HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Resolution 8299 (Hillside Design Standards)RESOLUTION NO. 8299
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
ACCEPTING THE PROPOSAL FROM GERALD GAST AND DANIEL HILLMER
FOR PREPARATION OF HILLSIDE DESIGN STANDARDS
The City Council of the City of San Rafael finds and determines that:
WHEREAS, the City of San Rafael General Plan 2000 requires the preparation
of hillside site design standards; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and approved the Request for
Proposals for the preparation of the standards; and
WHEREAS, the firm of Gerald Gast and Daniel Hillmer, Urban Design and
Architecture, has submitted a proposal in the amount of $18,060 for the preparation
of the standards;
WHEREAS, the proposal has been reviewed and recommended for approval
by City staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council accepts the pro-
posal from Gast and Hillmer for the subject design standards, a copy of which is
attached hereto, marked Attachment "A:, and incorporated herein by reference.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is authorized to execute,
on behalf of the City of San Rafael, a Professional Services Agreement with Gast
and Hillmer for said project.
I, JEANNE M. LEONCINI, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that
the foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular
meeting of the Council of said City on Monday, the 19th day of November, 1990 by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryaz
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
JE . LEONC , City Clerk
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
r*
This agreement is made and entered into this s day of
1990, between the City of San Rafael, a Municipal
Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CITY") and Gerald Gast
and Daniel Hillmer, Urban Design and Architecture jHereinafter
referred to as "CONSULTANT").
A. RECITALS:
(i) CITY has heretofore issued its Request for Proposal pertaining
to the performance of professional services with respect to the
preparation of a full, true and correct- copy of which is attached
hereto as Exhibit "A" and by this reference made a part hereof.
(ii) CONSULTANT has now submitted its proposal for the
performance of such services, a full, true and correct copy of
which proposal is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and by this
reference made a part hereof.
(iii) CITY desires to retain CONSULTANT to perform professional
services necessary to render advice and assistance to CITY,
CITY'S Planning Commission, City Council and staff in the
preparation of Hillside Residential Design Standards.
(iv) CONSULTANT represents that it is qualified to perform such
services and is willing to perform such professional services as
hereinafter defined.
y;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between CITY and
CONSULTANT as follows:
B. AGREEMENT
1. DEFINITIONS: The following definitions shall apply to the
following terms, except where the context of this Agreement
otherwise requires:
(a) Protect: Preparation of Hillside Residential Design Standards
(b) Services: Such professional services as are necessary to be
performed by CONSULTANT in order to complete the
preparation of Hillside Design Standards for the City of San
Rafael which comply with professional standards and the
provisions of this Agreement.
(c) Commencement of Services: CONSULTANT agrees to
commence work on U /
(d) Completion of Services: The date of completion of all
phases of report preparation, including any and all
graphics, documents, meetings, oral presentation and
attendance by CONSULTANT at public hearings regarding
the design standards as set forth in the schedule attached as
Exhibit "C" and by reference m�_de a part hereof.
2. CONSULTANT AGREES AS FOLLOWS:
(a) CONSULTANT shall forthwith undertake and perforin such services
as necessary to complete preparation of Hillside Residential Design
Standards prepared in accordance with the provisions of the City's
Request for Proposal (Exhibit "A"), Consultant's Proposal to prepare
the Hillside Residential Design Standards (Exhibit "B") and in
accordance with Federal, State and City statutes, regulations,
ordinances and guidelines, all to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY.
(b) CONSULTANT shall supply copies of all reports, plans and
documents (hereinafter collectively referred to as "documents")
including all supplemental technical documents, as described in
Exhibits "A" and "B" to CITY within the time specified in Schedule,
Exhibit "C". Copies of the documents shall be in such numbers as
a-
are required by this Agreement. CITY may thereafter review and
forward to CONSULTANT comments regarding said documents and
CONSULTANT shall thereafter make such revisions to said
documents as are deemed necessary. CITY shall receive revised
documents in such form and in the quantities required by this
agreement. The time limits set forth pursuant to this Section B2.(b)
may be extended upon written approval of CITY.
(c) CONSULTANT shall, at CONSULTANT'S sole cost and expense,
secure and hire such other persons as may, in the opinion of
CONSULTANT, be necessary to comply with terms of this
Agreement. In the event any such other persons are retained by
CONSULTANT, CONSULTANT hereby warrants that such persons
shall be fully qualified to perform services required hereunder.
CONSULTANT further agrees that no subcontractor shall be
retained by CONSULTANT except upon the prior written approval
of CITY.
(d) CONSULTANT shall attend the following meetings and provide
qualified staff as specified:
3 Advisory Committee Meetings
1 Public Workshop
1 Design Review Board Meeting
1 Planning Commission Hearing
1 City Council Hearing
3. CITY AGREES AS FOLLOWS:
(a) IN consideration of CONSULTANT'S Agreement to perform well and
sufficiently and in a skillful and professional manner, the services
contemplated herein, CITY agrees to pay and CONSULTANT agrees to
accept as full payment for the preparation of the Hillside Residential
Design Standards, a total sum of $18,060.00 payable as follows:
(1) Twenty-five percent (25%) of Agreement value ( $4,515.00 )
within fifteen (15) days of the execution of Agreement by CITY and
CONSULTANT.
(2) Thirty percent (30%) of Agreement value ( $5,418.00 ) within
fifteen (15) days of Administrative Draft Hillside Residential
Design Standards to CITY by CONSULTANT.
(3) Thirty percent (30%) of Agreement value ( $5,418.00 ) within
fifteen (15) days of delivery and Planning Department approval of
the Draft Standards.
(4) Fifteen percent (15%) of Agreement value ( $2,709.00 ) within
fifteen (15) days of submittal and Planning Department approval
of Final Revised Standards and completion of CONSULTANT
services.
(b) Additional services: Payment for additional services requested, in
writing, by CITY, and not included in CONSULTANT'S proposal as set
forth in Exhibit "B" hereof, shall be paid on a reimbursement basis in
accordance with the fee schedule set forth in said Exhibit "B". Charges
for additional services shall be invoiced on a monthly basis and shall
be paid by CITY within a reasonable time after said invoices are
received by CITY.
4. CITY AGREES TO PROVIDE TO CONSULTANT:
(a) Information and assistance as set forth in Exhibit "A" hereto.
(b) Such information as is generally available from CITY files applicable to
the project.
(c) Assistance, if necessary, in obtaining information from other
governmental agencies and/or private parties. However, it shall be
CONSULTANT'S responsibility to make all initial contact with respect
to the gathering of such information.
5. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS:
All documents, originals, graphic exhibits and correspondence developed
or received during the course of the preparation of the Hillside Design
Standards shall become the property of the CITY.
6. STATUS:
CONSULTANT is an independent contractor and shall not be deemed,
directly or indirectly, to be an officer or employee of the CITY.
7. AFFILIATION:
No member or affiliate of the CONSULTANT or CONSULTANT team
shall be an employee during the length of this Agreement by an applicant
or any principal or affiliate of an applicant with an application being
processed by the City of San Rafael Planning Department.
8. TERMINATION:
(a) The CITY reserves the right to terminate this Agreement at any time
by providing 10 days written notification to the CONSULTANT.
Should said notification be received by the CONSULTANT, all work
under this Agreement shall terminate, except for what minor work is
requi: ed to provide the CITY with a clear understanding of work
completed and work remaining.
(b) City shall pay CONSULTANT all sums then due and unpaid under
this Agreement, including sums for work not completed, but in
preparation. Payment by CITY of such compensation shall be
considered full and final settlement for all work performed by the
CONSULTANT under this Agreement.
(c) Upon receipt of final payment, all materials and documents, whether
finished or not, shall be come the property of and shall be delivered to
the CITY.
(d) It is mutually understood and agreed that this Agreement shall be
binding upon the CITY and upon the CONSULTANT, their
successors, executors, or administrators. Neither this Agreement nor
any part thereof, nor any monies due or to become due under this
Agreement may be assigned by the CONSULTANT without the
written consent of the CITY.
9. NOTICES OF DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVES.:
Any and all notices, demands, invoices and written communications
between the parties hereto shall be addressed as set forth in this
paragraph 9. The below named individuals, furthermore, shall be those
persons primarily responsible for the performance by the parties under
this Agreement:
CITY: City of San. Rafael
Planning Department
1400 Fifth Avenue
San Rafael, CA 94915
CONSULTANT: Gerald Gast and Daniel Hillmer
Urban Design and Architecture
P. O. Box 6034
Ross, CA 94957
Any such notices, demands, invoices and written communications, by
mail, shall be deemed to have been received by the addressee forty-eight
(48) hours after deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage prepaid
and properly addressed as set forth above.
10. INSURANCE:
CONSULTANT shall neither commence work under this Agreement until it
has obtained all insurance required hereunder in a company or companies
acceptable to CITY nor shall CONSULTANT allow any subcontractor to
commence work on a subcontract until all insurance required of the
subcontractor has been obtained. CONSULTANT shall take out and maintain
at all times during the term of this Agreement the following policies of
insurance.
(a) Worker's Compensation Insurance: In the event CONSULTANT hires
any employees during the term of this agreement, CONSULTANT shall
furnish to CITY a certificate of insurance as proof that it has taken out
full Worker's Compensation Insurance for all persons whom it may
employ directly or through subcontractor in carrying out the work
specified herein, in accordance with the laws of the State of California.
CONSULTANT shall also provide CITY with an endorsement which
includes a waiver of subrogation against CITY.
(b) Public Liabilitv and Property Damage: Throughout the term of
this agreement, at CONSULTANT'S solo cost and expense,
CONSULTANT shall keep, or cause to be kept, in full force and effect, for
the mutual benefit of CITY and CONSULTANT, comprehensive, broad
form, general public liability and automobile insurance against claims
and liabilities for personal injury, death, or property damage arising
from CONSULTANT'S activities, providing protection of at least One
Million ($1,000,000.00) Dollars for bodily injury or death to any one
person or for any one accident or occurrence and at least One Million
($1,000,000.00) Dollars for property damage.
(c) General Insurance Requirements: All insurance required by express
provision of this Agreement shall be carried only in responsible
insurance companies licensed to do business in the State of California
and policies required under paragraph 10.(b) shall name as additional
insured CITY, its elected officials, officers, employees, and agents. All
policies shall contain language, to the extent obtainable, to the effect that:
(1) the insurer waives the right of subrogation against the CITY and
CITY'S elected officials, officers, employees, and agents; (2) the policies
are primary and noncontributing with any insurance that may be carried
by CITY; and (3) they cannot be cancelled or materially changed except
after thirty (30) days' notice by the insurer to CITY by certified mail.
CONSULTANT shall furnish CITY with copies of all policies promptly
upon receipt- of them, or certificate evidencing the insurance.
CONSULTANT may effect for its own account insurance not required
under this Agreement.
11. INDEMNIFICATION:
CONSULTANT shall defend, indemnify and save harmless CITY its
elected and appointed officials, officers, agents and employees, from all
liability from loss, damage or injury to persons or property, including the
payment by CONSULTANT of any and all legal costs and attorneys' fees,
in any manner arising out of or incidental to the performance by
CONSULTANT of this Agreement, including, but not limited to, all
consequential damages, to the maximum extent permitted by law.
Notwithstanding the above, the CONSULTANT shall not be required to
hold the City harmless from and against any suits arising out of the City's
implementation of the Hillside Residential Design Standards.
