Marsh, Morro and Monterey. Area 11: (between Dana & Higuera, Nipomo & Carmel) Standards: The Creamery site should be redeveloped to include a walkway on an axis between a Higuera Street crossing to the Jack House and to the corner of Nipomo and Monterey. Higuera Street and Nipomo frontages should have commercial uses at the ﬁrst ﬂoor. Commercial uses should orient not only toward the streets, but also toward all the pedestrian ways, including the creekside path. High density residential uses should be required in the area shown on the map. Guidelines: Parking for the residences should be provided onsite, in the commercial and/or residential buildings. Residential should be broken down into a number of smaller buildings, with small plazas and walkways between (this is where the Lofts at Nipomo, a 50 ft. tall, four-story mixed-use project and South Town 18 also a 50 ft. tall, four-story mixed-use project are located). ___________________________________________________________________________________ February 6, 2007, The City’s Housing Element, updated in 2004, included a new policy that required all new Downtown development to include housing. The City considered increasing downtown building height and intensity limits in order to encourage the economic viability of housing construction. On February 6, 2007, in anticipation of approving the Chinatown Project and the Garden Street Terraces Project, the City Council approved increasing building heights on a 3-2 vote (nays: Settle & Mulholland) from 50 feet to 75 feet in the SLO Downtown Commercial Core based on the following ﬁndings: 1) increasing affordable and workplace housing; 2) increasing pedestrian amenities; 3) increasing view access; and 4) historic preservation (see: http://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/1/doc/41586/Page1.aspx). Vice Mayor Christine Mulholland opposed the recommendation based on the following ﬁndings: “She reviewed a number of sections of the proposed amendments with which she had concerns or questions. In addition, she said she was concerned with the lack of public participation in the process, applying blanket policies to all downtown properties, the complexity of the ordinance, loss of views at the sidewalk level, inadequate protection for historic structures, and an inadequate transportation plan to address increased trafﬁc in the downtown.” ___________________________________________________________________________________ “Revisiting Downtown Building Heights” Chamber News - City of San Luis Obispo November 2, 2015 With a number of signiﬁcant downtown development projects underway and two more that could potentially increase housing, ofﬁce and commercial space still under consideration, the SLO Chamber is taking a new look at downtown building codes and where additional heights in the downtown commercial district may be appropriate. Housing remains the top challenge and priority of SLO Chamber members and increasing height limits and density in select areas is one way to allow for more downtown residences. This past month the Chamber Board of Directors, following guidance from its Economic Development Committee and Housing Task Force volunteers, directed the Housing Task Force to start an evaluation of the appropriateness of taller buildings in various areas of San Luis Obispo. The volunteer task force will begin this work before year end. “We’ve been involved in this process for some time and are revisiting the issue in order to evaluate how taller building heights could ﬁt in with community character and housing goals in the city,” said Charlene Rosales, director of governmental affairs at the Chamber. Mixed-use projects, such as the proposed Fremont Square and San Luis Square developments, create an opportunity to turn limited downtown real estate into housing, ofﬁce and commercial space, creating density while helping to sustain the city goal of preserving open space and preventing sprawl. The building heights conversation was last meaningfully taken up eight years ago when a SLO Chamber subcommittee consisting of architects, designers, engineers and planners made a careful study of the matter over more than one year and provided input to urge for a moderate height limit increase to 60 feet. However, the Downtown Building Height Ordinance that the Planning Commission ultimately forwarded on to the SLO City Council for adoption created additional regulations and a process that was more difﬁcult, time consuming and expensive than initially conceived. A letter to the city council from the 2007 SLO Chamber Board of Directors read “We now ﬁnd ourselves in the unusual position of opposing an ordinance that was supposed to implement a resolution that we supported. The Downtown Building Height Ordinance forwarded to you by the Planning Commission is fatally ﬂawed, as