Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/26/2024 Item 4a, Terry, W. Wayne Terry < To:Advisory Bodies Subject:Appeal of ARCH-0448-2022 Attachments:Correspondence forward to PC re ARCH-0448-2022 appeal.pdf This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hello, I'd like to request my attached correspondence be forwarded to the Planning Commision in anticipation of the scheduled meeting on 6/26/24. Sincerely, Wayne Terry 1902 Chorro St. San Luis Obsipo 1 June 20, 2024 Planning Commission City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo Re: Appeal of ARCH-0448-2022 1925 Santa Barbara – Mixed Use Development Dear Planning Commissioners, In anticipation of next week’s meeting, I am forwarding to you copies of relevant correspondence regarding the project above, including: • The text included as part of my appeal application • Correspondence provided to the Community Development Director prior to her decision • Response from city staff regarding the Community Development Director’s decision Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Wayne Terry 1902 Chorro Street San Luis Obispo I believe my appeal should be considered based on the following: My right to public comment was hindered by the clerk at the Cultural Heritage Committee. They refused to allow me to show my power point presentation (in pdf form). I was told that such presentations had to be submitted by noon the day of a meeting. Neither the city’s website nor the language on the meeting agenda indicated this deadline. Failure to show the CHC images of buildings on Santa Barbara (to demonstrate spacing, coverage, setbacks etc.) as well as relevant language from relevant section of the Railroad District plan seriously impacted my ability to provide the committees information to make a sound recommendation. The Cultural Heritage Committee’s process to form their recommendation was inadequate and inappropriate, which in turn hampered the ability of the Director to make an informed decision. The CHC failed to consider key elements of the Railroad District Plan, did little to no deliberation regarding the pattern of development on the west side of Santa Barbara (including height, coverage, setbacks etc.) including references to such in the city’s historical preservation guidelines. The applicant was absent from the CHC meeting and rather than continue the item so the applicant / their agent could answer questions, the CHC continued deliberations. These deliberations were further encouraged by the chairman’s confidence in the project’s architect (whom he has a 40+ year working relationship with which was not shared). The chairman confirmed the project’s zoning, but not aspects of the historic preservation guidelines under the committee’s purview. The chair mentioned a discussion with the applicant’s architect which potentially should have been held publicly and in front of the CHC. I understand from planning staff that the planning department has noted a north and south side of Santa Barbara Street with a delineation of Upham Street dividing this part of the Railroad District into two patterns of development. It was shared with me that each area is subject to different standards for height, coverage, setbacks and so on. I do not see this delineation referenced in the Railroad District Plan, however, if indeed this is the case I would note that on the west side of Santa Barbara between it’s intersection with Broad and up to Upham – the predominant building type is commercial, the predominant height is single story and the pattern exhibited by massing and spacing is significantly different than the proposed project. In addition, commercial properties in this area which have developed with a residential component, the highest elevations are on the east side of the development adjacent to Santa Barbara and there are wide setbacks to the low density development to the west (on Chorro Street). Mimicking this type of development adjacent to Master List historical resources would be more appropriate and consistent with the area. I believe that placing three story multifamily residential units (with a partially undergrounded 1st story) at the minimum setbacks from low density Master List Historical resources does in fact negatively impact these resources. According to the City’s Context Statement, such resources are significant not only because of the building themselves but because of the story they tell and how they contribute to the community. The proposed development is neither consistent with the established pattern nor in accordance with the Historical Preservation ordinance and guidelines. 