12. ASSIGNMENT:
No Assignment of this Agreement or of any part or obligation of
performance :,ereunder shall be made, either in whole or in part, by
CONSULTANT without the prior written consent of CITY.
13. GOVERNING LAW:
This Agreeinent shall be governed by and construed in accordance with
the laws of the State of CaliFornia.
14. ARBITRATION:
All claims or disputes between the CITY and the CONSULTANT relating
to this Agreement shall be decided by arbitration in accordance with the
rules of the American Arbitration Association, conducted in Marin
County under the laws of the State of California. The decision of the
arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties. In interpreting the
provisions of this Agreement, the arbitrator may make an award of costs
and fees, including attorney's fees necessitated by the arbitration.
15. ALTERATIONS:
This agreement may be modified, as necessary for the successful and
timely completion of the services to be provided. Any alteration or
variatior shall be expressed in writing, as an amendment to this
Agreement, and shall be approved by both parties.
16. ENTIRE AGREEMENT:
This Agreement supersedes any and all other agreements, either oral or in
writing, between the parties with respect to the subject matter therein.
Each party to this Agreement acknowledges that no representation by any
party which is not embodied herein nor any other agreement, statement,
or promise not contained in this Agreement shall be valid and binding.
Any modification of this Agreement shall be effective if it is in writing,
and signed by all parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as
of the day and year first set forth above:
ATTEST:
JE IiE M. LEODICi`NI, City Clerk C Clerk
I
------------------
CONSULTANT
4A GSL
City Manager, PAMELA J. NICOLAI
APPROVED AS TO FORM
ka- 3
City Attorney
f�
r 'c
EXHIBIT "A"
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS, 1-I11_LSIDE DESIGN STANDARDS
The City of San Rafael invites your firm to submit a proposal for the preparation of
Hillside Design Standards. $18,000 has been budgeted for this task.
Purpose:
The City of San Rafael General Plan 2000 requires the preparation of hillside site
design standards to implement residential design policies. These policies require
projects to be designed to recognize site constraints and resources. Specifically Policy
LU -34 of the Plan states :
Residential Site Design. Residential projects are to be designed to
recognize site constraints and resources. DesiLable design
techniques on hillside sites include clustering of units to minimize
grading impacts, to efficiently provide services, and to avoid
sensitive areas such as steeply sloping/hazardous hillsides, natural
drainage features, and highly visible slopes. Buffer zones between
development and sensitive IZabitat areas should be provided.
Adequate parking shall be provided onsite. New development
shall respect and enhance existing residential development through
appropriate building scale and design and quality building
materials.
Development of these standards is listed as a Priority 1 in the Plan. An interim
ordinance has been adopted to establish criteria for creation of new lots pending
adoption of the standards. This ordinance expires May 17, 1991 and may not be
extended.
Description of the Project:
The project consistF of the preparation of hillside development guidelines for single
family residences, multi -family development and subdivisions to address the
following concerns:
1. Visual - protection of views, from public areas adjacent to the site and
protection of hillsides as visual backdrops.
2. Environmental - protection of trees, sensitive or rare and endangered plants
and habitats, archaeological sites, natural drainageways, and other special site
features such as rock out croppings and landforms.
3. Hazards & Safety - identification of constraints such as geologic and fire
hazards, slope instability, and limited or steep access.
I'AGI" I
Based on slope and an analysis of these istiucs, appropriate densities for hillside
areas will be determined. The guidelines will also incorporate standards with
illustrations addressing appropriate architectural styles, building materials and
colors; building height, scale, bulk and setbacks; slope; lighting; landscaping; roads,
driveways and parking, grading and drainage; erosion control; and design
techniques, such as clustering. A list of materials and information required for an
application will be developed, including standards for grading plans.
The guidelines should address both development on existing vacant lots of records
and subdivisions. The City currently has approximately 15 large parcels and an
estimated 20-30 smaller parcels which can be subdivided. Development criteria
should recognize the varying environmental characteristics of these sites and
provide standards to be used to evaluate future development proposals.
The end product hill be a handbook which incorporates these development
guidelines and General flan design policies. The consultant will also provide
technical guidance to staff in preparing zoning and subdivision ordinance revisions
needed to implement the development standards and densities.
Proposals should outline specific approaches for addressing these issues and
demonstrate that the consultant has a thorough understanding of the project.
Proposed Time Frame:
1. October 10, 1990 - Consultant proposals due.
2. November 5, 1990 - City Council approval of consultant.
3. November 1990 - Consultant review/data collection/analysis
4. Second Week of November - Meeting Avilh Advisory Committee.
5. Mid -December - Progress report to Advisory Committee.
b. January 18, 1991 - Administrative draft documents submitted for staff/committee
review.
7. February 8, 1991 - Draft documents submitted.
8. February 11, 1991 - March 8, 1991 - Document printed, distributed, public
workshop, environmental review.
9. February 19, 1991 - Draft standards to Design Review Board
10. March 12, 1991 - Draft standards/ordinances to Planning Commission
11. April 1, 1991 - April 15, 1991 - Draft slandards/ordinances to City Council
12, May 15, 1991 - Ordinances would become effective. '
Proposed Consultant Work Tasks:
1. Review the Citi- General Plan, neighborhood plans, subdivision ordinance
and zoning orainance as they relate to design and hillside issues.
PAGE 2
2. Work closely with Planning Department staff and Advisory Committee in
preparing; the guidelines. Meet on occasion with other departments, such as
the Fire Department.
3. Prepare a progress report outlining recommended design approaches.
4. Prepare three copies of an administrative draft hillside development
,guidelines handbook.
5. Provide camera-ready copies of [lie drift hillside development handbook.
6. Provide technical guidance to staff in the preparation of associated zoning and
subdivision ordinance revisions.
7. Provide a staff representative to participate in the public review process at
three Advisory Committee meetings, a neighborhood Nvorkshop, a Design
Review Board workshop and hearings before the Planning Commission and
City Council.
S. Provide a camera-ready copy of [lie final hillside development guidelines
handbook which incorporate changes by the City Council.
Planning DepartmenUCity Staff Responsibilities:
1. Negotiate and prepare professional services contract.
2. Work closely Avith the consultant to provide information needed for the
preparation of the development standards.
3. Work as liaison between the consultant and city staff and officials.
4. Coordinate committee meetings, workshops and hearings.
5. Prepare zoning and subdivision ordinance revisions, the environmental
document and all legal notices.
6. Review administrative drift material.
7. Prepare staff reports for public hearings.
8. Copy and distribute the draft ordinances and hillside development standards.
Proposal Format:
Identify the tasks your firm will undertake in completing the proposed work
program. In addition, [lie following information should be included in the RFP:
1. Qualifications of your firm and your experience in preparing hillside design
guidelines anu' relevant ordinance revisions and in developing housing in
hillside areas. Include related reference/contact persons.
2. Itemize work lasks within the proposed budget. Breakdown costs by
individual tasks and provide estimated hours and rates for each person
participating.
3. The name of lie person who will be primarily responsible for overall
management of the project and the name and background of any other
person participating in the project.
4. A time schedule for performing all contract tasks.
PAGE 3
Selection Process:
Candidate proposals will be ranked by the Planning Department staff using the
following criteria and submitted to the City Council for final approval.
1. Creativity and technical approach.
2. Ability to perform the tasks as described.
3. Experience and etperlise.
4. Clarity and methodology.
5. Ability to complete the project in a timely manner.
6. Cost.
7. Interview.
Three copies of the proposal arc to be submitted to the San Rafael Planning
Department, San Rafael City Hall, 3rd Floor, 1400 FiW-i Avenue, no later than
October 10, 1990. Mailing address is: City of San Rafael, P. O. Box 151560, San Rafael,
CA 94915-1560. Direct your submittal and any questions to Sheila Delimont,
Principal Planner at 415-485-3035.
Attachments: Interim Subdivision Ordinance
Relevant General Plan policies
PAGE 4
EXHIBIT "Q"
Proposal for Professional Services
Preparation of Hillside Residential Design Standards
City of San Rafael
Gerald Gast and Daniel HdImer, Urban Design and Architecture
Proposal for Professional Services
Preparation of Hillside Residential Design Standards
City of San Rafael
Letter of Introduction
A. Approach and Key Issues ...................................... 1
B. Summary of Firm Qualifications ................................. 5
C. Experience Relevant to the San Rafiicl l lillside Design Standards ........ 9
D. Project Team Resumes........................................13
E. Work Program and Cost Proposal................................18
F. References..................................................7.3
G. Project Profiles..............................................2G
Proposal for Professional Services
Preparation of Hillside Residential Design Standards
City of San Rafael
Submitted By:
Gerald Gast and Daniel Hillmer
Urban Design and Architecture
300 Brannan Strect
Suite #201
San Francisca, California 94107
Telephone: 415-543-9585
Gerald Gast and Daniel Hillmer, AIA, Urban Design and Architecture -
Sheila Delimont, Principal Planner
City of San Rafael
1400 Fifth Avenue
P.O. Box 151560
San Rafael, California
94915-1560
October 5, 1990
We are very pleased to present our proposal to prepare the Hillside Residential
Design Standards for the City of San Rafael. The City has defined the project
scope clearly, and we understand that a strong set of hillside residential design
standards is critical to the preservation of San Rafael's setting and the strengthening
of its character with future development projects.
Our firm specializes in the preparation of design standards and guidelines for local
government. We have prepared design guidelines and development standards for
communities in both northern and southern California as well as Scottsdale,
Arizona. Most recently, we prepared:
— The County of San Diego's Design Review program including Design
Guidelines for seven separate communities. This work was initiated in
1985 and is being completed this year under three consecutive contracts
with the County. The Design Guidelines include comprehensive hillside
development standards for site planning, architecture and landscaping.
— Residential design standards for the City of San Clemente, California. We
are also the authors of the City's Urban Design Element of the General
Plan, which includes hillside development policies and the City's Design
Guidelines Handbook.
Closer to home, we have prepared design guidelines and development standards for
significant areas of Clayton (in Contra Costa County) and Daly City. We have also
worked recently with the City of San Mateo and the San Jose Redevelopment
Agency.
I believe the strong points of our qualifications and proposal are:
— Principal attention and personal service. Design guidelines and standards
are our specialty. We focus on a few projects at one time and are not dis-
tracted by a volume of other work. This enables the principals to give
A. Approach and Key Issues
Successful completion of the San Rafael Hillside Residential Design Standards will
depend on four critical areas of emphasis:
• The need to develop realistic yet imaginative design ideas that improve the
quality of the City's development, while preserving its rich natural features.
• The need to place importance on preservation of public views and natural
features, excellence in site design and strong planting principles.
• The process of working closely with the City Staff and Advisory Committee.
• The challenge of tailoring the Hillside Design Standards to the needs of the
City.
1. Design Principles
Design Standards are a means to a desired set of goals. The City has established
clear objectives in the General Plan for the design of residential projects and the
protection of the natural appearance of ridgelines, rounded hill forms and angled
slopes that surround and define the City. The Community Design maps in the
General Plan identify the sensitive areas.
The hillside residential design standards must be based on a shared vision of San
Rafael's future. San Rafael's hillsides are an important part of the City environ-
ment. The design of single and multi-family development should:
• Minimize grading impacts in the design of streets and lots.
• Have lot layouts that imaginatively derive from the form of the land.
• Have hillside buildings that are scaled and designed to complement hillside
character.
2. Importance of preserving natural features, quality site planning and
landscape.
