HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-01-16 ARC Correspondence - Item 1 (Schmidt 1)Lomeli, Monique
Subject:
RE: ARC Aug 1 agenda
From: Richard Schmidt [
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 3:55 PM
To: Advisory Bodies <advisorvbodies@slocitv.ore>
Subject: ARC Aug 1 agenda
Dear ARC members,
Meeting: gee $'// /1�
Item:
RECEIVED
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
JUL 29 2016
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Attached are comments pertaining to 71 Palomar, with suggestions for your direction to applicant.
In order to make a file small enough to email, I had to cut two photos, which I still want you to have,
so will try to email separately.
Richard Schmidt
Comments/Suggestions for 71 Palomar Project July 28, 2016
Dear ARC Members,
Here are some among many thoughts about deficiencies in this project's current design it would
be nice for you to address.
After each discussion, I've placed in underlined italics a recommendation for your action, to
make it easier for you to follow what I'm suggesting.
Summary: The biggest problems with this proposed project are its total insensitivity to the
unique site, to the surrounding neighborhood, and to the actual housing needs of our city. This
young out-of-town developer needs to be instructed that to be a respected player here he needs
to respond to the community's needs and to the high value we place on our environment and
quality of life.
Site: This hilly Palomar site has 51 remarkable trees, some with three-foot diameter trunks, that
provide a beautiful ambiance for the historic Sandford House, a designated historic landmark,
and for the adjacent single family neighborhood. The trees create a local microclimate — in fact
that seems to be why many were planted; are important songbird, owl and raptor habitat; and
are seen as landmark skyline trees on the lower slopes of San Luis Mountain from many points
in the city's northern sector. The trees are huge and capture a lot of carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere. They are beautiful and wonderful.
(Caption: From Foothill Blvd., the trees at 71 Palomar stand as landmark skyline features
against the slopes of San Luis Mountain. The project proposes to destroy this.)
• The project proposes to remove almost all the trees to make way for generic anyplace -LA -style
apartment blocks rather than take the design care needed to fit new buildings among the trees.
The ARC needs _Jo, protect the remarkable urban forest on this site.
• The design contemplates bulldozing the site's varied topography into virtual flatness. Look at
the site sections that show adjacent buildings on what's currently varied topography sitting on
level ground. The ARC should direct the designer to work with the topography, not destroy it.
• The existing site is a historic cultural landscape of great interest and worthy of being
preserved. Cultural landscape preservation is the preferred method of dealing with sites such as
the Sandford House site, and this approach is endorsed by authorities as disparate as the
National Park Service (NPS, the keeper of the National Register of Historic Places) and
UNESCO, and is called out in federal NEPA law. The NPS defines cultural landscapes as
"composed of a number of character -defining features which, individually or collectively
contribute to the landscape's physical appearance as they have evolved over time. In addition to
vegetation and topography, cultural landscapes may include ... circulation features, such as
roads, paths, steps, and walls; buildings; and furnishings, including fences, benches, lights and
sculptural objects." (Underline emphasis is mine, calling attention to relevant issues at Palomar.)
The Palomar cultural landscape, as I read it, has two components: one related to the formal
"high -design" character of the Italian Renaissance revival house, the other reflecting vernacular
landscape tradition of turn of the century rural California. The formal landscape is found in front
of the house. First, the house is placed prominently on a rise (the proposed move of the house
ignores this placement and is renders its re -placement culturally meaningless). Next, plantings
are aligned to create a strong axial approach to the house: four wonderful old trees reinforce this
axis — two Eugenia closer to the street, and two Araucaria heterophylla closer to the house.
Together, these provide a lovely symmetrical approach to the house. In the opposite direction,
heading away from the house, the trees frame a view that's Florentine in its beauty, looking out
over what is now city into the hills beyond. This is all very carefully planned, it exemplifies an
attention to design detail not typical of 1890s suburban houses, and it will all be destroyed by
the proposed development's site -insensitive design.
(Caption: diagrammatic explanation of formal aspects of front yard cultural landscape: Palomar
Ave. to bottom, house entry at top, axial approach to house and in reverse from house to view
indicated by arrow, reinforced by the four wonderful exotic trees. This indicates clear formal
design intent. All this is lost if proposed site -insensitive plan is approved.)
(Caption: From street end of axial approach path one has this "Florentine" view of the city below
and hills beyond. Thus the two ends of the axis both have great design meaning, all of which the
proposed project would destroy. Note: Some project apologists claim this dense project would
be no different from its surroundings in its density. That is false. You are looking at the R-4
density of the Village complex. It is nothing like what's proposed on Palomar. It also
accommodated pre-existing site features — notably the ribbon of riparian forest along Old
Garden Creek — rather than obliterate them as the site -insensitive Palomar design seeks to do.)