4/5/2024 4/11/24 (updated) To:Walter Oetzell and the Community Development Director Re:1925 Santa Barbara Ave (ARCH-0448-2022) My name is Wayne Terry and I (along with my wife Leslie)own 1902 Chorro Street.We acquired our property in 1999 and have painstakingly restored the property into a lovely addition to our neighborhood.Our home is a Master List historical property.Our home is historically significant to the City of SLO as it is the only single story gambrel roof home in the city and it retains much of its integrity (both interior and exterior)due to the survival and protection of the materials and workmanship dating back to its original construction.We take pride in our efforts to maintain a 110+ year old home and believe that it does contribute to the community’s “sense of place”and agree with language found in the City’s Historic Preservation Guidelines that maintenance and preservation of historic structures is important to the community.Every December visitors from around the county come to our home for our Christmas lights,adults and children marvel at our show and always comment on our sweet little home and the neighborhood where it is located.Many of our neighbors also own and maintain Master List homes. At this time I am requesting the Community Development Director return the application identified above to the applicant for further revisions and study.This is based on concerns regarding the CEQA determination and the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC)inadequately considering important details found in City’s Historic Preservation Guidelines,Chapter 14.01 –The Historic Preservation Ordinance, and the Railroad District Plan.I also have concerns regarding the project meeting the spirit of some sections of Chapter 17 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code.Specifics follow. CEQA Determination The project was found to be Categorically Exempt from CEQA due to it being considered infill. Despite the infill designation,I believe that an exception to the exemption does apply.The project is located on a C-S zoned parcel and is one of three like properties (121,125 and 129 Santa Barbara Streets).It is reasonable to expect that should 125 Santa Barbara develop as currently designed,that in the near future,the parcels at 121 and 129 Santa Barbara would develop in a similar way.The CHC noted at the March 25,2024 meeting that similar projects for these parcels would be forthcoming and I would agree that this is a reasonable expectation.Because of the cumulative effect of successive projects of the same type in the same place,over time could be significant,an environmental review should take place.A re-evaluation of the project’s consistency with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as the applicable zoning designation regulations (2019 CEQA Statute &Guidelines 15332(a))should take place as they may impact the exemption. A CEQA review would provide the city with important information that is currently lacking.The project includes a total of 7 parking places for the proposed on-site uses.SLO Municipal Code 17.72.030 allows:.75 space per bedroom (no less than 1 space per dwelling unit)for Multi-Unit Residential,2 parking spaces for the first 4 bedrooms for Single-Unit Dwellings,Detached and for Commercial Uses somewhere between 1 space per 100 sf to 1 space per 300 sf.I assume that even though the project includes a “Single-Unit Dwelling,Detached”that this unit is being considered part of the Multi-Unit Residential.Depending on use,the Commercial business could require (on the low end)2 spaces,on the high end 5.Assuming a low commercial parking need and none of the site users qualify for the accessible space,all 6 spaces will be needed.Should the commercial space be a use that requires more spaces (or should the “Single-Unit Detached”more appropriately have 2 spaces)the site may be under-parked.The two-story detached home is referred to as an “Accessible Living Unit”and it has been assumed as such that the resident of said unit would use that handicap parking.This unit is two stories with a full flight of stairs to the second unit,so I’m not sure that in reality it will function as an “accessible unit”(but it certainly sounds nice).I understand from staff that there is no parking requirement for guests,however I assume there will be no limitations on residents actually having visitors.Santa Barbara street has no street parking.Presumably guests will park on the streets in the neighboring areas (the parking lot across the street is either designated for Amtrak users or spaces have been designated (although not marked)for adjacent businesses and residences (Del Monte, Café Roma,Channel Commercial Company,1880 Santa Barbara etc.).The nearby neighborhood (Upham,Chorro,Garden)has multiple Multi-Unit Residential properties (including a fraternity)and currently suffers from a parking shortage due to residents,guests,overflow Amtrak users etc.It is not uncommon for our guests to park on Garden Street due to no available parking closer to our home. Assuming the current project residents have a reasonable number of guests,and assuming future like-development,it would not be uncommon or unexpected that a significant number of cars would be looking for nearby parking.The block of Upham between Santa Barbara and Chorro Streets can accommodate approximately 13 cars per side (and these locations are consistently occupied).Adding vehicles would have a trickledown effect impacting residents and commercial businesses on Garden, High,Morro,Broad Streets etc.The cumulative impact (of the current and future development)on parking should be evaluated. Related to parking are traffic safety concerns.The current project is a high-density development. The tight parking configuration combined with no street parking means that delivery services (UPS, Fedex,GrubHub etc.)will likely pull into the property for delivery and then will need to back out of the property onto Santa Barbara.Santa Barbara is a major traffic corridor for residents,commercial vehicles and first responders.Exiting the property forward facing will be challenging at certain times of the day (just after 5pm,traffic