The emphasis of the Hillside Design Standards should be on good site planning and
landscape principles: Thorough site analysis, preservation of natural features, care-
ful placement of buildings to preserve views from public areas adjacent to the sites,
protection of hillsides as visual backdrops, thoughtful organization of open space,
careful siting of parking areas and strong drought-tolerant planting requirements.
Although architectural considerations are important, the standards should avoid
being too detailed with regard to facade design, style or other elements which are
too subjective to review or go too far on restricting individual property rights. A
careful balance k -tween the standards and design flexibility should be maintained.
1
maximum personal attention to each project and client. Approximately 80%
of the work would be completed personally by principals Gast and Hillmer.
— Both principals are residents of Marin County communities adjacent to San
Rafael and are very familiar with the City of San Rafael. Mr. Hillmer is a
Planning Commissioner in the City of Larkspur and is active in the current
revision of that city's residential zoning ordinance.
— We are thoroughly familiar with approaches to development regulation. It is
important that an urban design consultant produce both imaginative ideas
and legally defensible standards and guidelines. We have authored design
standards and design review programs for other communities and won the
1986 San Diego Section APA "Outstanding Planning Project" Award for the
San Diego County Design Review Program.
m.
We have extensive experience working with citizen groups, through both
advisory committees and public workshops. We are comfortable with the
process of public participation and believe that when managed properly, it
produces a better result.
I believe we have the depth of experience and personal enthusiasm to serve the City
and its neighborhoods on this important assignment. We look forward to your
review of our experience and approach.
Sincerely,
T�1PJI/f' ;1111L
Daniel Hillmer, Principal.
3. Process
Our proposal organizes the Scope of Work into the following tasks that directly link
the consultant's work to meetings with City Staff and the Advisory Committee.
Task 1 Background Studies and Field Analysis
After a kick-off meeting with City Staff, the consultants will review the city's
General Plan, neighborhood plans, subdivision ordinance and zoning ordinance.
Review of topographical mapping and aerial photographs (provided by the City) of
hillside properties to be affected by lie standards will be done at this time.
We propose to have an introductory workshop with the Advisory Committee as part
of this task. This would allow for a productive discussion of issues and opportu-
nities at the beginning of the study.
In addition to the Advisory Comnuttee workshop, it is helpful to meet individually
with key City Staff (including fire Department and Police Department representa-
tives) and Advisory Committee members at the beginning of the project. We will
budget 2 days for these individual interviews, and have found this process helpful
to gain a perspective on the history and critical considerations of the issues under
study.
Originality, Communications and Graphics Quality
Our work in San Rafael would be based on a thorough field analysis of the City's
special characteristics, with the understanding gained through this analysis and
public input directly translating into an original set of design guidelines. The final
document should be clearly understood by property owners, developers, architects
and other professionals who design or build projects in the City, as well as by the
general public. We give a high level of effort to produce good, clear graphic illus-
tration. The sample products we have provided reflect our record in this area.
A thorough field analysis will be conducted that will include field notes from visits
to the vacant hillside sites, as well as photographs ol these properties. We under-
stand the controversy that often surrounds vacant hillside properties, especially
those that are considered neighborhood resources, and we will look at the sites to
fully understand the general opportunities and constraints of each. We propose that
a matrix be developed that would list the subject properties and document the
general environmental characteristics of each. This would help define the range of
issues and problems that are relevant to the group of selected sites, and help tailor
design standards to them.
The field analysis and evaluation of issues and options would be included as part of
a "Working Review Paper" to be distributed a week prior to the "Progress Report"
meeting with the Advisory Committee (Task 2).
2
Task 2 Progress Renort Meeting with Advisory Committee
With time allowed prior to the "Progress Report" meeting to digest the Working
Review Paper, The Advisory Committee will be equipped to discuss and agree
upon important issues and options.
The Progress Report Meeting should focus on building consensus on the issues and
giving clear- direction to the consultant for the preparation of the Draft Standards
Handbook.
Task 3 "Screen" Draft Prenaration
The Consultant will prepare detailed and illustrated hillside residential design
standards and recommendations for zoning and subdivision ordinance revisions.
"Screen" Draft document is prepared for staff review.
It is our experience that the first or "Screen" Draft of the final standards handbook
should be as complete as possible in order to "shake out" any possible controversial
issues early on in the process. By getting all ideas on the table at this stage, we can
minimize conflicts in the future. A possible table of contents for the "Screen" Draft
is shown in part E. "Work Program".
Task 4 Draft Standards Review. Advisory Committee Meeting and
Public Workshop
One Consultant will meet with City staff to receive comments on "Screen" Draft
standards.
Consultant will then meet with Advisory Committee and receive committee
comments on "Screen Draft" Standards.
Consultant participates in neighborhood workshop to present Draft Standards and
receive public comments.
Tlie Consultant will participate in a Design Review Board Workshop to review the
Draft Standards.
Task 5 Draft Standards Revision
The Consultant will make revisions to the Draft Hillside Residential Standards
based on Staff, Advisory Committee, public and Design Review Board comments.
Task 6 Planning Commission and Citv Council Reviews
The Consultant will make one presentation each to the Planning Commission and
City Council.
3
Task 7 Final Revis.,jns and Submittal
The Consultant will prepare a final set of revisions and issue the final document,
incorporating revisions made by City Council.
4. Key Issues in the Site Design of Hillside Sites
• Visibility
Many of the larger vacant hillside sites that are of concern are highly visible
from Highway 101 and from disuuit locations. The development that will occur
on these sites will affect the City's natural setting.
• Infill Sites in Existing Neighborhoods
Other smaller sites, some for single family residential development, are within
developed neighborhoods and are considereu neighborhood visual resources.
Views of the sites from within the immediate neighborhood and from nearby
off-site locations should be given design consideration.
• Site Coverage
The question of what is appropriate housing density, especially for the large
sites that can be subdivided, will be of great concern to neighborhood groups,
the City and property owners. The process of determining acceptable site
coverages will require looking at a range of options and discussing positive and
negative attributes of each. This study will create a process with specific
evaluation criteria to determine hillside development density of sites throughout
the City.
• Architecture — Scale and Character
Primary considerations include to what extent buildings and building groupings
should follow with the natural topography and be sited to minimize or eliminate
high retaining walls, "pony walls" and extensive cut and fill. Other
considerations such as building heights, setbacks, scale, limitations on building
bulk, materials and lighting will require intensive study in relationship to the
natural setting, geologic soil stability constraints and existing neighborhood
development.
• Planting Design for Hillsides
Landscape design for the planting of hillside slopes should address:
— How can the impact of grading, retaining walls, buildings, roads and parking
areas be softened through the use of plant materials?
— The fire resistance, drought tolerant and erosion control characteristics of
selected plant materials.
— What planting patterns reinforce the natural appearance of various landforms?
See aI=Ched LL'ttcr of Addendum to the contr.Ict.
M
B. Summary of Finn Qualifications
GERALD GAST and DANIEL HILLMER, URBAN DESIGN and ARCHITEC-
TURE, is a firm specializing in urban design and design standards for local govern-
ment. Since its founding in 1978, tiie firm has completed projects for public and
private clients in California and the Southwest. Our principal office is in San
Francisco with a branch office in San Diego.
Gerald Gast, principal, is an architect and urban designer who specializes in design
guidelines and development planning. He was principal -in -charge of the Project
First Class Urban Design Study for the City of San Diego, The San Clemente
Urban Design Element, and Design Guidelines and Residential Design Standards
for twelve cities, all of which included preparation of hillside development policy
and standards. Mr. Gast teaches two urban design courses at Stanford University
and is a resident of Marin County.
Daniel Hillmer, principal, is an architect and urban designer who specializes in
design guidelines and development standards. He is currently principal -in -charge
of the Design Guidelines Manuals for the San Diego County communities of
Bonsall and Sweetwater, both of which included hillside development design stan-
dards. Mr. Hillmer is a resident of Larkspur, California and sits on the Larkspur
Planning Commission. I -Ie is currently involved in the revision of the Larkspur
residential zoning ordinance, a part of which focuses on hillside design standards.
The firm has special strength in projects where effective working relationships with
multi-party interests are essential. We normally work with a plurality of public
offices, commissions, private interests and community representatives, all of whom
who must reach consensus to successfully accomplish a project. We arc
experienced at planning in the context of working partnerships between public and
private development entities, knowledgeable of the concerns and responsibilities of
each. Our approach combines a rigorous and imaginative work process, a
commitment to design excellence and the highest personal attention to the sponsor-
ing client.
The best evidence of the firm's attention to clients and commitment to quality is its
record of repeat clients during the past four years:
For the City of San Diego, we prepared the County's pilot program of Design
Guidelines fo::maller communities. The firm was awarded three competitive
contracts between 1985 and 1989 to prepare comprehensive design standards
and guidelines for a total of seven communities in the County. The program
was recognized with an "Outstanding Planning Project" award by the San Diego
Section, American Planning Association.
• Also for the County of San Diego, Gast-Hillmer was commissioned to prepare
the Master Plan for expansion of the historic County Administration Center on
the harborfront. The Board of Supervisors unanimously approved the recom-
mended plan in lune, 1989, and the firm is now continuing more detailed
.J
design studies. The County Administration Center Master Plan received the
"Outstanding Planning Project" award of the San Diego Section, American
Planning Association, in 1990.
• For the City of Scottsdale, Arizona, the firm completed the Downtown Urban
Design and Architectural Guidelines in 1986. We were subsequently selected
by the City in 1987 as part of a team to design the Fifth Avenue Public Spaces
and Streetscape program for a ley part of the Downtown.
• For the City of San Diego, the firm authored the Project first Class Urban
Design Study, a comprehensive revitalization program for twelve neighbor-
hoods, some of which are hillside areas of the city. In a subsequent project for
the City, we prepared the redevelopment Master Plan for the 14 acre city -owned
former Sears Site in the Hillcrest neighborhood. After a 6 -month process of
close work with neighborhood representatives, adjacent property owners and
the City, the plan resulted in a $70 million mixed-use residential and retail
development that is sensitive to the neighborhood context. The project was
completed in January 1990, and is featured in the June 1990 edition of Urban
Land, Journal of the Urban Land Institute.
SWEETIJATEP, VALLEY DESIGN GUIDELINES AND HILLSIDE STANDARDS
Gerald Gast and Daniel Hillmer, Urban Design and Architectue
Recent Projects and Clients
Indicates project for which Gast-Hillmer was prime contractor or lead film.
. San Diego County Government Center Master Plan, 1988-90 (current).
Client: County of San Diego, Chief Administrator's Office of Special Projects
and Williwns-Kuebelbeck and Associates, Inc., Real Estate Economic Consultants
Project First Class Urban Design Program
Comprehensive urban design program for 17 square miles of the city along new light rail corridor.
Client: City of San Diego, California and Southeast Economic Development Corporation. 1985.
San Diego County Properties Study.
Long-range facilities study for all County administrative, courts and operations functions. 1989-1992
tinder a 3 -year contract.
Client: County of San Diego, Chief Administrator's Office of Special Projects
and Williams-Kuebelbeck and Associairs, Inc.
. Downtown Scottsdale Urban Design Guidelines
Client: City of Scottsdale, Arizona. 1986.
Fifth Avenue Public Spaces Plan. 1987-88
Client: City of Scottsdale, Arizon i and Sydnor Architects, Phoenix.
Scottsdale Memorial Health Systems
Master Plan for the Downtown Campus. 1989.
Client: Sydnor Architects and Scottsdale Memorial Health Systems.
San Jose School Sites Redevelopment
Development feasibility studies for two Downtown School District properties. 1989.