Elsewhere on the site, the cultural landscape is more relaxed, in the vernacular or "common"
style. For example, the eucalyptus, typical of vernacular plantings at the turn of the century, play
important roles in the vernacular landscape plan. Those behind the house provide a windbreak
from the brisk afternoon wind. Those in the southwest corner of the site play another familiar
vernacular role, providing a shaded spot for outdoor activity. Note, however, they are
thoughtfully placed to play that summertime role while not interfering with the natural winter heat
energy flow providing sunlight to heat the solarium.
0►:
N
l4ee.g
71'ai�smr
�Crkxq[ 11 yyrial autar a 6o-4 ✓ pkytla CZ)
FElslartclk.�sc ,{ >
s a
a
V%.if-nqc f li�blfR+ Euc�,lyP{-vs G.v�e } �
�'{�ouii; �arien5i5+
r �
4" !' Flat is Sale-54nw r<JaFt�Lloc f «1s
Luna+A Dries
(Caption: The two aspects of the cultural landscape discussed above, the formal axial design of
the front yard, and the vernacular functional use of eucs behind the house for wind control and
to the southwest for a shady summer outdoor area. [Note: The "Heritage Tree" notations are for
a proposal to designate heritage trees on the site, obstructed by the applicant, and do not reflect
any existing designations.])
The ARC should make clear to the applicant that these cultural landscape features are
important to preserve and need to be accommodated in a redesign of the project. The ARC
should not permit moving the house, as doing so renders much of the cultural landscape
meaningless.
Use: Our _city �ds_ familu wartments which could easily and interestingly be accommodated
on this unusual neighborhood site which _is_near elements schools, where with sensitive
design there could be many wonderful and abundant places for kids to play outdoors, so why
are we using this precious and scarce land resource for a student dormitory that doesn't even
belong in an established family_ neighborhood?
There is no question that these "apartments" are dorms — they are laid out in a way that they
would not accommodate a family's life. Please remember that calling them "multi -family"
apartments is a zoning description, not a use description. They are dorms.
When 1 first saw the floor plans my reaction was "what the?" An "apartment" with a dinky demi-
kitchen adjoining a dinky social space — the only social space in the "apartment" —, a corridor
with huge double doors along it entering into 20 -foot long "bedrooms" and next to no storage
space.
3
The mystery was solved when I saw floor plans for the Ikon apartments (ikonslo.com).' It seems
the double doors are configured in the center of the long room so a partition can be placed
between the doors so each new "bedroom" has its own door. So, on Palomar, that means the
"two-bedroom" apartments are actually four-bedroom apartments, and the "three-bedroom"
apartments five bedroom apartments !2
The ARC should determine whether staff figures parking requirements based on actual
bedrooms or on alleged bedrooms, as this plan layout could become a standard scam to reduce
parking requirements if not handled appropriately by the citk
Since they don't appear readily capable of adaptive reuse, what will happen to these Palomar
apartments when students no longer want to live in them?
The ARC should direct the applicant to return withapartments that serve_ the needs of workforce
families rather than students.
To promote sustainability and the longevity of the buildings, the ARC should direct that any
design be capable of accommodating adaptive reuse over time.
Affordable Housing: When we approve a project, the affordable housing component should be
genuine and not just a cynical way to get benefits from providing "affordable" units. One thing
that would demonstrate actual concern, on the city's part and the applicants', would be equity of
quality and quantity of the affordable housing compared to other units.
In this case, several "affordable" studios have been tacked on. Yet the predominant units are "2"
and "3" bedroom units. This means the "affordable" housing is of a lesser quality, size, and
standard than the other units. Really, now, are we building "affordable" studios for single
mothers to live in with their kids? That's not right. The affordable apartments should be real
apartments.
' According to the Ikon webpage, Ikon rents "from" $999 per bed, and the places are rented by
the bed, not by the apartment. This is far from the "affordable housing" advertised to you and the
public at the time Ikon sought approval.
2 To me, the saddest thing is these are poorly designed even as dorm apartments. The spatial
layout is inferior to that of the newer dorm apartments on campus — which students love, partly
because they are ON campus. Partitioned bedrooms are a long-term bad idea that shortens the
likely appeal of these dorms. Has the applicant done original research into issues like what the
kids want and what's the afterlife of these "apartments" when student tastes inevitably change?
(Recall that the Village was originally Tropicana Village, a student dorm, and when students got
tired of it, they deserted, leaving the owners with a problem. The building's saving grace was
decent and adaptable floor plans, which aren't evident in the Palomar design, that enabled
successful transition to senior housing.) It is possible to design student dorms better. Cal Poly
did extensive research on student preferences prior to building its apartment dorms. The first
step in designing the off -campus Pine Creek Condos, which at 25+ years old remain among the
most popular off -campus student digs, was to conduct focus groups by offering students $20 to
come discuss what they wanted in housing.
