Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-05-2018 Item 4 - Cooper To:SLO Architectural Review Commission and Rachel Cohen Re: San Luis Square From:Allan Cooper, Secretary Save Our Downtown Date:March 4, 2018 Honorable Chair Wynn and Commissioners - We commend the CHC and the ARC for their patience in fully articulating their concerns time and time again on this project. The applicant and architect appear reluctant to make changes. Nevertheless this project could be very close to approval with some very speciÐc design direction. We are urging you to require that along the upper Ñoors of the southwest side of the paseo there be step backs to allow some daylight penetration (this could be accomplished by eliminating some of the units from 570 and 581 closest to the Jack House as Chair Wynn suggested), that 590 Marsh Street incorporate a modest cornice along the lines of the applicantÈs previous iteration, that the black horizontal spandrels on 581 Higuera be painted white or a lighter color and placed Ñush with the facade, that some of the units from 570 and 581 closest to the Jack House be eliminated and that four units closest to the Jack House be reduced to the third Ñoor. And Ðnally, that public access to the rooftop deck be less convoluted. Our speciÐc comments in response to your concerns are below as well as our response to the applicantÈs Project Statement and Values and Vision for the Community. In this Project Statement, the applicant has earnestly endeavored to argue for taller buildings in our downtown. Therefore, at the very end of this letter, we are encouraging you to review our counterargument with speciÐc emphasis on overly tall buildings in the Downtown District. Thank you! CommissionÈs Consensus Items: All Buildings Project: Commission: ÅConsider opening up more space with the pedestrian connection, especially in the middle of the project." Sta: ÅThe design of the project provides a pedestrian connection between Marsh and Higuera Streets¼Æ Applicant: ÅThe applicant has not proposed a modiÐcation to the pedestrian connection. As designed, the applicant has expressed that the space within the pedestrian connection will be able accommodate circulation and the ground level activities of the paseo. The design, in part, is based on European towns, where the most active and interesting public spaces are the narrow streets and alleys with shops, restaurants and markets lining the way.Æ Response: Medieval European towns were dependent on natural light. The most delightful urban spaces in Europe are Ñooded with daylight no matter how narrow the streets may be. There should be step backs at the 3rd and 4th Ñoors along the southwest side of the paseo to allow some daylight to penetrate down to the second and ground Ñoor levels. The interior walls of the paseo should be predominantly light colored. Building at 590 Marsh Street: Commission: ÅThe corner glass facade treatment does not match the interior program/activity taking place within the structure. Corner should match downtown character: less glass, structured, not open.Æ Commission: ÅThe top of the three-story projections of the building should be evaluated for the potential inclusion of some architectural feature or cornice.Æ Applicant: żthe applicant expressed that any further cornice treatment would detract from the contemporary architectural character of the building. As such, a cornice has not been included in the revised plans.Æ Response: 590 Marsh Street had a modest cornice in a previous, very contemporary, iteration (see below)¼what is preventing from installing this same cornice now? Building at 581 Higuera Street: Commission: ÅRevise the stow-story windows in the structure so that they are more in scale with the structure and downtown architecture.Æ Applicant: ÅThe applicant would like to maintain the taller windows on this faade due to their function and orientation towards Cerro San Luis views. The project was designed to provide residential units that are daylight Ðlled, urban lofts with nearly Ñoor to ceiling windows similar to converted warehouse loft spaces. The applicant considered alternative designs yet have expressed that the architectural look and feel would be adversely aected by the re-design of this fenestration.Æ 66È - 0Æ TOP STAIRS 64È - 0Æ TOP OF ROOF 57È - 0Æ TOP OF ROOF 44È -0Æ F.F. 32È - 0Æ F.F. 20È - 0Æ F.F. 14È - 0Æ BOT OF CANOPY West Elevation East Elevation As seen from Higuera Street As seen from Marsh Street PREVIOUS ELEVATION West Elevation East Elevation As seen from Higuera Street As seen from Marsh Street REVISED ELEVATION Response: The black horizontal spandrels between the 2nd and 3rd Ñoors facing Higuera Street are recessive and emphasize the verticality of these window alcoves. There would be no Åloss of light into these urban loftsÆ as the applicant insists if the spandrels were instead painted white or a lighter color and were Ñush with the facade (see above). Commission: ÅAddress height and scale by setting back the entire fourth Ñoor of the structure and consider other modiÐcations to reduce the massing towards the Jack House property.Æ Applicant: ÅThe applicant has modiÐed the south and east fourth Ñoor elevations to step approximately 10 feet away from the third Ñoor. As a result, the project would have less massing at the upper Ñoor facing the Jack House property, giving the perception from the ground level of a three-story building.