Client: Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Jose
and
San Jose Unified School District
.
San Cleme-ite Urban Design Element of die General Plan and Citywide Design Guidelines. 1989-1990
(current).
Client: City of San Clemente, California.
. Mission Street Revitali7ation and Urban Design Plan. 1989-1990.
Client: City of Daly City, California.
Orange Economic Development Study - Old Town Area.
Urban Design and Revitalization Plan. 1988,
Client: Redevelopment Agency of the City of Orange, California
and Williams-Kuebelbeck and Associates, Inc.
. "Uptown District" Redevelopment Master Plan. Construction completed 1989.
Mixed use retail and residential development of 13 acres on former Sears site ($70 million).
Client: City of San Diego
. Downtown Redlands Master Action Plan and Specific Plan. 1987-90 (current).
Client: Redlands Redevelopment Agency. City of Redlands, California.
Downtown Clayton Specific Plan
Urban Design Plan and Design Guidelines. 1988-89.
Client: City of Clayton, California and Knox Associates.
. San Diego County Design Guidelines. 1985-86, 1988 and 1989-1990 (three contracts).
Communities of Valley Center, Alpine, 1=allbrook, Ramona, Lakeside, Sweetwater and Bonsall.
Client: County of San Diego. Department of Planning and Land Use.
• City of Dana Point. General Plan Urban Design Element and Citywidc Design Guidelines. 1990-1991
(current).
Client: City of Dana Point and Cotton/Beland Associates.
• City of Huntington Park. General Plan Urban Design Element and Design Guidelines. 1990-1991
(current).
Client: City of Huntington Park and Cotton/Beland Associates.
County of Stanislaus Properties Studies.
Development feasibility analysis for five County -owned sites. 1990.
Client: County of Stanislaus and Williams-Kuebelbeck and Associates.
Urban Design Platt. Naval Air Station Moffett Field, California. 1984.
Client: U.S. Navy Facilities Engineering Command. San Bruno, California.
Los Angeles County Transportation District Properties Study.
Hawthorne Station -Main Yard study for the new Norwalk -El Segundo light rail transit project.
1988-89.
Client: Los Angeles County Transportation District and Williams-Kuebelbeck and Associates, Inc.
C. Experience Relevant to the San Rafael Hillside
Desi(�rn Standards
The following projects by Gerald Gast and Daniel Hillmer are listed as most
relevant to the Safi Rafael Assignment:
1. San Diego County Design Guidelines and Design Review Program
Client: County of San Diego
Department of Planning and Land Use
Reference: John Desch, AIA, Design Review Administrator
(619) 694-3275
In 1985, Gast-Hillmer was commissioned by the County of San Diego to
prepare the County's pilot program of design guidelines and design review for
smaller communities. Community design plans and guidelines were first
prepared for the Valley Center and Alpine Areas. The objective of the plans
was to create specific design and development policies tailored to the individual
character of each community. The process used during the studies, which
included workshops and detailed community review of draft guidelines, was
developed as a model to prepare similar plans for other communities in the
county. In 1988, Gast-Hillmer was selected to prepare design plans and guide-
lines for three additional communities — Fallbrook, Lakeside and Ramona. In
1989, Gast-Hillmer was again selected in a competitive process to prepare
design guidelines for the communities of Bonsall and Sweetwater. The Valley
Center plan and Design Review Program was recognized with an "Outstanding
Planning Project" award from the San Diego Section, American Planning Asso-
ciation, and the American Society of Landscape Architects. The first five pro-
grams have all been implemented by the County Planning conunission and by
the Board of Supervisors. The Bonsall and Sweetwater Programs are
scheduled for adoption in early 1991.
{.•';'r':•tiri%tCt�i�•ih�''.: •�1SS`r' . 1tt. 13•�i" . ���`*�a�s�•+��.'-�".+��'',�'-h:4;1'';E :;~'���IJ..
q AGA
' ::�p} iii �,�, :K•y _ �.. �_-'`�:_�'-��-�,";-•: ..,
SWEEIWATIR VALLEY DESIGN GUIDELINES AND HILLSIDE STANDARDS
9
2. Project First Class Urban Design Program
Client: City of San Diego
Reference: Michael Stepner, City Architect or
Paul D. Curcio, AIA, Urban Design Director, City of San Diego
(619)533-4518
Project First Class is a comprehensive urban design program for twelve
residential neighborhoods of the City. The project was completed over a 10 -
month period with extensive community participation. Provisions of the design
program included:
Development guidelines to protect existing natural features, including
sensitive hillsides and floodplains, were prepared. Issues included preser-
vation of hillside forms and vegetation, design guidelines for building form
that reduce the visual impact of hillside development, design standards for
planting and grading, and requirements for clustering of residential
development.
• Revitalization plans, development standards and design guidelines for
neighborhood business districts, including the preparation of new zoning
provisions and development guidelines.
• Strong conservation measures and design guidelines to preserve three
historic neighborhoods (Golden Hill, Sherman, Logan Heights).
• Design standards for public improvements — streets, sidewalks, lighting and
landscaping — to provide continuity between new private developments.
• Implementation of a $1,500,000 landscape improvement program to
improve the character of major thoroughfares.
ki(Ow5s-V v\C�teDwxT-� a -V
P-lM p,R-E-P•
10
3. General Plan Urban Design Elements for the Cities of San Clemente
and Dana Point.
Reference: James Barnes, Planning Director
City of San Clemente
(714) 498-2533
In two separate projects for the neighboring cities of San Clemente and Dana
Point in Orange County, Gast-Hillmer is preparing Urban Design Elements for
the cities' General Plans and comprehensive Design Guidelines.
Both projects address critical hillside development issues in the new inland
areas and older coastal neighborhoods. Both cities have suffered from insensi-
tive hillside projects where mass grading was used excessively and inadequate
landscaping standards applied. Design standards and guidelines being prepared
emphasize minimizing grading and removal of existing natural features; align-
ment of street and lot layout according to topography (avoiding standardized
lots); landscaping for erosion control, minimum water use and fire prevention;
building massing and design to create low visual profiles and preserve views.
Both projects involve extensive public participation and review.
ILLUSTRATIAT DRAWINGS
Building with height,
following Development
Downhill Slope Lot
11
4. Downtown Scottsdale Urban Design and Architectural Guidelines
Client: City of Scottsdale
Reference: William King, General Manager
Department of Planning and Zoning
(602)994-2322
A comprehensive set of urban design and architectural guidelines were prepared
for Scottsdale's 2 mile x 1 mile Downtown area. The guidelines serve as
criteria for design review of all Downtown projects by the City's Development
Review Board, describing important urban design, site planning and architec-
tural principles to create a consistent Downtown development pattern and
integrate new development with older districts. The emphasis of the guidelines
is in strengthening Downtown's pedestrian orientation, fine-grain building
character, and southwestern regional architecture, all of which combine to make
Downtown Scottsdale unique to die mctropolitan Phoenix area.
The guidelines are organized in a general section that applies to all development,
and in special sections addressed to the specific character of five Downtown
districts. The project was conducted with extensive participation by civic
leaders, Chamber of Commerce representatives, City staff and general public.
Since the C,iidelines were adopted by City Council in 1986, approximately $75
million of new downtown development has been completed or is in progress.
'k CAI to
rye--• .S '� • ' y.s , .iv�.,� J � .,
am
COUPLET SECTION AT SCOTTSDALE ROAD
12
I�. Project Team Resumes
13
GERALD GAST, Principal.
Background Gerald Gast, architect and urban designer, established his practice in 1978 and has
since completed a diversity of' urban design, business district revitalization and
redevelopment projects in California and Arizona. For the past eight years, he has
taught at Stanford University, where he is Lecturer in Urban Studies and directs the
University's two core courses in Urban Design.
Teaching Stanford University. Courses in Urban Design, 1982 -present.
Professional Registered Architect, California
Registration
Professional MemLxr, American Planning Association.
AfCtliations A-;ociate Member, The Urban Land Institute.
Member, National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials.
Member, California Redevelopment Association.
Education University of Illinois, Urbana.
Master of Architecture in Urban Design.
Jachelor of Architecture (H. Hons.).
Representative Project First Class Urbt._t Design Program
Projects, Client: City of San Diego and Southeast Economic Development Corporation
Principal -in -
Charge Uptown District Redevelopment Master Plan
Client: City of San Diego
San Diego County Govrmmcnt Center Master Plan
Client: County of San Diego, Chief Administrator's Office and Williams-
Kuebelbeck and Associates, Inc.
San Clemente Urban Design Element of die General Plwt and Citywide Design
Guidelines
Client: City of San Clemente, California
Downtown Scottsdale Urban Design Guidelines
Client: City of Scottsdale, Arizona
Downtown Public Spaces Design - Fifth Avenue District
Client: City of Scottsdale, Arizona and Sydnor Architects
Downtown Redlands Master Action Plan and Specific Plan
Client: Redlands Redevelopment Agency
City of Redlands, California
San Jose School Sites Redevelopment
Client: The Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Jose
and
Sari Jose Unified School District
Mission Street Revitalization and Urban Design Plan
Client: City of Daly City, California
1,+
Dana Point Urban Design Element of the General Plan and Citywide Design
Guidelines.
Client: City of Dana Point and CottonBeland Associates
Huntington Park Urban Design Element of the Genera Plan and Citywide Design
Guidelines.
Client: City of Huntington Park and Cotton/Beland Associates
Orange Economic Development Study - Old Town Revitalization
Client: Redevelopment Agency of the City of Orange, California and Williams-
Kuebelbcck and Associates.
Downtown Clayton Specific Plan -Urban Design Component
Client: City of Clayton, California and Knox Associates
San Diego County Design Guidelines - Communities of Valley Center, Fallbrook.
Alpine, Ramona, Lakeside, Sweetwater and Bonsall.
Client: County of San Diego, Department of Planning and Land Use
Urban Design Plan. Naval Air Station Moffett Field, California
Client: U.S. Navy Facilities Engineering Command
Downtown ML Vernon Development Program
Client: City of ML Vernon, Illinois and Downtown Mt. Vernon Development
Corporation
Awards American Planning Association, San Diego Chapter, "Outstanding Planning Proj-
and ect": Award for San Diego County Design Guidelines, 1986.
Lectures American Planning Assoc iabon, San Diego Chapter, "Outstanding Planning Project"
Award for San Diego County Administration Center Master Plan, 1990.
Milwaukee, Wisconsin Downtown Lakefront. National Urban Design Competi-
tion, 1980. Honor Award.
Lafayette Square. St. Louis, Missouri. National Design Competition, 1982. Project
selected for exhibit at St. Louis Old Courthouse.
Speaker and panelist, California Chapter of the American Planning Association,
1987 State Convention, Session on Urban Design.
Speaker, Arizona Chapter of American Planning Association, 1986 State Confer-
ence, Program on Urban Design.
Speaker, San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association, Presentations
on South Beach Redevelopment and School Site Redevelopment.
15
DANIEL HILLMER, Principal.
Background Daniel Hillmer is an architect and urban designer with twelve years experience in
public planning and private development projects. I lis most recent work includes
the Downtown Clayton Specific Plan, the San Diego County Government Center
MasterPlan, Daly City Mission StreetReviWiation Plan and City of San Clemente
Design Guidelines.
Professiomd Registered Architect, California
Registration Certificate of the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards.
Teaching; Stanford University, Guest Lecturer in Urban Design.
Education University of Illinois, Urbana.
Master of Architecture in Design.
