Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/13/2019 Item 2, Lopes Goodwin, Heather From:James Lopes <jameslopes@charter.net> Sent:Friday, February To:Advisory Bodies Cc:Bell, Kyle; Davidson, Doug Subject:PC Hearing item 2 - Conceptual Review of 1160 Laurel Lane Attachments:PC_2-13-19_Letter_Lopes_1160 Laurel Lane.pdf Dear Chair Fowler and Commissioners, Please read the attached review of the project at 1160 Laurel Lane. If you have any questions, please contact me. Thank you! James Lopes -- James Lopes Ph. 805-602-1365 1 James Lopes 912 Bluebell Way San Luis Obispo California 93401 February 8, 2019 Planning Commission City of San Luis Obispo RE: Conceptual Review of 1160 Laurel Lane Dear Chair Fowler and Commissioners: I applaud this urban proposal in a location where it makes great sense. I do have suggestions and comments to improve the proposal. Please consider this as a new city neighborhood rather than just a residential project. My comments reflect the book, The Smart Growth Manual which I distributed to your Commission last week. LAND USE CONSISTENCY – REZONING 1. The site is almost ideally located for high-density residences in a mixed use format. Train noise, for instance, may be a negative factor. The General Plan and Zoning should be changed to define this site as a long-term plan and a current allowance for intensive mixed-use living. I support appropriate changes to accommodate the applicant’s request for High Density (R-4) and Community Commercial (C-C) zoning. However, the entire site should have a mixed-use overlay, so that some areas of the R-4 zone may have live-work residences. 2. The density is not proposed expressly in the data sheet (see p. 14) or the project description. The staff report does not address the difference between the proposed 702 units with a density bonus, and the allowed 467 units by current zoning. The 35% density bonus which is allowed by the Density Bonus Law would yield only 632 units, not 702. It should be evident what is requested and how it is conforming to the Density Bonus Law at this time. 3. The 50-foot building height concession is warranted in this location. However, the developer is only offering the minimum number of nine percent affordable housing units. I suggest that the City offer a parking reduction and a financial incentive to produce at least 20 to 25 percent dedicated affordable units. If the premise is that the project will produce affordability by design, then committing more of these units to long-term contracts makes great sense. A financial incentive might be a contribution of City funds (from the in-lieu affordable James Lopes Conceptual Review of 1160 Laurel Lane 2 housing account) to processing or construction-related costs. An incentive would be an outstanding gesture that the Cit y is embarking on serious partnerships with affordable housing developers. 4. The LUCE update EIR estimated that 1.5 jobs might exist on average in San Luis Obispo residences. With 702 units, this project may then likely house over 1,000 employees. Why not plan the site to be more of an employment opportunity? Additional non-residential uses could be planned for the site beyond the ones fronting Laurel Lane. My suggestions below encourage an expansion of the mixed-use frontage into a block of live-work and small-scale retail environment behind it. However, parking should not be expanded for these uses, to encourage alternative transportation. This residential pattern requires a “flex space” at the ground frontage, as a commercial loft, designed as a potential service or commercial space. This pattern could be applied to the ground floor units on several of the mega-building frontages as well. SITE LAYOUT 1. The design does not retain the unique and valuable landscape around the site. The existing vegetation is an asset for future residents, such as to enjoy a linear park, picnic and game areas and a natural, mature urban forest. The forested edges would form a natural “sense of place” by terminating vistas and creating a sense of enclosure. The existing trees also are effective converters of carbon dioxide to oxygen. The planning should define the boundaries of these natural areas and the existing mature trees for keeping. The project should incorporate these edges for these purposes and capitalize on nature wherever possible. For instance, the proposed fitness trail is a straight path located about five feet from parked cars (see p. 53); it should be a curvilinear path avoiding tree removals in a wider park. 2. The building/parking placements do not accommodate pedestrian travel most conveniently. Perhaps the entire concept be altered to accommodate a central spine of travel, with mega-buildings on each side. Using the existing drives makes some sense, but this street pattern is inherited and not designed aesthetically. Focal points, terminated vistas, existing major trees, and traffic calming corners, deflections and slight curves should be planned to give spatial meaning to the street pattern. How 3. A neighborhood layout should be designed for pedestrians first, and then vehicles. The site should be conceptually divided into pedestrian-sheds, which show the shortest, convenient routes to the mixed -use shops, a community center and recreation centers. A pedestrian passage and vehicle route through the middle of the site is more traditional than proposed. Perhaps the mega - James Lopes Conceptual Review of 1160 Laurel Lane 3 buildings could be re-designed to parallel this central route to encourage more walking by direct route to the mixed uses and Laurel Lane. Most people will accept walking about one-quarter mile from home to a transit stop or stores. The site depth is one-and-a half this distance – (~ 1800 feet); it is about a quarter mile from the Laurel Lane to the drive between the two mega- buildings. The back mega-building is beyond this convenient distance, and this poses a problem. The mixed-use center at Laurel Lane could be extended to surround its parking structure (also turning it 90 degrees), so that its back edge would be mixed uses – live/work perhaps - at the connecting drive to Camden Lane. This street is about one-quarter mile from the rear property line. This back edge could be a two-sided shopping and work drive, where work spaces face both sides of the Camden Lane connector on the ground floor. These spaces could have more uses than were proposed, so that home industries, artist studios, tech and creative start-ups could be located in a casual, creative street. The current mixed-use block, with the parking structure turned ninety degrees and perhaps with an additional floor, could be completed and attract more pedestrians from the rear mega-building. However, this active shopping street might require redesigning the recreation facilities to be more encircled or bounded as a formal community center. 