Æ Response: The applicant has set back only a portion of the fourth Ñoor (four studio units), not the Åentire fourth ÑoorÆ. Chair Wynn stated that Åcompromise should be made by eliminating some of the units from 570 and 581 closest to the Jack House. Four units closest to Jack House would be reduced to the third Ñoor.Æ Not mentioned in the sta report or the minutes was concern expressed by the ARC about access to the rooftop deck. Response: Access to this rooftop deck is convoluted and is not truly ÅpublicÆ. With regards to Sections 3.A.i.: ÅCityÈs Examples of Buildings Over 50 FeetÆ and 6.B.i: ÅDowntown Structures with Comparable HeightÆ in the San Luis Square Project Statement (updated February 2018): The Anderson Hotel was designed and built in the 20Ès and the PaciÐc Bell Company building was designed and built in the early 60Ès when there was no design oversight provided by the City whatsoever. The City freely ignored any design oversight provided by the ARC on the Palm Street Parking Garage because this was a City-Ðnanced project and providing parking was then considered an Åoverriding considerationÆ. The City had no design oversight on the County Government Center @ 1055 Monterey Street because the County was the lead agency and therefore beyond City purview. By the way, there was broad-based public engagement focussing on height discussions as part of the update to the Downtown Concept Plan. ÅPublic Workshop 1Æ, where there were approximately 75 participants, featured a Map 2 and the question posed on this map was ÅWhat I Like and What IÈd ChangeÆ. In general, the higher concentration of sad faces were placed on the County Building @ 1055 Monterey Street. Finally, the highest portions of Hotel Serra, Southtown 18, the Granada Hotel Expansion and Monterey Place do not impose on the surrounding sidewalks as they are either located in the center of the block or far back from the street. With regards to these tall buildings being designed to achieve multiple policy objectives, including design amenities, housing and retail land uses, these three Åcommunity beneÐtsÆ should not apply: Publicly accessible, open viewing spaces at the upper levels Response: Still not publicly accessible. Street level features such as a public plaza, public seating and/or public art Response: Where is the ÅplazaÆ? How small can a plaza be before it is no longer a plaza? Directly implements speciÐc and identiÐable City objectives, as set forth in the General Plan, the Conceptual Plan for the CityÈs Center, the Downtown Strategic Plan and other key policy documents Response: Claiming credit for conforming to the Downtown Concept Plan under ÅOther ObjectivesÆ is a form of double counting. In response to the applicantÈs San Luis Square Project Statement (updated February 2018) and more speciÐcally in response to Section 6: ÅEconomic Vitality and the Downtown ProjectsÆ, Save Our Downtown has its own values and vision for the community and particularly with regards to tall buildings in the Downtown District (please see below). Problems Relating to Increasing Building Heights in SLOÈs Downtown District Save Our Downtown March 4, 2018 We often cite the following aesthetic reason when arguing against taller buildings in downtown San Luis Obispo: ÅTall buildings will detract from SLOÈs unique small town charm and ambiance.Æ 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 CityÈs existing infrastructure with regards to Ñood mitigation and evacuation, Ðre abatement, disaster relief, trac 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 o-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 signiÐcance 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 Ðnancing 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 Ðnanced 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 oering 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 proÐtable 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 eort it takes to get outside. * Tall buildings will become socioeconomic silos, become vertical Ågated communitiesÆ, become dormitories for people with high-paying jobs and will displace or exclude, through gentriÐcation, lower income populations and families. * While density and public transportation options signiÐcantly reduce per capita Footprint, the increased auence 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 cityÈs Footprint. * Tall buildings are inherently inecient 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 dicult 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 wonÈt support. Tall buildings are an attempt to transform human nature in the name of ÅprogressÆ. 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 ÅWhite PaperÆ 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 IÈd Change Åin general, the higher concentration of sad faces were placed on¼County Building¼Æ 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 ¼should 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. OverÑow 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 dicult 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 trac gridlock and casting long shadows onto the City sidewalks.Æ World-renown architect Jan Gehl states the following: ÆI would say that anybody living over the Ðfth Ñoor 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 eects of high-rise residential buildings, the heat island eects 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 inÑuenced many New Urbanists, writes passionately in the recently released2nd Edition of the Charter of the New Urbanism bookthat buildings should have "an unsurpassable maximum of Ðve Ñoors - 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.