Bachelor of Architecture.
Representative San Diego County Government Center Master Plan
Urban Design Client: County of San Diego
Projects
San Diego County Design Guidelines: Communities of Bonsall and Sweetwater.
Client: County of San Diego
San Diego County Kearny Mesa Properties Study
Client: County of San Diego
San Clemente Urban Design Element of the General Plan and Design Guidelines.
Client: City of San Clemente, California
Downtown Clayton Specific Plan and Design Guidelines.
Client: City of Clayton, California
Downtown Scottsdale Urban Design Guidelines
Urban Designer with Gerald Gast
Client: City of Scottsdale, Arizona
Dana Point Urban Design Element of the General Plan and Citywide Design
guidelines.
Client: City of Dana Point and Cotton/Beland Associates
Huntington Park Urban Design Element of the General Plan and Citywide Design
Guidelines.
Client: City of Huntington Park and Cotton/Beland Associates
Mission Street Revitalization and Urban Design Plan
Client: City of Daly City
Urban Design Plan. Naval Air Station Moffett Field, California
Client: U.S. Navy Facilities Engineering Command
The Waterfront at Berkeley, California
Urban Designer for H-11 Goodhue Haisley & Barker
Client: Santa Fe Land Improvement Co.
16
Architectural Pine St. Plaza, Downtown San Francisco, California
Projects Client: M & T Inc., San Fran-isco and Portland
Principal
in Charge Smith Farm, Tidelands Nature Preserve, Moss Beach, California
Client: P.P. Smith, San Francisco, California
17
Master Plan and Phase I Winery
Scharffenberger Cellars, Philo, California
Client: John Scharffenberger, Booneville, California
Architectural
San Jose State University Recreation and Events Center
Projects
Architect with HGHB
Project
Clicnt: San Jose State University
Designer
Modesto Downtown Community Center Complex:
Exhibition Hall, Theater, Offices and Park
Architect with HGHB
Client: City of Modesto, California
Lanham Housing Redevelopment. Marin County, California
Architect with George Banning Associates
Client: Marin Ecumenical Housing Association
Awards
American Planning Association, San Diego Chapter,"Outstanding Planning Project"
Award for San Diego County Administration Center Master Plan, 1990.
Milwaukee, Wisconsin Downtown Lakefront. National Urban Design Competi-
tion, 1980. Honor Award.
Lafayette Square. St. Louis, Missouri. National Design Competition, 1982. Project
selected for exhibit at St. Louis Old Courthouse.
17
E. Work Prouam and Cost Proposal
The Work Program is organized in seven sequential Tasks.
Task 1 Background Studies
Task 2 Progress Report Meeting
Task 3 "Screen" Draft
Task 4 Draft Standards Review, Advisory Committee Meeting and
Public Workshop
Task 5 Draft Standards Revision
Task 6 Planning Commission and City Council Reviews
Task 7 Final Revisions and Submittal of Handbook
Task I Back,_,round Studies
1.1 Hold kick-off meeting with City Staff to finalize work program and key
due dates. Consultant presents diagram of process and schedule.
1.2 Review documents. The consultant reviews relevant City documents:
General Plan, Neighborhood Plans, Subdivision Ordinance, Zoning
Ordinance, Design Review Guidelines, other pertinent technical informa-
tion such as topographical maps of the City, aerial photographs and
identification and mapping of potential hillside development areas and
subject hillside sites. All documents are to be provided by the City.
1.3 Field Analysis. Consultant performs thorough field analysis of study
areas to record opportunities, constraints and existing conditions. All
subject hillside sites identified by the City will be visited, and photo-
graphed. A Site Analysis Matrix will be prepared that will list the sites
and their general environmental characteristics as a group or categorized
groups.
1.4 Introductory workshop with Advisory Committee. The Workshop goal is
to describe the studyprocess and objectives to the Committee and solicit
committee members opinions on the key issues.
1.5 Individual Interviews. Consultant will schedule individual interviews
with key City Staff (including Fire Department and Police Department
representatives), and Advisory Committee members.
1.6 Progress Report. Consultant prepares a Working Review Paper to
summarize field analysis, issues, opportunities and constraints. The
Working Review Paper is to be distributed a week prior to the "Progress
18
Report" meeting with the Advisory Committee (Task 2).
The Working Review PaF-r will summarize:
— A general analysis of major development issues on the subject hillside
sites identified by the City.
— Design principles and options for subdivision layout in order to
minimize impact on hillside sites.
— Options for establishiag appropriate densities based on slope and lot
area.
— Options for measuring building heights for hillside sites.
— Options for limiting the maximum building envelope, to avoid
excessive bulk.
Task 2 Progress Report Meeting with Advisory Committee
2.1 Consultant meets with City Staff to discuss Working Review Paper.
2.2 Consultant makes slide -illustrated presentation summarizing Background
Studies to the Advisory Committee.
The goal of the Progress Report Meeting would be to discuss key issues
and options with the content of the Working Review Paper as the focus.
2.3 The City staff and each Committee member will be asked for written
comments on the Working Review Paper.
Task 3 "Screen" Draft Preoamtion
Consultant prepares detailed and illustrated hillside residential design standards and
recommendations for zoning and subdivision ordinance revisions. "Screen" Draft
document is prepared for staff review.
The content of the "Screen" Draft would include:
• A description of the Site Design Process and Development Requirements.
• Guidelines for the Protection of Natural Features.
• Principles of Subdivision Layout.
• Site Planning Principles for Sipgle and Multi -Family Residential Develop-
ment including Residential Clustering.
• Off Street Parking Areas, Streets and Walkways.
• Grading and Drainage, with an awareness of Geological Hazards and
Safety.
Siting of Buildings.
• Architectural Scale and Character.
• Planting Design of Hillside Sites.
• Site Lighting.
• Recommendations for Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Requirements.
Submittal Requirements.
19
Task 4 Draft tndards Review, Advisory Cmr ee Meeting and
Public Workshop -
4.1 Consultant sleets with City staff to receive comments on "Screen" Draft
Sta idards.
4.2 Consultant nlee(s wit's Advisory Committee and receives comnuttee
cotnments on "Screen Draft" Suutdards.
4.3 Consultant participates in neighborhood workshop to present Draft Stan-
dards.
4.4 Consultant participates in Design Review Board Workshop to review
Draft SLandards.
Task 5 Draft Standards Revision
Consultant makes one set of revisions to Draft Hillside Residential Standards based
on Stall, Advisory Committee, public and Design Review Board review. Draft
Standards Handbook is forwarded to Planning Comnussion.
Task 6 Planning Commission and City Council Reviews
Consultant slakes one presentation each to Planning Commission and City Council.
Task 7 Final Revisions and Submittal
7.1 Consultant prepares final set of revisions and submits final camera-ready
Hillside Residential Standards Handbook, incorporating revisions made
by City Council.
Data to be Provided by the City
1. Citywide topographical maps. Must have contour elevations at minimal 5 foot
intervals.
2. Aerial photography of entire City at minimum scale 1" = 100'.
3. Location and Boundaries of all potential hillside development areas and subject
hillside sites. Parcel maps of subject sites should k- provided.
1. Copies of relevant City documents.
5. All working review papers, review drafts, and the final submittals will be
presented to the City as one camera-ready copy for City reproduction and
distribution.
20
Personnel Time
Task 1
Background Studies
Task 2
Progress Report Meeting
Task 3
"Screen" Draft
Task 4
Draft Standards Review
Processing
Advisory Committee
00
Meeting Public Workshop
Task 5
Draft Standards Revision
Task 6
Planning Commission and
12
City Council Reviews
Task 7
Final Revisions and
Submittal of Handbook
TOTAL
PROJECT HOURS
CSI
16
HOURS
02
Principals
Design
Won!
Gast and 1-lillmer
Associate
Processing
50
00
04
06
—
01
87
12
16
16
—
02
30
08
08
06
—
01
24
00
08
217
20
40
Task 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . $ 3,644.00
Task 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 456.00
Task3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 7,146.00
Task 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 1,192.00
Task 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 2,708.00
Task 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 526.00
Task 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 1.888.00
Total Personnel Cost
$17,560.00
Allowance for reprographics, photography
500.00
TOTAL PROJECT COST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . $18,060.00
21
Personnel Time is calculated as follows:
Gerald Gast, Daniel Hillmer, Principals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $70.00/hour
Design Associates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $40.00/hour
Word Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $36.00/hour
Schedule
Task Completion Time
1 30 days
2 15 days
3 30 days
4 15 days
5 30 days
(4 months)
Task 6 would be completed as scheduled by the City.
Task 7 would be -ompleted 15 days after Council Review.
22
F. References
San Dieeo DesiVn Guidelines
John Desch, Design Review Manager
Department of Planning and Land Use
County of San Diego
5201 Ruffin Road, Suite B
San Diego, California 92123
(619) 694-3725
San Clemente General Plan
Urban Desiarl Element and Desien Guidelines.
Jim Barnes, Planning Director
City of San Clemente
101 West El Portal
San Clemente, California 92672
(714) 498-2533
San Diei-o Countv Administration Center Master Plan.
Rich Robinson, Director (619) 531-4848
or
Lucy Franck, AICP, Facilities Planner (619) 531-5287
Office c f Special Projects, Chief Administrators Office
County of San Diego
1600 Pacific Highway
San Diego, California 92101
Downtown Redlands Master Action Plan,
Norm McMenemy, Directoi
Redlands Redevelopment AScncy
30 Cajon Street
Redlands, California 92373
(714) 798-7545
Downtown Scottsdale Urban Desis-m and Architectural Guidelines,
William Ding, General Manager
Department of Planning and Zoning
City of Scottsdale
7447 East Indian School Road
Sc -)ttsdale, Arizona 85251
(602) 994-2322
23
G. Project Profiles
24
SAN DIEGO COUNTY DESIGN GUIL�:LINES
Client: County of San Diego
Department of Planning and Land Use
Communities of Valley Center, Alpine,
Fallbrook, Ramona, Lakeside, Bonsall and SWCCLwater.
..4 j`5`.7`:'
y�?!f�` � a ^ _ ��, ., �., i• Iii M "�-'JF. •.
17
�' ��
ki
_• i_A.'? •n. r. i'. ` " l.Pi.. - yF .'�.a•.y .a'' �1� .r'9'v� .. .. .•�.-.�,:T �,'�'� x�
-' 11., � F R•. �R. � .7 • .,! ..�'.S F , "e:,(�.J r' •.yf •`',R•y'�, +kbis info�yl': «.... ��i� ME.. ,� fey._ .�:? {J.C•, .f
_- + -r _ .=r �f i.� i ° . 4 �1 �r. �:. , ".'r i.'.: � .+d er-. 4 v --I - .a 4ef�G�� •.y-. _ ..�1.
..i, y%3}J'! / ' •- - �'-.lV"..:...f. •'`�-',j,�a�'�.� . 'f �.t- � .. :'.�..: swC:' "
._'
g'!7
17
=Les=Y -r,.f-l.; _y'.•e �. ``
a }FJ i mow: �n�K:LT-�
.. Air rw :�.. FY'-, �.'.., ��r. •wyr r;�:..-.i�iy
'. `e: r .i,"- �1+ -+
' J t �l�
. •-T�'R.� "a'•'���?� ia47•+b•..�T.4�''Y�njinL•o��g�
..
i'.4,`.°�i•
-^l
M:r.�.a
ti.
p
°�
-� Axa,
• � _- -
�1
3 t",- `.
�, _ �
.-
..
rte-
'.;r'... �:_.: k.
- ...rte • C _ `�;:, �
=s•..r
. . ..
..N= ��`
= � �ti�� �-] •
it .%..
'��� �[ �' �
-
4•T.
•.Z•.
'•��
..�`:,,�� ...,,..
tom..
J'/:i _
'.�r3°�-� to
- ..
"':Y': ''4 '- "•r: ��i.
J.i:" �
..r��. �('L.u'��
•,
..
s
�..:Ae'R �.�'u�'s :+.
.�_.
—.✓iJ....,`'S:c6r
._. a .5:•:.�',,,,.
Gast-Hilimer authored the County of San Diego's
Design Review program for small communities and
has completed comprehensive Design Guidelines for
seven separate communities under contracts with the
County's Department of Plan ring and Land Use. The
Desi(,n Review Progr,un was recognized with the
American Planting Association, San Diego Section,
"Outstanding Planning Project" award and the Chapter
Award of the America. Society of Landscape Archi-
tects.
The Design Guidelines place emphasis on preserving
lite unique local character of each community and
pmtecung existing natural features. Strong measures
for preserving existing landforms with new hillside
and ridgeline development standards are included.
The County Board of Supervisors adopted and expanded
the program as a means of strengthening the identity of
local communities, and giving each community a more
important role in shaping its physical character.
"t �• _ 3. � t:..�.•.:, . �r = _ ..`:=mow ��� � .'.-rk- .
�.tfe�r 1V. S .�:. J ea .. �.... "hr - w�. .�. � b"., if•r >. "� ~
• _.�y _ �';, _ t. x.��"-:a �a' :E.'iy./r-��.s T' _ •-;�-bFlnidr;x: ':1..
.i. k,� vyY"y, .�fa. ,p;r� �r�'•` c i r�.r - ��~_[� r.ir4�~, .i. �.F•.
;�- `.��r i = •r?y` .ra-yak •:.:� k'. • ?;>:;:.t '�"•`t>
�L�,ai .•� is 'it 'ct ��+' . r. r .•:�'� }�:, �4:,
�•:t.•�7 ; Vii, •si ' ':�..1,���•. r% r �tiq'••,, r.. 1^0';." Y �r y"F ti .�.�' ice' eT.
�.'•.'.1c-�h�'��X Vi{r�:•'-"fSn�.�i%=,.Cv� L . a'�.ft�,i�Si��. rF � � ..
Section. Valley Center Parkway
The situation in San Diego County is similar to condi-
tions faced by rapidly -growing communities
diroughtout California and the Southwest. Towns with
distinct local character and identity are threatened by
rapid growth which homogenizes the natural and built
1widscape into a "standard" pattern of development
that is similar to every other town. Natural features are
diminished, historic buildings lost, and the local
landscape rendered unrecognizable in a short period.
Most County development policies aggravate the
problem by applying a uniform set of standards
countywide, without careful regard for substantial
dilferences of natural landscape, climate, community
sentiment, architectural character and history.
San Diego County contains some of the most diverse
kuidscapes, climates and town characteristics to be
found in any American county. The coastal plain,
foothills, inland valleys and desert each form a special
context for urbanization, and all subregions are cur-
rently underenormous growth pressure. The expected
tensions between existing communities and develop-
mcnt forces are present.
Program Progress
Design review programs and guidelines have been
completed for seven communities of the County (Val-
ley Center, Alpine, Lakeside, Ramona, Fallbrook,
Bonsall and Lakeside). Five have been implemented
by the Board of Supervisors and are now in full
operation. The community response has been enthu-
siastic, and developers and property owners extremely
cooperative.
I
•�
QI
�
-"-Y _
-'• :�� ." _ _ `-� ✓ y` 11'
iii f(�L_— M' _ n1, _
Section. Valley Center Parkway
The situation in San Diego County is similar to condi-
tions faced by rapidly -growing communities
diroughtout California and the Southwest. Towns with
distinct local character and identity are threatened by
rapid growth which homogenizes the natural and built
1widscape into a "standard" pattern of development
that is similar to every other town. Natural features are
diminished, historic buildings lost, and the local
landscape rendered unrecognizable in a short period.
Most County development policies aggravate the
problem by applying a uniform set of standards
countywide, without careful regard for substantial
dilferences of natural landscape, climate, community
sentiment, architectural character and history.
San Diego County contains some of the most diverse
kuidscapes, climates and town characteristics to be
found in any American county. The coastal plain,
foothills, inland valleys and desert each form a special
context for urbanization, and all subregions are cur-
rently underenormous growth pressure. The expected
tensions between existing communities and develop-
mcnt forces are present.
Program Progress
Design review programs and guidelines have been
completed for seven communities of the County (Val-
ley Center, Alpine, Lakeside, Ramona, Fallbrook,
Bonsall and Lakeside). Five have been implemented
by the Board of Supervisors and are now in full
operation. The community response has been enthu-
siastic, and developers and property owners extremely
cooperative.
Process and Community Participadc
The design review program and design guidelines
build on each Community General Plan. Although
basic land uses and development densities do not
change with this process, development standards
implemented by zoning (setbacks, heights, "build -to"
lines, parking area location, flood plain and hillside
development) are tailored to Cacti community. A
comprehensive set of design guidelines is prepared
during the process, with the design guidelines serving
as criteria for the discretionary review of development
applications by the Design Review Board.
The process of preparing die design review program
and guidelines in each community takes approximately
6-8 months. During this period, the design team holds
open community workshops and draft review meetings
on a monthly basis. The Community Planning Group,
an elected planning body rcpn-senting die entire politi-
cal spectrum of the community, serves as the official
advisory group. At the end of die process, each
program must be approved by the County Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors.
Local newspapers have given excellent coverage to the
communityh workshops and overall process, and ha -c
played a critical role in educatin^ the public about the
issues.
The Design Review Boards
After adoption of the design review process and design
guidelines for each community, the County Board of
Supervisors appoints a local Design Review Board,
based on nominations submitted by the Community
Planning Group and civic organizations.
Context
Valley Center is a relatively unspoiled inland valley in
north central San Diego County. The town's
magnifrcient natural landscape is defined by a range of
surrounding hills and is now a compatible mixture of
native vegetation, citn!s groves, avocado ranches and
small-scale development. Valley Center has experi-
enced significant growth from the nearby Escondido
area. Citizens are willing to accommodate growth, if
it preserves the valley's rural landscape and natural
beauty.
Alpine is a growing foothill community 40 miles cast
of San Diego. The area's exceptional climate and
location at the edge of some of San Diego County's
most scenic mountain terrain has attracted residential,
office and light industrial growth.
Fallbrook and Bonsall lie approximately 60 miles
north of San Diego. Each community of 10,000 feels
strongly about preserving its extraordinary natural
landscape and agricultural heritage of citrus and avo-
cado groves. The plans provide strong requirements
for protection of hillsides and ridgelines, strengthening
the Town Centers, and curtailment of suburban type
development patterns at the Town Center edges.
Lakeside and Ramona are inland valley communities
east of San Diego. As in the other commjnities,
preservation of the existing landscape was a critical
issue. In Ramona, revitalization of the historic Town
Center, given recent support by the active participation
of downtown merchants and properties ownes, was an
important part of the plan.
I�—�--.fir-�,-._ •� :�'"" _ c � .
A
#�
y�
I��t -nW
ry
• 1
I,
Alpine Town Center
Key Provisions
Provisions of the Design Guidelines in each commu- coodination of adjacent developments.
nity emphasize:
1. Strong measures to preserve the natural landscape
and protect existing natural features. All provi-
sions in this category go well -beyond present
Countv standards.
• Required Site Analysis showing existing natu-
ral features and context of adjacent properties.
• Strong measures to retain rock outcroppings,
mature trees and existing land forms.
• Protectionof sensitive hillsides and flood plains.
• Required residential clustering to preserve ex-
isting large open spaces and prevent repetitive
"tract" development.
2. Specific measures to develop design continuity
along major roads, emphasizing parkway systems
of native vegetation, control of signage and
3. Strong measures to develop a compact pattern of
commercial development that avoids typical "strip"
development. In Valley Center, a new pedestrian -
oriented Town Center is to be created to concen-
trate all commercial services. In Alpine, Fallbrook
and Ramona, the existing Town Centers are to be
strengthened by new design standards for consis-
tent building lines (including required "build to"
lines), improvement of the pedestrian environ-
ment, and location of parking to the rear and sides
of buildings.
4. Provisions to establish architectural continuity
based on local history, regional traditions and
response to climate. Architectural guidance is
given while providing sufficient design flexibility
and encouragement of creative efforts by develop-
ers and their architects.
PROJECT FIRST CLASS URBAN DESIGN PROGRAM
CITY OF SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
Client: City of San Diego Planning Department and
Southeast Economic Development Corporation
.L1
57%
Aerial view of Study Area, toward Downtown San Diego
Project First Class was initiated by the City of San
Diego as a comprehensive Urban Design program for the
new East Line Trolley (light rail mass transit) corridor in
Southeast San Diego. The study focused on twelve
diverse neighborhoods (an area of 17 square miles)
beginning at the edge of Downtown and extending to the
city limits at Lemon Grove. The program's purpose is
to take advantage of the Trolley construction as an
opportunity to stimulate neighborhood revitalization
through a carefully -coordinated program of public
improvements and private development.
Services performed during the project were:
• Preparation of neighborhood Urban Design plans.
• Identification of development opportunities based
on market analysis.
• Design and development feasibility studies for
specific sites near the Trolley stations.
• Preservadon and conservation programs for older
neighborhoods.
• Revitalization plan for the Imperial Avenue
business district.
• Design of public street space improvements includ-
ing a funded $1,500,000 landscape program.
• Zoning modifications and design guidelines for
discretionary review of new development.
Key Provisions
Business district revitalization plans emphasize
direct linkages with the Trolley stations and joint
public-private development of adjacent new
commercial sites. Development incentives are
provided to attract new housing to commercial
sites through height and density bonuses.
Station area site plans and design guidelines for
commercial districts strive for a high-quality
pedestrian environment carefully -linked to the
surrounding neighborhood. New zoning provi-
sions and design guidelines are intended to prevent
suburban "commercial strip" development in favor
of concentrated commercial centers at key loca-
tions.
ro La t -1114k
r
House in Sherman Historic District
Strong measures to preserve the historic Golden
Hill, Sherman and Logan Heights neighborhoods
were developed. Present zoned densities were
reduced to make new development more compatible
in size and scale with the existing neighborhoods_
Priority for City -sponsored housing rehabilitation
funds and low interest loans is to be focused in
these districts.
Design standards for streets, sidewalks, lighting
and landscaping were developed to provide design
continuity between new private development and
coordinate with public improvements along major
streets.
Development guidelines to protect existing natural
features, including sensitive hillsides and flood -
plains, were prepared. Issues included preservation
of hillside forms and vegetation, design guidelines
for building form that reduce the visual impact of
hillside development, design standards for planting
and grading, and requirements for clustering of
residential development.
An extensive public landscape program was deve-
loped to improve the character of important
thoroughfares, create places of community focus
and strengthen the identity of individual neigh-
borhoods.
L
7
X
\
Project First Class Study Area
DISTRICT YOUR URBAN DV:SIGN
PROGRAM
Key Provisions
Business district revitalization plans emphasize
direct linkages with the Trolley stations and joint
public-private development of adjacent new
commercial sites. Development incentives are
provided to attract new housing to commercial
sites through height and density bonuses.