from the light at Santa Barbara and Broad backs up to Upham). Backing out of the project site will present dangers to the driver,sidewalk users,the bike lane traffic and the road traffic.Visibility to traffic approaching from the north may be inadequate due to the elevation change and slight curve of the road. A CEQA review would allow the city to assess the project’s compliance with 15064.5 Determining the significance of Impacts to Archaeological and Historical Resources,specifically impacts to surrounding historic resources. The Cultural Heritage Committee’s recommendation to the Community Development Director primarily included direction regarding paint colors.Unfortunately,they neglected to include consideration of important language found City’s Historic Preservation Guidelines including: 3.2 Construction in Historic Districts 3.2.1 Architecturally compatible development within Historic Districts.New structures in historic districts shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with the district’s prevailing historic character as measured by their consistency with the scale,massing,rhythm,signature architectural elements,exterior materials,siting and street yard setbacks of the district’s historic structures,as described in Figures 2 and 3.New structures are not required to copy or imitate historic structures,or seek to create the illusion that the new building is historic. And 3.2.2 Architectural compatibility.The CHC reviews development in historic districts for architectural compatibility with nearby historic resources,and for consistency with applicable design and preservation policies,standards and historic district descriptions in Section 5.2. New development should not sharply contrast with,significantly block public views of,or visually detract from,the historic architectural character of historically designated structures located adjacent to the property to be developed,or detract from the prevailing historic architectural character of the historic district. And 3.3 Historic Resources outside Historic Districts 3.3.1 Historic Resources outside Historic Districts.Listed Historic Resources located outside of historic districts shall be subject to the same protection and regulations applicable to historic resources within historic districts. And And 5.2.5 Railroad Historic District Architectural Character (pg.52)–Predominant architectural details include A.One-and two-story buildings predominate The proposed project is clearly not consistent with the scale,massing,and rhythm of the district.In addition,the siting of the development (the commercial unit +the detached residential unit +the triplex)is not consistent with mixed use developments which have occurred on the west side of Santa Barbara since the adoption of the railroad district plan.One can clearly see in aerial imagery that in between the mixed-use units at 1957,1965 and 1977 Santa Barbara that the developer placed a significant space between the structures and the residential neighbors to the west.The commercial unit at 2033 Santa Barbara did the same.The use of “shall''not “should”in the city’s guidelines leads me to believe that there is little room for discretion regarding compliance.I bring up the westside of Santa Barbara because the Railroad District Plan,page 67,3.2 C reads:(Property owners should) Preserve the scale,pattern and spacing of the existing buildings along the westside of Santa Barbara Street.Page 82 of the Railroad District Plan echoes this language under the Architectural Guidelines, noting new residential buildings should generally maintain the prevailing spacing,scale,setbacks and character of older houses and apartments along Osos,Santa Barbara and Church Streets.One can travel down Santa Barbara from its intersection with Broad to its intersection with Leff to see the proposed project is horribly inconsistent with the scale,massing and rhythm of the existing buildings in the district.Just north of the project site is one of the city’s oldest and most important buildings –the Tribune Republic Building which is on the National Register of Historic Spaces.The development on the west side of Santa Barbara is consistent with the development one sees on Osos and Church Streets.Properties have low density to moderately dense development which typically feature generous spacing between structures and property lines,there are trees and gardens,access to natural light etc.There is no ultra high density development like the current project.The proposed project’s out-of-scale three story triplex adjacent to Master List homes (one of which is significant because it is a single-story)is seriously not compliant with the city's Historic plans and guidelines. The applicant proposes below grade parking,and is describing the triplex as two story,however,the reality is the west end of said parking (closest to the historic resources)is only a few feet below the natural grade.The triplex will tower above the neighborhood to the west. The project also conflicts with San Luis Obispo Municipal Code,Chapter 14.01 Historic Preservation Ordinance.Section 14.01.080 B 4 (pg.13)says the purpose of a historic district is to Enhance and preserve the setting of historic resources so that surrounding land uses and structures to no detract from the historic or architectural integrity of designated historic resources and districts.The proposed project neither