4. With a well-defined natural edge, and a full shopping/working block near Laurel Lane, the next essential concept is a clear center for the entire project, such as a more defined community building on the Camden Lane connector, or a spatially defined plaza or green square. These could add to the proposed recreation concepts. Moving the mixed-use mail lobby to this back street might be more enlivening for the mixed-use residents. 5. The total recreation and park areas should be 10 percent of the site area. Pocket parks should be located within a four-minute walk from each other in this very dense project. These parks are ground-level play and sitting areas usually one- quarter acre or less (10,600 square feet). A square or green should be at least a half acre to one acre to accommodate organized events and simple play activity, and open space enjoyment. 6. Building placement should be adjacent to and parallel with the drives and sidewalks, not at odd angles. Insets and variations might provide sitting or gathering spaces, but these might impede retail activity next to shops. 7. A corner market, maybe combined with a café, should be provided at the corner of the mixed-use front block, next to other retail spaces. This market can be James Lopes Conceptual Review of 1160 Laurel Lane 4 subsidized by the developer, just as a pool or clubhouse would be, since it is a community asset and marketing device for the project. STREETS – CIRCULATION – PARKING 1. The streets should be just that, not parking aisles. This project should have streets which are fully urban – with at least nine- to eleven-foot wide sidewalks in mixed-use corridors, street trees, bulb-outs at corners, and landscape planters and seating. Residential streets should have at least six-foot wide sidewalks – they should invite lots of walking. Space between buildings and the residential sidewalks should be planned, rather than wall-adjacent sidewalks. 2. Parallel parking should be planned on the drives, not straight-in spaces. Nine- or ten-foot travel lanes; seven- or eight-foot parking lanes = 32 to 36 foot widths, which will slow drivers’ speeds. Narrow drives separate with generous pedestrian edges and facilities, are needed to give more priority to safe driving and maximum pedestrian travel. 3. It makes some sense to retain Camden Lane as a separate street for neighboring residential projects. An entry from Camden into the project is very desirable, but it should be welcoming, and some other edge to Camden Lane should be provided than a wall, so that the neighborhoods open to each other. This project should blend with its neighbors. A separated pedestrian sidewalk along Camden Lane from Laurel Lane back to the Park Place condos would be in order, to attract walking from these neighborhoods. 4. An additional parking garage appears to be necessary, or a reduction should be offered by the City for the allowed parking. Since no reduction was sought, it makes sense to investigate the concept of a 25 to 50 percent reduction in parking. Downtown mixed-use projects are allowed a 50 percent reduction, for comparison. 5. A rear pedestrian connection, and perhaps even a street connection to the Sinsheimer Park, swim center and ballfield is possible and should be pursued vigorously. It should be easy to walk or bike directly to these facilities and the YMCA. Obvious linkages to the Railroad Safety Trail should also be planned. 6. A pedestrian passage through the mixed-use block could connect people from the community center mid-block and the street and transit stop. If one can be designed well through the parking garage, additional ones could be planned through the mega-buildings. James Lopes Conceptual Review of 1160 Laurel Lane 5 7. A pedestrian circulation plan should be designed to show better defined routes separate from parking lots with above-mentioned features. 8. Rear alleys should be planned for all townhouse rows, so that the homes face each other in linear park environments, with pocket parks and sitting areas. ARCHITECTURE 1. The reverse shed roof designs are thin and minimalist, as this trend is seen in recent projects. It may be a less expensive way to build ; however, the effects of this style on four and five-story buildings are not connected with our sense of place. The first proposal had a more elegant, urban and substantial architecture. It should be a reference which staff can provide for comparison. Many modern designs from the 1950’s onward are outstanding on office buildings in the Santa Rosa Street corridor, and the Monterey Street corridor outside downtown shows modern styles as well. The local building and materials vernacular should be incorporated to elevate our cultural heritage against media- driven styles in temporary trends. 2. The architectural vocabulary should be limited so that a strong image or sense of place is conveyed. Rather here than West L.A. or Santa Monica, so that this place is reinforced and connected to other destinations in San Luis Obispo. 3. The locations of noxious elements, such as trash enclosures, mechanical equipment, utility boxes and meters, and so on, should be carefully concealed from pedestrians and residents’ travel paths. They should be hidden in off-street locations. I hope that you have found some interesting points to discuss and weigh at the public hearing. It is unfortunate that a project such as this is not discussed in a workshop setting. I would appreciate if you agree with some of these points and encourage the additional work necessary to create a first-rate mixed-use neighborhood. Sincerely, James Lopes