4
To obtain "affordable" housing credit: the ARC should require that the "affordable" units be
essentially the same in quality, size and standards, in ratio to their total numbr as the other
units in the project.
Energy and Climate: US buildings use about half the nation's energy. Just over 3 years from
today, new residences in California will be required to be net zero energy. While California may
lead the nation, we lag other nations. In Great Britain, our 2020 deadline for residences applies
to commercial buildings — and they don't have our benign climate to work with. We can do this
today, so why aren't we doing it instead of designing energy "dinosaur" buildings right up to the
net zero deadline? We pride ourselves, after all, on being an environmentally -progressive city,
so is this the best we can do?
• A lot about energy is unclear from the plans presented to the ARC, but there appears to be no
evidence these buildings are more energy conserving than required by code (which means a
sub -sustainable level building), and no evidence that they are designed to capture and use the
free natural energy flows of the site or to generate energy. There's little way to get to net zero
absent this conservation/natural-energy-capture duality. This is something all our buildings today
should be able to demonstrate.
The _ARC _should require state of the art, better -than -code energy conserving construction for all
new buildings, including any on the Palomar site_
The ARC should require new buildings on suitable sites to capture natural energy flows heat,
cvolth, ventilation, light) to the greatest extent possiblebV requiring accommodating those
concerns to be central to how the building is designed, configured and placed on the site..
(These are very difficult add-ons they need to be part of the first stage of designn.)This site is
suitable to accommodate these de ' n concerns so the ARC should re uire redesign to
maximally capture natural energy flows. (Note the 1890s Sandford House has a south -facing
solarium capable of supplying much of its winter heat for free by capturing winter sunlight. If they
could do that much back then, why can't we do at least that much today?)
• The proposed buildings are laid out generally along north -south axes, which means
opportunities for capturing desirable winter sun for warmth are eliminated, and opportunities for
overheating buildings with undesirable summer east -west sun are maximized. The one building
with a more desirable east -west orientation is largely shaded by other buildings, so most of it too
uses site energies to thermal disadvantage. This layout means the buildings' design, orientation
and placement on the site maximize thermal discomfort throughout the year. This is
inappropriate design for the era of net zero energy.
The ARC should direct redesign to orient buildings to maximize benefits of natural energy flow
capture.
• The building layout on the land means most roofs face east or west, which are poor
orientations for both solar thermal and solar photovoltaic rooftop energy capture (optimal is
south -facing).
5
The ARC should direct redesign to maximize south -facing rooftops so PV and solar thermal
applications are practical.
- There's little possibility for cross ventilation in the apartments due to configuration of the units.
Cross ventilation is one of the most effective natural cooling techniques, which in a well-oriented
building (which, see above, these are not) can eliminate the need for air conditioning in our
climate with its significant day/night temperature swings. Thus, one suspects these buildings
might be air conditioned. Are they?
The ARC should direct that apartments be reconfigured so cross ventilation can be used for
natural coolina and should prohibit unnecessary, energy
-Quzzling air condi#r_'onr'ng
- The parking garage is enclosed, and by code must be mechanically ventilated 24/7. This is a
waste of energy when a parking garage could be designed to be open so it ventilates itself.
The ARC should direct redesign of the parking garage so mechanical ventilation is not needed.
- The mature urban forest on the site can provide natural cooling, in the form of both shade and
evapotranspiration, for any sensitively -placed development added to the site that preserves the
trees. By contrast, the applicant's proposal to cut down almost all the century -old trees
eliminates this natural energy source, and exacerbates increased temperatures by replacing a
cooling green canopy with hard humanscape that absorbs solar energy in the summer and
creates an urban heat island.3 The removal of the trees not only increases outdoor summer
temperatures, but also indoor temps via thermal transfer through the building envelope and
through windows facing east -west that are no longer protected from the sun, and thus increases
the need for mechanical ventilation or air conditioning. Maintaining mature trees on the building
site is an energy -conservation measure as well as an esthetic issue.
To mitigate heat buildup on the site and overheating of the buildings, the ARC should require
retention of the site's mature trees as a cooling mechanism.
Density: The proposal is overly -dense and inappropriate at this density and bulk for this special
site.4
3 "Urban heat island" refers to the thermal phenomenon in human monocultures, like cities,
where thermal mass of the human -built environment collects heat and magnifies its effects.
Urban heat islands can have temperatures 10-15 degrees hotter than non -urbanized similar
land. This is a serious issue in sustainable planning, as the UHI increase in ambient
temperature not only increases, for example, the desire for air conditioning, but the hotter air
takes more energy to cool to the desired comfort level. We should be doing everything possible
not to create a greater UHI effect if we hope to slow or halt global climate change.