enhances nor preserves the setting of historic resources.Page 12 discusses Integrity in the final paragraph and continues onto page 13 by saying that integrity includes the degree to which a resource (historical)has retained its setting.Placing a 3-story structure adjacent to and towering over Master List historic homes will change their setting and will negatively impact their integrity.Page 3 echoes this under the definition of “Adverse effects”means effects,impact or actions that are detrimental or potentially detrimental to a historic resource’s condition or architectural or historical integrity. My concerns beyond CEQA and considerations missed by the CHC extend to the project’s non-compliance with San Luis Obispo Municipal code,section 17.70.130 Mixed-use development, specifically: A.Purpose.This section provides standards for the design of mixed-use projects to be compatible with existing and planned development on the site and adjacent and nearby properties. The project is not compatible with the historic homes to the west,nor is it compatible with the current residential development to the north or south. E.Design Standards.A mixed-use project shall be designed to achieve the following objectives: 3.The design of the mixed-use project shall take into consideration potential impacts on adjacent properties and shall include specific design features to minimize potential impacts 6.Site planning and building design shall be compatible with and enhance the adjacent surrounding build environment in terms of scale,building design,color,exterior materials,roof styles,lighting,landscaping,and signage. The project does not take into consideration impacts on adjacent properties.The single family homes to the north and south will be significantly impacted.I understand the zoning has changed since these homes were built,but it would have been reasonable for the applicant to contact these homes and be considerate of the current use.There is no consideration of impacts to the historic homes to the west. The project places a three-story multifamily unit towering over and looking down into single family historic homes.This is not a compatible use nor does it enhance the adjacent built environment. I’d like to conclude that we are in no way opposed to development on this property –we were well aware in 1999 when we purchased our home,that to the east of us were commercially zoned parcels. We anticipated future development and expected we would perhaps see projects that provide services for Amtrak users,or perhaps businesses that enhance the neighborhood.We are not deaf to the need for city housing –our children are in their 20’s and they would like to continue to live in SLO and it is a struggle for them.We live in the downtown area because we appreciate the mix of uses and enjoy walking to many businesses.Unfortunately,the project before you is not the appropriate project for the site.It conflicts with the City’s Municipal Code,the Historic Preservation Ordinance,the Historic Preservation Guidelines and the Railroad District Plan.In addition,it will negatively impact important historic resources in which the California State Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP):ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION HOUSING AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION POLICY STATEMENT to consider the potential adverse effects to historic properties must be carefully addressed,whether they be physical or visual impacts to historic properties from new housing construction or effects to the historic qualities of historic buildings.It will likely set precedent for future development on parcels to the north and south,further negatively impacting important historic resources. I understand the architect has struggled to maximize development on this small lot (it’s the same size as ours and the same size as the mixed-use projects to the south).I do believe the applicant can propose a project which provides housing,a small commercial use and which will be complementary to the adjacent neighborhood and historic district.Thank you for reading,I know this was a lot. From: Oetzell, Walter <woetzell@slocity.org> Date: Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 12:59 PM Subject: Architectural Review Application ARCH-0448-2022 (1925 Santa Barbara) To: Wayne Terry < Cc: Hello Mr. Terry, I write to inform you that on April 22nd the Community Development Director approved the Architectural Review application regarding development of the property at 1925 Santa Barbara with a mixed-use project. Any interested party may appeal the Director’s decision within 10 days of the decision (by May 2nd), as provided by Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.126 (Appeals). In reaching a decision on this application the Director considered the recommendation provided by the Cultural Heritage Committee, who found the project to be consistent with the City’s historical preservation policies, standards, and guidelines, and the correspondence received from interested parties. In your correspondence you raised concern regarding the potential cumulative effects on the physical environment that might be posed by the project, parking requirements, safe exiting from the site, architectural consistency, and potential for significant impacts to nearby historical resources. Potential cumulative impacts of development permitted throughout