Station area site plans and design guidelines for
commercial districts strive for a high-quality
pedestrian environment carefully -linked to the
surrounding neighborhood. New zoning provi-
sions and design guidelines are intended to prevent
suburban "commercial strip" development in favor
of concentrated commercial centers at key loca-
tions.
ro La t -1114k
r
House in Sherman Historic District
Strong measures to preserve the historic Golden
Hill, Sherman and Logan Heights neighborhoods
were developed. Present zoned densities were
reduced to make new development more compatible
in size and scale with the existing neighborhoods_
Priority for City -sponsored housing rehabilitation
funds and low interest loans is to be focused in
these districts.
Design standards for streets, sidewalks, lighting
and landscaping were developed to provide design
continuity between new private development and
coordinate with public improvements along major
streets.
Development guidelines to protect existing natural
features, including sensitive hillsides and flood -
plains, were prepared. Issues included preservation
of hillside forms and vegetation, design guidelines
for building form that reduce the visual impact of
hillside development, design standards for planting
and grading, and requirements for clustering of
residential development.
An extensive public landscape program was deve-
loped to improve the character of important
thoroughfares, create places of community focus
and strengthen the identity of individual neigh-
borhoods.
The Planning Process
During the 10 months of the project, community parti-
cipation was achieved through a series of workshops with
each neighborhood and close work with the Council -
appointed Citizens Task Force. Day-to-day coordination
was organized by a joint effort of the City Planning
Department, Southeast Economic Development
Corporation and Council District Four office.
Acti:tns Taken
The program was approved by the San Diego Planning
Commission and Southeast Economic Development
Corporation Board in April 1985. The East Line Trolley
opened in April 1986. Public street space improvements
are underway, scheduled for completion in early 1987.
Progress is being made on the sale, development and
design of several residential and commercial sites.
� 3
`�:.
.
, �
r _
�'.. .• , �. i�i_ _
tea.
__i
Infill housing on redevelopment sites in the Trolley corridor,
Rowhouse and Courtyard dwellings on Imperial Avenue
The Planning Process
During the 10 months of the project, community parti-
cipation was achieved through a series of workshops with
each neighborhood and close work with the Council -
appointed Citizens Task Force. Day-to-day coordination
was organized by a joint effort of the City Planning
Department, Southeast Economic Development
Corporation and Council District Four office.
Acti:tns Taken
The program was approved by the San Diego Planning
Commission and Southeast Economic Development
Corporation Board in April 1985. The East Line Trolley
opened in April 1986. Public street space improvements
are underway, scheduled for completion in early 1987.
Progress is being made on the sale, development and
design of several residential and commercial sites.
UPTO'dv N DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT
Client: City of San Diego
Planning Department
Gast-Hilltnercompleted the dcsign concept and devel-
opment feasibility study for the new "Uptown District"
mixed-use project in San Diego's Hillcrest neighbor-
hood. "Uptown District" is anew $70 million retail and
residential development on the 14 -acre site of the old
Hillcrest Sears store. Construction was completed in
early 1990, and the project featured in the June, 1990
issue of l lrhan Land,, journal of the Urban Land Insti-
tute.
nsti-
tuto.
The 8 -month planning process involved close work
with a City Council -appointed advisory committee of
neighborhood business and property owners, c ,m-
munity leaders and City staff.
The project is San Diego's first inner -neighborhood
combined residential -retail project at a larger scale,
and is already serving as a precedent for other areas in
Ole city.
The work of the study included a thorough site and
neighborhood analysis that identified development
potential and constraints, a market analysis, design of
three "development alternatives" for different land use
scenarios, and a financial and fiscal analysis of the
alternatives. Final recommendations, which included
a development program, site plan, land use and de-
velopment standards, and design guidelines, were ap-
proved by the Advisory Committee, City Planning
Commission and City Council in January 1988. Con-
struction commenced on July 1, 1988.
WiIli ams-Kuebelbeck and Associates, Inc. completed
the market study, financial and fiscal analysis as a
consultant to Gast-Hillmer_
The project was completed in January, 1990 by Oliver
McMillan-Odmark-Thelan Development.
The development includes:
A 140,000 square foot neighborhood retail center
with a 43,000 square foot Ralph's supermarket as
anchor. Other retail shops include restaurants,
food quid specialties. A second level of offices,
over the retail, is f rovided in many of the build-
ings. Parking forthe retail centeris both above and
below grade.
318 residential units (rental and condominium)
located at the east half of the property. The
residential units are a mix of 1 and 2 bedrooms,
with balconies, courtyards, a health club and un-
dergrourtd parking. Some of the residential units
are located directly above retail shops (on Ver-
mont Street).
• A 3,000 square foot community center for public
and community group meetings.
• A section of "loft" spaces for live -work tenants
Design concepts for the development are:
The retail shops are located at the front sidewalk-
along
idewalkalong University Avenue to create an improved
pedestrian environment and close the gap created
by the former Sears parking lot. Small "windows"
into the parking areas allow views into the shop-
ping center from University Avenue. The anchor,
Ralph's, was placed to Ute rear.
• The amount of surface parking for the retail center
was reduced by placing about 1 acre of parking
under the supermarket. A unique escalator for
people and grocery carts makes for easy access to
the underground parking.
• Since the mixed use concept was an important
objective of the development, the lofts and a num-
berof residential units are located over shops, most
in the location where the retail and residential
components come together.
• An existing street, Vermont Street, was extended
into the development as primary entrance. This
links the project to the existing street grid and
neighborhood, preventing it from becoming iso-
lated.
• The dwelling units are directed primarly to young
professionals, although some of the new residents
are retired persons. The building designs are
influenced from nearby Hillcrest residences built
in ;he 1920's and 30's.
Existing Sears Site. Before construction, 1987
r• , • ` _ �-S �, '�" w. � ''.'�'y •. .a ti.'� '➢ ;�...•' N -cog - ^7_a.s-•S-���i a: w r".n ..rr l7 ;l., •q .L �
r.l�; � � �aG•�� �, ,i"- ';•• 4 �T n•�':. ~ sa t (:� a: y. ti�i„�„�`- €.4)sri3. -'�I e,S31���•ca?.�
Yf' ., "`•ii�'���=; l53.•.;rcF .vJ`''�- s'—•-- r. . � "� - r;'_" ... ...:. _. ' p�4•
^ij
M6C W L-` c L L
^�."'-x1; ,St �•. � j . ^_ � _ � c„i� „ _ t ..`l.. ry � •' t '� '� A� -N ^ �.•.• ����"�-e..
, �zJ1
}r. .. " S ' � •'riE:`_b:'a ..eti. � ,r,k ti ��� � � � �d � `r.; 1;� ��., .. .��:4 -- "� w"w
_ _ •t .Y ��„-,� :». ateci ,1... ..," ;L; % a c " •G_ r1ra..• �. ,.. sm
r
} Sa = � i • �� .. .- r , .r ..�..••V,1 _•rS f' t. I .. � � gg � _ _ W I�,�.i T
e j s iU .'.'� �'� �:n,o k•5v � 4a b�'' ��xn . � f ��5; - 'a`sT.�r�s".l�i
f tt 32
•C.
{'' , `� r' 1. , --""•"r •c roeavrrY `r� ;.tY
.. 1 (xt C :: •^ rte• amu= ttrs.,•.�G$i . 4 j�j l,`{ I '
Y`" . . �� + '•�. •, • ,� _ � 1•*,�, ��{� � ... ' - � rid+ .a•�'..
t ' t #�; � � •ALL � "�
_
1
r
1,
17,
} j r� r till \C
AY-
�_• �� 'tel' '�``a ��' 1;••�•�t. �•`,V ,o �,,�'` ^n `� ..
s ll�, 1� . \ `\ .` 1\ ,i 9 ^ �. J ,'�V /'r� •t� V
VfF
jp
QQ
<� � \ \ . i�.-J •�' j l ?�\ � ]yew � �Od
N 7 •,,,j ``_ � °gin �� C•C r-•-'1'�,.
.�" ✓ � -•_ % \moi
G — [ED
DOWNTOWN SCOTTSDALE
URBAN DESIGN AND ARCI-IITI✓�TURAL GUIDELINES
Client: City of Scottsdale, Arizona
C El t'1
Downtown Street Spaces.
The Downtown Scottsdale Urban Design Guidelines were
developed as a comprehensive set of design and develop-
ment standards for new projects in the city's 2 mile by 1
mile downtown core. The Guidelines describe important
urban design, site planning and architectural principIcs to
create a coherent, consistent Downtown development
character and to integrate new development with existing
older districts. The Guidelines serve as criteria used by
the City's Development Review Board to evaluate all
development proposals.
With approximately S1130 million of new construction
now in the early stages of planning, Downtown
Scottsdale is in the midst of an intense period of develop-
ment and growth. The Urban Design Gui iclines give
direction to the form and character of development,
focusing on the design of street spaces, public spaces and
the quality of Downtown architecture.
Significance
The Urban Design Guidelines address a situation shared
by many growing cities: the opportunity to construe-
tivcly direct new development in a pattern that contri-
butes to community design goals. Unlike older cities
whose physical characteristics are largely determined,
developing cities are free from inherited constraints. Few
r,_wer cities, however, have seized this opportunity to
create the future character they want, deferring instead to
incremental growth without direction. Strong urban
design guidelines can help create a continuity of
character by weaving individual projects into a coherent
pattern, insuring the quality of the whole community.
r
4b
� t h,y.,.7ji
V ,
Significance
The Urban Design Guidelines address a situation shared
by many growing cities: the opportunity to construe-
tivcly direct new development in a pattern that contri-
butes to community design goals. Unlike older cities
whose physical characteristics are largely determined,
developing cities are free from inherited constraints. Few
r,_wer cities, however, have seized this opportunity to
create the future character they want, deferring instead to
incremental growth without direction. Strong urban
design guidelines can help create a continuity of
character by weaving individual projects into a coherent
pattern, insuring the quality of the whole community.
f_r
�- L
- --J L
��I
Illustrative Block Plan
4 -
The Process
The 8 -month project was conducted with extensive dis-
cussions, workshops and negotiations with civic leaders,
City staff, City commissioners, citizens, Downtown
property owners and developers. All parties in Scottsdale
have an unusually -high level of interest in Downtown
planning and development issues. Through close work
and a careful program of education with City Council,
Planning Commission, Development Review Board and
Chamber of Commerce Downtown Committee members,
a strong set of guidelines supported by all parties was
developed and agreed to.
The Guidelines were adopted by City Council on July
14, 1986 and are now used by developers, Community
Plan.iing Department and Development Review Board as
criteria for the design and review of new projects.
'V.-��4 " i9 ''yrs" ,•rosr �=�'� —'r 1,-` �� ��'�
,e:',•'�;[: ,r'
. •:�; ... =+4. " orifi'
0
Y•y...
K.
Scottsdale Courtyard
It
�'..
�114 il,!t�
Downtown Covered Walkway
Key Provisions
• The Downtown Plan provides for a high intensity,
CHAPARRAL ROAD if
compact pattern of mixed-use development using
incentives to attract new housing, hotels and offices
that will complement the city's present specialty
t
shopping strength. Building heights are generally
limited to three stories, with bonus height of an adds-
HIGHLAND amu.
clonal three stories for housing and hotels. Two new
o
arterial streets relieve the pressure of through traffic.?�
New entrance "gateways" are provided to enable direct
access to public parking.