4 Please remember, the applicant is purchasing this site for $2.4 million in a neighborhood
where a 1500 SF house (740 Murray) recently sold for $975K. He's getting a bargain, and can
afford to reduce density to fit the neighborhood. He could still make money if the site were
developed as R-1.
L
It has been city policy to look not only at maximum densities allowed on a site, but at the site
itself to see if those densities need adjustment downwards. In my 8 years on the Planning
Commission we routinely adjusted downward densities on sites like this one. Here are the chief
characteristics of this site that suggest downward adjustment of density is needed:
• The unique hilly, wooded, historic, cultural landscape qualities of the site discussed already.
• The physical placement of the site so that it is an integral part of a stable single-family
neighborhood. Much has been made of the alleged fact this site is "surrounded" by high density,
but that is factual ONLY in a two-dimensional plan view. In three dimensions, this site is higher
than the Valencia development along Ramona or the Village, so from it one sees mainly
rooftops of the denser development below. (See photo of view from front -of -house axis.) The
elevation of the site places it in the neighborhood, not in the apartment district.
• The R-4 zoning of this site was an accommodation to the fraternity which required such zoning,
not an intent that this become super -dense apartments, and the city dropped the ball by not
downzoning the property when the fraternity use was declared over and done with by the City
Council.
• The city typically pays attention to adjacent development when there's a hard interface
between dense and low density zoning, adjusting the higher density edge to be compatible in
size and scale of development with the adjacent neighborhood. This has not been done here.
The bulky buildings intrude into the neighborhood along Luneta and Palomar.
• In this case, the proposed project is size -and -mass abusive to the neighborhood: a 4 -story
building along Palomar, approximately twice the height of the neighboring Valencia apartments
and on higher ground; bulky blocky buildings all over the site, coming to within 15 feet of Luneta
(smaller single family buildings must be set back at least 20 feet from the street right of way);
and an uncalled -out setback measure for the 4 -story building at Palomar which appears to be
less than 10 feet of setback — for this huge building!
• We have been told by staff they included for density calculation purposes the Valencia parking
lot downhill from this property, which is owned by this property but under permanent easement
to Valencia. Since this cannot be used by the applicant, it seems improper to count it when
calculating allowable density.
• The cramming of 150-170 salty exuberant students into this stable neighborhood creates
potential for radical disruption that would not take place if the complex were for neighborhood -
friendly families. The noise of traffic, partying, and the gym in the moved Sandford House (closer
to the neighborhood after being moved — have you ever heard of a gym without loud gyrating
music?) underscores the implausibility of this bulky project, just 15 feet from Luneta, not having
a detrimental effect on the neighborhood.5 The city needs to start protecting its workforce
neighborhoods, or you'll lose them all to student housing. Why would you want to do that?
5 If you want to see what happens to a stable neighborhood when the city sticks this sort of
project in it, go up one block on Luneta, and note the former nice family homes that are now
7
The ARC should mandate substantially less density, less bulk, substantially greater setbacks
from the streets.
The ARC should mandate greater attention to easing thisproject into the neighborhood of which
it is a part, to make a graceful transition rather than the abrupt and intrusive one that's
proposed.
The ARC should direct that the 4 -story building go away, and be limited to two stories like the
buildings iust down Palomar at Valencia. The setbacks along Palomar should be of single-family
dimensions.
To make a graceful transition. the ARC should require frontages facing Luneta be no more
dense than the single family zone allows..
If ARC establishes that the Valencia.parking lot was used in density calculation, it should direct
staff to recalculate maximum density.
Parking: The project is substantially under -parked. There are at present only 63 parking spaces
for guests and upwards of 150 student residents, almost all of whom will have cars because
almost all of our local students have cars. This is wrong. Parking should require realistic
numbers of spaces. Where will the 90 or more "excess" tenants' cars be parked? In the
neighborhood, that's where, and this isn't right. (Maybe in front of Patty Andreen's house — the
impact will be that great.) We don't want a city of unfriendly parking districts that make it difficult
for friends to come visit. Why should neighbors suffer from the city's drinking the modal shift cool
aid and reducing parking requirements ridiculously? We want the city to take responsibility for
the parking messes its development permitting creates, and require developers to provide the
parking their projects need. In this case, the need is pretty close to one parking space/one
resident.
If this p6plect remains student housing, the ARC should mandate parking sac for % of
plausible occupancy.
• The enclosed parking garage is a safety hazard, a potential sexual assault zone for female
residents. Eyes on the street is a better solution.
The ARC should direct elimination of an enclosed parking garage for safety reasons.
I hope these thoughts are of use to you.
Sincerely,
Richard Schmidt, Architect
rental slums because of the impact of the upper Valencia on that street. The city does this sort
of thing, and then wonders where our workforce housing has gone!
E:3