the City were considered during adoption of the Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan, most recently updated in 2014. This project is consistent with land use limitations and development standards (including height, coverage, and residential density) applicable within a Services and Manufacturing area and Service Commercial (C-S) Zone. As such, it does not present any additional potential for cumulative impacts beyond what has already been considered during adoption of the current Land Use Element. The mixed-use project is comprised of a non-residential component for which parking has been provided at a ratio of one space for every 300 square feet of floor area, which will accommodate nearly every non-residential land use which could be established at this site. A land use could not be established on the property unless its parking requirement can be satisfied. As to the residential component, the land use classification is “Mult-Unit Dwellings,” defined in Zoning Regulations (§17.156.028) to include “two or more dwelling units attached or detached, on a site or lot.” By definition (see Zoning Regs. §17.156.038) “Single-Unit Dwelling” as a Land Use Definition excludes dwellings “attached to or located on a lot with commercial uses or other dwelling units.” We also note that the parking provided for this development includes one “extra” space beyond the minimum requirement. The project design is not seen to present a traffic hazard, including any related to delivery activity related to the site. The parking area is subject to minimum standards for the width of parking bays and access aisles such that exiting in a forward direction is not precluded. Delivery companies are expected to conduct their activities in a safe manner, including finding suitable locations from which to stage their deliveries, including safe delivery to sites on this block. It’s also highly unlikely that their business practices would permit backing out of a driveway onto an arterial road where such a maneuver could not be safely accomplished. As to architectural consistency (i.e., Historical Preservation Program Guidelines §3.2), we note that this was explicitly addressed in the staff report to the Committee. In understanding the pattern exhibited by the massing and spacing of buildings on the west side of Santa Barbara Avenue, it should be recognized that the pattern north of Upham differs from that south of Upham, and development in each area is subject to different standards for height, coverage, setbacks, and so on. To the north is a medium-high density residential zone, characterized largely by older houses and apartment buildings. South of Upham, in the vicinity of the subject site, is a services and manufacturing area (Service-Commercial Zone) within which the extant single-family dwellings (which are not listed historical resources) do not establish the pattern. The pattern exhibited by the siting and massing of buildings between Broad and Upham is highly varied, including buildings of a height and size similar to those proposed with this project, and building sited directly adjacent to property lines, in addition to those providing significant setbacks. The buildings proposed with this project are not seen to be inconsistent with the varied pattern exhibited on the west side of Santa Barbara Avenue, in the vicinity of the project site, or with the type of development anticipated in this portion of the Railroad District Plan area. The development was found to incorporate architectural elements encouraged by the Architectural Guidelines set out in the Railroad District Plan. Additionally, this project provides an increased setback (Edge Conditions) from the adjacent residential zone to the west, a standard specifically intended to protect lower- density residential zones adjacent to higher-density or non-residential zones. Neither the Cultural Heritage Committee nor the Director found that the proposed project would cause any adverse change in the significance of any historical resource. The significance of adjacent resources lies primarily in their architectural style and character, which remains unaffected by the proposed project. The project is contained wholly within the subject site. The site does not contain any historical resources that could be affected by the project, nor does it contain landscape features, furnishings, fixtures, adjacent open space, views, visual relationships, or other such elements that are of importance to the significance of any neighboring resource. New construction that conforms to applicable development standards and that is consistent with the architectural character of the historic district is not seen to materially impair the significance of those resources. Insofar as the new construction would alter the immediate surroundings of historic resources, the changes would not constitute “substantial adverse change” to the significance of those resources, as described in CEQA Guidelines (§15064.5(b)). I hope this addresses, to some degree, the concerns you have raised to the Director about the proposed project. Please feel free to contact me if I can be of further assistance with this. Walter Oetzell Assistant Planner Community Development Development Review 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E woetzell@slocity.org T 805.781.7593 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications