HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/3/2018 Item 2, Lopes
Goodwin, Heather
From:James Lopes <jameslopes@charter.net>
Sent:Sunday, December
To:Advisory Bodies
Subject:ARC Hearing: 1144 Chorro (Copeland/Jamestown) Comments
Attachments:Letter_ARC_12-3-18_1144Chorro_Hearing_Lopes.doc
Architectural Review Commission
City of San Luis Obispo
RE: Hearing on conceptual review of 1144 Chorro (Copeland/Jamestown)
Dear Chair Root and Commissioners,
Please read the attached letter before the hearing tomorrow on 1144 Chorro. I apologize for the lateness, but the time
is too short between report availability and your hearings to provide early actual analysis of City policies from their
standpoint and perspective. I hope that you will be able to read my comments so that my verbal ones will not be
entirely unexpected.
Sincerely,
James Lopes
--
James Lopes
Ph. 805-602-1365
1
1
912 Bluebell Way
San Luis Obispo, California 9340 1
December 2, 2018
Architectural Review Commission
City of San Luis Obispo, California 93401
RE: 1144 Chorro Street – Conceptual Review
Dear Chair Root and Commissioners:
I am asking you to find the p roposed six -story building inconsistent with the
Community Design Guidelines , or continue the hearing to ask staff for a detailed
analysis in reference to and defense of the guidelines .
The Historic Preservation Program Guidelines state that it is necessary for a project
to be consistent and conforming with the Downtown Historic District, which staff did
not identify. The requirement is presented as a “standard” or “shall” in wording,
rather than an option , as shown below :
City Historic Preservation Pro gram Guidelines:
3.1.1 Conformance with design standards. Construction in historic districts and on
properties that contain listed historic resources shall conform with the goals and
policies of the General Plan, the Historic Preservation Ordinance, thes e Guidelines,
the Community Design Guidelines , any applicable specific or area plan, and the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.”
(emphasis added)
3.2.1 Architecturally compatible development within Historic Districts. New
structures in historic districts shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with the
district’s prevailing historic character as measured by their consistency with the
scale, ...
City Community Design Guidelines:
3.1.B.1: Architec tural style: The project does not “preserve the historic flavor of
the community but, equally important, its scale and ambience.” The building is
massive compared to other buildings within the downtown C -D zone and historic
district.
3.1.B.2: Neighbo rhood Compatibility: The applicant only presents two examples
of massive architecture – the Masonic Temple and the Parking Garage. The garage
received major exceptions and concessions during its review, because it was a public
garage, with a landmark stat us. Landmarks are considered exceptional buildings
2
which are not intended to be replicated or repeated; they are meant to stand out as
exceptions to the overall character of an area. The building is much taller than the
roofline of the garage and the Tem ple. And, it is very much taller than the
surrounding buildings along Marsh Street and Chorro Street. The neighboring
Wineman Hotel building is at 47 feet only 62% of the proposed 75-foot height. The
Temple was built in the early 1900’s within an entirel y different culture and time
regarding urban design in California.
3.1.B.4: Form and Mass: The building does very little between the pedestrian level
and its size and height to relieve its extensive form and mass. It does not “provide a
sense of human scale and proportion.”
3.1.B.8: Entries: The project does not present entries which meet this guideline.
Entries are repetitive in form and materials, and they do not create any “architectural
focal point for the building.” The repeating “aluminum sto refronts” present the image
of a shopping center or mall. T he ground and second floor, where these elements
are critical, do not create interest, variety, focus, or integra te with the building’s
design.
3.1.B.10: Building Materials: The use of one bric k type and color, and minimal
articulation, will look thin and artificial and will not relieve the massing (size of the
wall planes). Brick is too consistent in material and color on the lower floors. The
stucco is too monotone on the upper floors. Fabric awnings are encouraged but are
not proposed.
3.1.B.12: Colors: The white stucco on the top two floors emphasizes these floors,
the reverse of the architect’s stated purpose – it does not recede since it’s bright. A
mid-tone color or hue is better. The use of white color on the top two floors calls
attention to them, but these floors should be more muted than the base color to
reduce the perceived height and scale.
3.1.C.1.b: Site Planning: The project is not designed with consideration of the
“architectural style, and the shape and massing of neighboring structures.”
3.1.C.3.b: Landscaping: On-site amenities are not proposed, although the existing
building has a setback for a bench. An on -site amenity such as described here
should be encouraged.
Downtown:
4.2.A: Street Orientation: The building fronts the inadequate sidewalk on Chorro
Street. The existing building has wider and longer setbacks than the proposal. The
building should be set behind a dedication for a wider sidewalk to me et the minimum
City standard, which I believe is 11-foot sidewalks in Downtown.