CAAIELBACK ROAD �� P
• Existing pedestrian character, judged one of Down-
town's most important assets, is to be strengthened
,
and new pedestrian linkages created between neigh-
F
I gsrc
boring blocks and districts.
r
• The Design Guidelines provide specific measures to
i
protect the identity and special character of older
j
Downtown districts - West Main, Fifth Avenue and
INDIAN SCHOOL, ROAD
Old Town.
U511
• Design principles were developed to reduce the per-
STREET w _
o'
ceived size and bulk of larger buildings, especially
taller structures that take advantage of new height
�I
bonuses.
a W W
• Downtown's historic traditions of covered walkways01
-
and small courtyards are to be continued as thematic
OSOOR14E ROAD 5_ u,_
elements in new development.
• Downtown architectural character builds on regional
traditions, encouraging strong shade and shadow
I)OWNTOWN
patterns, informal building proportions and massing,
scarTtiDALE
and building elements scaled to human sire.
• Landscape guidelines establish a continuity of character
for planting, sidewalk spaces and design of the right-
of-way on key streets.
New Downtown Arterial - Boulevard.
0
ccW
L
A2. ACTIVE STREET FRONTAGES
TYPE I AND 2 DEVELOPMENT AREAS
• Design active building frontages to create inviting indoor and outdoor
spaces visible from the sidewalk and street.
• In office and commercial zones, locate shops, restaurants and other
activities which show signs of life along the ground level at the
street. Avoid blank walls, parking and other "dead" activities from
street frontages.
• Provide frequent building entrances along public streets.
Active building frontages are an essential ingredient in Scottsdale's desire to strengthen
Downtown's pedestrian character. Buildings should provide openings at bound level to
allow views of display windows by pedestrians.
01 Llfrlfleli
Frequent building entrances along the street are encouraged. In the Type I Development
Areas, at least one entrance should be provided for every 50 feet of building frontage. This
interval should also be a goal in the Type 2 Development areas, with 100 feet between
entrances observed as a maximum. Side and rear building entrances should always be
accompanied by a front, street -facing entrance.
Discouraged. Encouraged.
Long distance between entrances. Frequent street entrances.
Ah )r)r Ilerbert H. Drinkirater
srr'"Scale Scene Sense -goer "980
From the desk ®f
IMa}or of Scottsdale
Scottsdale enjoys an international
reputation a, one of the mo,t
desirable places in the world to live,
work and play. What r,iakes it so
desirable? I could fill an entire issue of
ticntkdale tiLCM' and only scratch the
surface! I'm not alone in feeling this
v—,y ... many citizens realize what a
good thing Scottsdale is. To make
,ure the city retains its unique style
and SOUIhweslern character, the City
Council recently approved the
Downtown Scottsdale Urban Design
and Architectural Guidelines. This is
the second critical step in the im-
plementation of the city's Downtown
Plan appio ved in 11)8 4; the first in-
volved the adoption of a new
downtown zoning ordinance.
Fnrrnulatinn of thr- guideline~
began with input' from individual
citizens, members of the Downtown
"The bottom line is,
why should we change
a good thing? Our city's
historic downtown area
is designed the way
we like it!"
Task Force, members of the Scotts-
dale (hamher of Commerce
downtown committee, merchant
group representatives, planning com-
missioners, Development Review
Board members and the City Council.
Each was asked to define "what is"
and "what is not" the Scottsdale
look.
This was not an easy task, but then
it shouldn't he. Our citizens demand
the hest in Scottsdale and building
design is a critical step in the develop-
ment process. What is truly represen-
tative of Scottsdale is what we want to
huild on, and defining that was the
ultimate goal of those preparing the
guidelines. We don't want modern -
looking glass huildingti, we want
buildings v ith a Southwestern motif
that fit the character of Scottsdale
After months of meeting~, intensive
interviews and endless hours of
research, guidelines were formulated
to address the future look of
downtown Scottsdale. Prepared by
Gerald Gast, a consultant in urban
design, the approved guidelines
enhance downtown Scottsdale as a
Ipedestrian-friendly'' environment
and urge building design with a
''traditional'' or ''Southwest"
character. They will also provide
developers with information to make
their projects compatible with com-
munity design objectives and will aid
the city's Development Review Board
in evaluating submitted proposals.
Scottsdale has always been strin-
gent when it comes to what is
developed and where. We're tough
because we're interested in quality
... we want the best! And, as tough as
we make it . . . with development
fees, the sprinkler ordinance, zoning
... developers still keep coming. This
is a tribute to the entire city. We can
afford to be selective and make sure
we get exactly what we want.
We have some of the most
beautiful developments anywhere in
file world. The new guidelines,
though designed in conjunction with
the Downtown Plan, could be used
citywide. They address building
design, proportion ,and scale, and en-
courage designers to avoid repetition
and vary their heights, window and
door spacing. They also recommend
that streets in the downtown area
have plants, street furniture, lighting,
paving and other landscape
elements.
The Downtown Plan is a massive
project which will evolve and change
as citizens provide future input.
However, guidelines such as these
will provide a downtown everyone
can enjoy and appreciate. The bot-
tom line is, why should we change a
good thing? Our city's historic
downtown area is designed the way
we like it! The new guidelines will
preserve the integrity and South-
western character of Scottsdale!
SAINT DIEGO COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER
Client:
County of San Diego, Chief Administrative Office,
Office of Special Projects
and
Williams-Kuelklbeck &: Associates, Inc.
Real Estate Economic, Financial and Management Consultants
A Master Plan for expansion of the San Diego County
Govemment Center is currently in process. The project is
focused on the 50 -year-old County Administration Center
building, recently designated a National Historic Landmark.
The site has a magnificent, commanding view of the har-
borfront, and is considered one of San Diego's most promi-
nent public places.
After study of several altematives, the recommended design
concept for the Center was unanimously approved by the
County's hoard of Supervisors in October, 1985. Refine-
ments
efne-
ments of the plan are now underway.
Tlie Plan stresses the potential for the County's expansion
4-J
program to contribute to the revitalization of the nearby
Cedar Street - Pacific Highway area, and to develop a
sensitive relationship to the Harbor View - "Little Italy"
neighborhood to the casL The approach emphasized urban
design considerations as a starting point for developing the
County's Master Plan, emphasizing visual and pedestrian
linkages to neighboring districts and preservation of impor-
tant "view corridors" toward the Bay and Point Loma.
,;-�l - �xw_�r_ ` i �• � �i� . 1I �� 4I I.: 7-k;.r[�� �r-�j ��_^� 1i�h
,r;•: _ -r �} - •�-...�.-b yam- _�- -��•�'� - -- �. -•� L �=��- �. �� v
' i�-.^,•c �_r �t1iY1 ��'�csy_ r I.�` _ + •. + .j I i r• '.} ` t [ -�• Nr. `_�G(J ,_ .� ��
it; /, _ - .y �t,-.: � �•rt t'... ,i -ter. ' _ � �-. J r � t.Y �- ' r� ��.. " . - - .-
t
i .. _� Gi••- � bald=-'_�:;C� `r� ;':�`� � ��, --� '*�t_!.. 1-L'
J.
•::a+r': .t — .7''lr-i • -'t
_ Vii- ..�. - r - i - %�•ft��).t { .'r'j�-r 4'-.� I, ,a � ...+ (�/.
= +-- '�� .• ��h_f°!i• ,rif�.j ll Tlll; •i't 1 _l �_ f'
-�; �• ti i-aa.•rl•.o,..a•::•._'�. �•. -'ll7*FI `aY,'" , _"`1..; ;� L 11-;t: �� �, - -
rN� • ..tk I �-},r:,-`-c'.�;�``"��5� llo�. °" ,lrurtrC:, ,. t,,r �1� _
A < .a• ,w f,� I ' �Vp'r t- ' ' r�• i4� X01+'"';'v�`1� �, Npr. -R>r`x L
:. -.
•�- '' tom•/� � ��{-' '
GERALD GAST, A.I.A. and DANIEL HILLMER, A.I.A.
Four new County buildings will provide 500,000 square feet
of office space, 100,000 square feet of other public activities
(a museum, restaurants, County information center), and
1000 parking spaces. New private off -ice and retail space on
two adjacent blocks arc to be developed with the Center.
The Plan develops an integrated set of low fisc buildings
which frame the existing County Administration Center and
a series of linked courtyards oriented toward the water.
Accompanying urban des gn improvements include a pe-
destrian esplanade along the waterfront, nine acres o1public
plazas and gardens on the site, and a pedestrian "Pasco" on
Cedar Street, extending to the cast, linking to "Liule Italy".
A light rail transit stop at Cedar Street will be integrated into
the building group, providing mass transit access to the site.
Views to the Bay through the site along the Date, Beech and
Grape Street view corridors are preserved.
Building clement~ in the proposal are limited to 4 stories, and
based on common prototypes with 90 -foot cross sections
and 30 -foot structural bays. Parking is to be located under
a podium one-half level below grade, and in a structure on
Kcttncr Boulevard nearby.
tRN
II` i
;V
KETINE01 BOULEVARD
, ;��
THE PACIFIC HIGHWAY
Of.
I- e� 7- r
J�
C
r
-4 (-A- 0
L01
F:
X- 11-4 4- 4 4 -
HARBOR DRIVE
it -Ir -4
0 50 M
LEITER OF ADDENDUM TO THE PROPOSAL OF GAST AND HILLMER
TO 'RIE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
November 30, 1990
This Addendum is referenced by Footnote 1 in Paragraph S,
Page 4 of the Proposal. This Addendum is issued as a
clarification of the alteration of the original Proposal
by action of the San Rafael City Council.
1. The Consultant (Gast and Hillmer) will wort: with the
City Engineer to develop a list of submittal requirements
for development proposals subject to the Hillside Residential
Design Standards.
2. Gast and Eiilhiier does not have professional expertise
in the establishiient of geotechnical criteria for development,
and shall gi,.-2 no professional opinion on any matter related
to geotechnical criteria. Further, Gast and Hillmer shall
have no responsiblity for geotechnical criteria that maybe
inserted into documents prepared by Gast and Hillmer. Gast
and Hillmer is not responsible for project time on any matter
related to geotechnical criteria other than Paragraph 1 above.
3. If the City desires to establish geotechnical criteria
for review of Hillside Residential Development projects, the
City shall prepare such criteria on its own accord separate
of this project.
EXHIBIT C
Schedule and Submittal of Documents.
A. CONSULTANT agrees to submit to the CITY a Working Review
Paper within thirty (30) calendar days following the first meeting of the
Advisory Committee.
B. CONSULTANT agrees to submit for administrative review by the
CITY three (3) copies of an Administrative Draft copy of Hillside
Residential Design Standards within thirty (30) calendar days
following the Progress Report meeting with the Advisory Committee.
C. Following CITY review of the Administrative Draft Hillside
Residential Standards, CONSULTANT shall make revisions to that
document as requested by the CITY and within fifteen (15) calendar
days complete a camera-ready copy of the Draft Hillside Residential
Design Standards and submit it to the CITY.
D. Following a fifteen (15) day review of the Draft Hillside Residential
Design Stu dards by the Advisory Committee, the Design Review
Board, and the public, the CONSULTANT shall make revisions to the
document as requested by the CITY and prepare and submit to the CITY
within thirty (30 ) days a camera-ready copy of the Hearing Draft of
the Hillside Residential Standards.
E. Within fifteen (15) day, of the City Council review of the Hillside
Residential Design Standards , the CONSULTANT shall prepare and
submit to the CITY a final camera-ready of the Standards incorporating
revisions trade by the City Council.
�'
e
r,
�`