it would not increase the feasibility of creating moderately taller buildings. In fact, it would do the exact the opposite.” The regulations that were eventually adopted by the city allows for downtown buildings to go from 50 feet up to 60 feet after meeting certain conditions that could include: additional pedestrian amenities, view access and preservation, economic impact, historic preservation, open space preservation and or energy efﬁcient design. To go from 60 to 75 feet requires meeting the previous goals for 60 feet and meeting the increased Affordable and Workforce Housing Objectives. Since adoption, no projects in the downtown have gone to the higher limits and both Garden Street Terraces and the Chinatown project – which are being redeveloped currently – did scale back and not to include as much housing. Fremont Square and San Luis Square are being proposed for 56-70 feet, respectively. _____________________________________________________________________________ September 27, 2017 SLO Downtown Concept Plan Minimum 2 story commercial throughout. Block #28 (between Marsh & Higuera, Nipomo & Beach) This block includes three four-story commercial mixed-use buildings (this is where the 59.5 foot tall San Luis Square project will be located) with lower-level retail and upper level residen︎tial fronti︎ng Higuera, Nipomo, and Marsh Streets. A paseo travels through the center of the block between buildings and behind the Jack House Gardens; it is envisioned to connect to the gardens and a mid-block paseo aligned with Beach Street and connecti︎ng to Block 27. The Jack House Gardens are envisioned to be used more as a public park as the surrounding area redevelops. Block #29 (between Marsh & Higuera, Broad & Nipomo) The corner of Marsh and Nipomo Streets is envisioned with 3-4 story commercial mixed use with residen︎tial on the upper levels. New two-story commercial mixed use is envisioned for the surface lot on the corner of Broad and Marsh Streets to retain compati︎bility with the exis︎ting development patt︎ern. There will be opportuniti︎es for pocket plazas and outdoor dining. Block #18 (between Dana & Higuera, Nipomo & Archer) This large block is envisioned to include new commercial mixed use, a hotel and conference facility and residential opportunities near downtown’s main entrance. Historic buildings will be preserved while a variety of users will be infused south of the creek along Higuera Street. New development will open onto and interact with the expanded Creek Walk, which will connect to Higuera and Dana Street. Included in the block are four different projects currently in the oaks. The Lofts at Nipomo is a four-story mixed use project along the creek that currently includes 23 resident units, 7 hotel rooms and approximately 3,500 sq.ft. of commercial space. South Town 18 is a four-story mixed use project along the creek that currently includes 18 new residential units and approximately 70 sq.ft. of commercial space. Downtown Terrace is a medium-density residential project with approximately 30 new prefabricated manufacture homes on the site of the current mobile home park; and The Creamery will be expanded and rehabilitated with paseo connections to Nipomo and Higuera Streets and an interior courtyard where there is currently parking. Block #32 (between Marsh & Higuera, Chorro & Morro) The only change shown for this block is the revitalized corner of Chorro and Marsh Streets, repurposing the exis︎ting 24,500 sq. ft., two-story commercial building (this is where the proposed 75 foot tall mixed-use building is proposed to be located). _______________________________________________________________________________ Problems Relating to Increasing Building Heights in SLO’s Downtown District We often cite the following aesthetic reason when arguing against taller buildings in downtown San Luis Obispo: “Tall buildings will detract from SLO’s unique small town charm and ambiance.” The practical concern related to this is that tourism will be negatively impacted if our downtown loses these qualities. But there are numerous other practical arguments against building tall buildings downtown. * Tall buildings overtax the City’s existing infrastructure with regards to ﬂood mitigation and evacuation, ﬁre abatement, disaster relief, trafﬁc congestion and police protection. Low-rise buildings are more survivable in the event of a catastrophic earthquake when the city will be limping along at reduced water and power availability. * Tall buildings, if under-parked, deplete available off-site parking, thereby driving away shoppers. * Tall buildings result in the loss of sunlight and views of the hills. Tall buildings create microclimates which include heat sinks, wind tunnels, down drafts and acoustically live echo chambers. * Tall buildings will erode the historic character of San Luis Obispo. Taller buildings usually result in increasing pressures to either relocate or demolish low-rise historic buildings. Tall buildings are typically poor neighbors to low-rise buildings particularly when they minimize the signiﬁcance of civic or historic buildings. * Tall buildings result in the wholesale removal of mature, carbon-sequestering street trees. * Tall buildings downtown lengthen the construction timeline which usurps sidewalks and on-street parking and thereby hampers the economic viability of existing retail businesses. * Tall buildings leave construction sites vacant for prolonged periods of time due to zoning restrictions, complicated land acquisition, community opposition, longer permitting processes, construction lead times, complex ﬁnancing and higher materials costs. Low rise buildings in less dense areas do not face those hurdles. The average high-rise apartment building construction time after permits are approved is currently (in 2017) around 24 months, compared to 17.5 months in 2013. * Tall buildings involve higher construction costs thereby resulting in higher rents and reduced retail diversity. The higher construction costs can only be ﬁnanced through out-of-town investors thereby marginalizing local investors and local control. Higher rents place increasing pressures on property owners to rent to the same national chain stores found almost everywhere. Higher rents place increasing pressures on stores offering unique, locally-sourced goods and services, as well as farm-to-table restaurants, to move out of the downtown core. Higher rents result in a higher concentration of more proﬁtable night clubs, bars and alcohol outlets. Downtown becomes less family-friendly with the increased presence of alcohol outlets and night clubs. * Tall buildings reduce propinquity, defensible space and eyes-on territoriality. Tall buildings separate people from the street, reduce chance encounters, are no longer walkable and force tenants to rely on energy consuming elevators. Tall buildings prevent children and the elderly from getting the exercise they need because of the extra effort it takes to get outside. * Tall buildings will become socioeconomic silos, become vertical “gated communities”, become dormitories for people with high-paying jobs and will displace or exclude, through gentriﬁcation, lower income populations and families. * While density and public transportation options signiﬁcantly reduce per capita Footprint, the increased afﬂuence of city residents correlates with increased consumption. A $1,000 increase in expenditure is expected, on average, to correlate with a 0.09 GHA per capita increase in Ecological Footprint. A 100 people per square mile increase in population density is associated with a 0.06 GHA per capita decrease in the Ecological Footprint. Food and beverage consumption is the biggest contributor to the city’s Footprint. * Tall buildings are inherently inefﬁcient because proportionately more of their surface area is exposed to the sun and wind. Tall buildings use almost twice as much energy per square foot as low-rise structures. Tall buildings require more steel and concrete, therefore contain more embodied energy and are less sustainable than low rise buildings built largely of wood. Concrete is 10 times more GHG-intensive than wood. * In low-rise buildings the rooftop supply available for solar energy is inevitably more in line with the energy demands of the building than it is for mid- or high-rises. Most buildings that generate their own energy do it with solar photovoltaics (PV). If we assume that a building has only its roof area available for mounting PV, then a single-story building is much more likely to achieve net-zero than a high-rise. Getting to net-zero is extremely difﬁcult for buildings of more than four stories. If the project includes energy-intensive data centers, labs, or other spaces, the challenge gets tougher. * Tall buildings tend to lead to densities that the market won’t support. Tall buildings are an attempt to transform human nature in the name of “progress”. Tall buildings lead to a rapid and unsustainable increase in the market price of real property. Tall buildings do not perform well when a real estate bubble bursts. * In order to increase density, the blocks of poorly-used, undervalued buildings and land that exist in transitional neighborhoods should be populated with 3-4 story structures before locating taller buildings within historic districts or cohesive neighborhoods. Even if we disregard all of the above practical concerns related to tall buildings, public opinion in San Luis Obispo is overwhelmingly behind keeping downtown at 3-4 stories. In a Michael Baker online survey, 79% of the 400 participants polled in the survey said they "love" or "like a lot" the "look and feel of downtown". In the Downtown Concept Plan public workshops, the vast majority of the community said they valued our "small town feel and historic character". Yet a MIG Consultant Team “White Paper” is advocating doubling downtown densities, promoting density transfers and increasing the maximum height of buildings. Broad Based Public Engagement: Height Discussions conducted over 2016-2017. Stakeholder Focus Groups (48 participants) Stakeholders expressed the most disagreement about building heights. Out of 48 participants, 5 dots were placed on keeping heights as they are and 5 dots were placed on increasing heights. We should hardly think that this represents a mandate for increasing building heights (which the latest draft report recommends). Public Workshop 1 (75 participants) Map 2: What I like and What I’d Change “in general, the higher concentration of sad faces were placed on…County Building…” Public Workshop 2 (110 participants) Small Group Exercise Summaries by Group Green Group: The group generally agreed that heights should stay as they are through much of the study area, with an interest in maintaining the current look and feel of central downtown. Red Group: Most people felt comfortable with the maximum heights as they currently are (3 stories in the core (most historic) district. Black Group: With regard to height and massing, the group decided to keep the scale as is in the downtown core and the SW area. White Group: Solar orientation was very important to the group and they generally felt that the existing setting …should be the primary factors evaluated when determining building heights and massing. Blue Group: For height and massing, the group felt that there should be no change to the scale of development in the core or center of downtown to better maintain view sheds Yellow Group: In general, the group was supportive of buildings that stepped back at the upper stories. Overﬂow Group: Generally speaking, they do not want to see increases in height behind the current condition in downtown. Online Survey (393 responses) What do you like most about Downtown SLO? Top reply: 19%: Look/Feel Neighborhood Meetings (35 downtown residents) Height, Massing and Intensity of Development Meeting participants broadly supported limitations on new building height. A few discussed negative impacts of development on our environment and noise impacts in neighborhoods. If we choose to ignore public opinion, then we should listen to the experts. "Santa Monica Architects for a Responsible Tomorrow" (SMART) has long advocated for a city that is no taller than four stories. They say, because of climate change, all buildings should be installing solar panel arrays on their roofs and that in low-rise buildings the rooftop supply available for solar energy is inevitably more in line with the energy demands of the building than it is for mid- or high-rises. Most buildings that generate their own energy do it with solar photovoltaics (PV). If we assume that a building has only its roof area available for mounting PV, then a single-story building is much more likely to achieve net-zero than a high-rise. Getting to net-zero is extremely difﬁcult for buildings of more than four stories. If the project includes energy-intensive data centers, labs, or other spaces, the challenge gets tougher. Moreover, low-rise buildings are more survivable in the event of a catastrophic earthquake when the city will be limping along at reduced water and power availability. Finally SMART is concerned that the 5, 6 and 7 story buildings are causing negative impacts in the form of overburdening their City's fragile infrastructure, creating trafﬁc gridlock and casting long shadows onto the City sidewalks.” World-renown architect Jan Gehl states the following: ”I would say that anybody living over the ﬁfth ﬂoor ought generally to be referring to the airspace authorities. You're not part of the earth anymore, because you can't see what's going on on the ground and the people on the ground can't see where you are," he warns. Some of the negative consequences of tall buildings, as cited by Steven Snell, include the isolating effects of high-rise residential buildings, the heat island effects induced by tall buildings, shadows and loss of natural light, the negative impacts of many tall buildings on the walkability of the street below, and the danger tall buildings present to birds. The great architect Leon Krier, who inﬂuenced many New Urbanists, writes passionately in the recently released 2nd Edition of the Charter of the New Urbanism book that buildings should have "an unsurpassable maximum of ﬁve ﬂoors - in short, to walkable building heights." James Howard Kunstler argues that skyscrapers will quickly become irreparable relics when peak oil and climate change transform our environment.