4.2.B: Height, Scale: The large -scale sections of roofline s convey the massive size
of the building, rather than present it as a segmented space which steps back its
massing from the street. Smaller -scale vertical and horizontal deep articulation and
reductions of partial floors would effectively reduce the bulk of the building to be
more in proportion with neighboring buildings.
3
This building exceeds the recommended limi t of three stories, without identifying any
corresponding community benefit except 25% of the units to be dedicated affordable
(approximately twice the City requirement). However, this offer leave s open the
likelihood that the remaining 75% of units will be extremely expensive at their market
rates. So, the benefit does not correspond to the extreme height proposal and
massing, and it is only one of three which must be acceptable to the City. By itself, it
does not very well qualify for the higher height at the very large massing and scale.
4.2.B.1: The height of the building does not “complement existing adjacent buildings
– it overwhelms them. The scale is almost unrelieved in its vertical massing, which
will overwhelm the existing character of build ings’ “human scale and proportion.”
4.2.B.2: The building will be “significantly taller than adjacent structures.” The
building does not show “a visual transition from the height of adjacent structures to
its higher portions.” Many examples of “stair -stepped” buildings are readily available
to show transitions in heights and building massing.
4.2.B.3: The building does not “fit within the existing vertical scale.” The building is
located at a very important street corner, and therefore it is incon sistent with the
guideline that, “A few taller, landmark buildings (about five stories or 75 feet) may be
developed where they will not obstruct views or sunlight for public spaces. These
taller buildings would be more appropriate at mid -block than at corners, and their
floors above the second or third should be set back to maintain a lower street façade.
The tall buildings should include publicly accessible, open viewing spaces at the
upper levels.” (emphasis added)
4.2.C: Façade Design: The storefront designs are very tall and urban, but without
interesting articulation in windows and entries, as well as materials, which are all the
same. Generally, storefronts in downtowns should be less than 25 feet wide, to
present columns or piers to frame windows and provide a series of bays that draw
pedestrian travel along the street. Wall surfaces at the street level should be more
interesting than higher elevations and not be “unbroken and monolithic.” Providing a
variety of wall materials, window framing ma terials and sizes and dimensions, and
recessed store entries, would be more consistent with this guideline and downtown
buildings.
Wall Surfaces. Wall massing should be more broken, varied and interesting, “rather
then unbroken and monolithic.” And, walls could be more articulated with cornice
lines at floors.
4.2.D: Materials and architectural details: The brick materials are very appropriate
and dignified, but they are monochromatic within the large wall planes. Changing the
massing as suggested above could also involve changes in brick colors and
materials or sizing, to indicate several buildings rather than just one large one.
Doorways should be consistent with this guidelines, and interesting entry materials,
motifs and fittings should be propose d to vary the character of the street façade.
Windows should be more traditional on the second floor and not present a modern
“loft’ appearance at this location. This presentation is not used well at the building at
Chorro and Higuera, as it presents a modern tinted window pattern at the heart of
historic downtown.
4
4.E: Public spaces, plazas and courtyards: There is no reason that a building of
this size should not present a usable public plaza along one or both street facades.
The same developer pre sented an interior plaza for the neighboring Downtown
Centre, and a seating setback in front of California Pizza Kitchen. An effective plaza
would be at least 400 square feet in one location. The Marsh Street façade continues
for 64 feet without any artic ulation to the right of the Lobby. That façade is an
excellent location for a small plaza or small shops.
The building does not set back the facades to respect shade trees along its
frontages. It is likely that existing trees would be sacrificed unles s something similar
to the Court Street frontage on Higuera Street were incorporated, along with the
recommended plaza and seating setbacks.
6.1.C: Lighting: Street lighting should be varied instead of the same along the
building frontages, to avoid th e “shopping center” appearance of the developer’s
Monterey Street project. Building lights are definitely needed along this shaded
Chorro Street.
6.1.D – G: Mechanical Equipment, etc. Concealment of all of the utilities,
mechanical equipment, trash and so on, should be done effectively away from the
sidewalk frontages, as proposed . To avoid the discouraging pedestrian gaps on the
applicant’s other projects, all service utilities etc, should be located within the rear
drive and not along the sidewalk fro ntages.
I spent several hours re viewing the project with the Community Design Guidelines in
the short few days between its availability and your hearing. It is my impression that
the planning staff have handed you an overwhelming prop osal without any critical
thinking or analysis of its consistency with City policies and guidelines. This is an
unfortunate situation within the development review process, and it may be the low
point of the recent Zoning amendments. Volunteer commissions and committees
deserve a professional view of project proposals from the staff, who are, I imagine,
supposed to stand for the City’s policies and review projects through their lenses.
Perhaps this has never been the case, but now is a good time to imagine how it
could be. I hope that you will agree that the Community Development Department
management should restore the past practices of serving your commission with very
explicit reviews within the staff reports.
Sincerely,
James Lopes
5
From the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines: