The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11-10-2014 PH2 LopesMejia, Anthony From: Sent: James Lopes <jameslopes @charter.net> Friday, November 07, 2014 12:52 PM COUNCIL MEETING, 1I I(.9 I ITEM NO.:---P-� 2- To: Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; Codron, Michael; Dietrick, Christine; Lichtig, Katie; Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Mejia, Anthony Subject: Save Our Downtown request for 1327 Osos Street Appeals Attachments: Appeal - CC 11 -10 -14 SOD letter.docx Dear Mayor Marx and Council Members, Save Our Downtown has actively sought a traditional design for the Pacific Courtyards project at 1327 Osos Street, similar to the approved design in 2009. We request that you send the application back to the Architectural Review Commission for revisions which will conform to the Historic Preservation Guidelines, Community Design Guidelines and other City ordinances, by way of the Cultural Heritage Commission to check revisions. We have specific concerns that City policy on development in historic districts is not being followed, as explained in the attached letter. We appreciate your close attention to our concerns. Please contact me if you have any questions, by reply or phone 602 -1365 Sincerely, James Lopes James Lopes 1336 Sweet Bay Lane San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Ph. 805 - 781 -8960 1 I I SLO CITY CLERK Save Our Downtown Comments on City Council Public Hearing Item 2: 1327 Osos Street November 10, 2014 City Council City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Dear Mayor and Council Members: SUBJECT: 1321 -1327 Osos Street — Appeals of Architectural Review Commission approval Save Our Downtown members respectfully request that your Council deny or return this application to the Architectural Review Commission (ARC), with direction to ensure the following: 1. The project design shall conform to the Historic Preservation Guidelines as required in Section 3.1.1, the Community Design Guidelines, and Zoning standards and policies. 2. The project shall be redesigned to exclude roof -top decks and use other means of obtaining the required open space. 3. The project shall be redesigned to reduce the height of the three residential units accessing Morro Street, to provide adequate solar access to the 1322 Morro Street property and provide more gradual transition. 4. The previous grant of a parking exception shall be rescinded because the project design will cause overcrowded on- street parking in the vicinity of nearby residential properties. Not in Conformity with Guidelines. The Historic Preservation Program Guidelines require at their beginning (Section 3.1.1) that: "...construction in historic districts... shall conform with the Historic Preservation Ordinance, these Guidelines, the Community Design Guidelines,..." (emphasis added) 1 This policy institutes a higher standard of review, which means that the guidelines and other policies are not optional, discretionary or to be ignored; they are elevated to be mandatory and closely interpreted. The decision maker and staff should address, determine and state for the record how and whether the project conforms to all of the guidelines that apply. The ARC did not discuss how the project conformed with these Guidelines in general or detail. Your Council is requested to direct the Commission to see that the project conforms to all historic and community design guidelines. The applicant and architect are capable of achieving conformity — please see the images at the end of this letter. Did not Respond to Cultural Heritage Commission (CHC). The CHC recommendation was to deny the project design because it was inconsistent with the Historic Preservation Guidelines. Only one commissioner at the ARC's two hearings questioned if the recommendation of the Cultural Heritage Commission should be considered. 1. For the ARC hearing, staff did not convey and defend the Cultural Heritage Commission's recommendation for denial. Instead, staff recommended minor changes that still would not make the project in conformance with the City guidelines. 2. The ARC and staff did not address how or whether the project complies with the Historic Preservation Guidelines and with the Community Design Guidelines, in reference to this CHC recommendation. Did not Discuss Historic Urban Design. The Architectural Review Commission and staff did not grapple with the historic or community design guideline statements that apply, and they did not conduct good urban design practice about the context of the Old Town Historic District to reach conclusions at the last hearing. Instead, the comments had more to do with adjusting some of the most egregious features of the design, or stating general "likes" such as preferring modern architecture at this location. 1. It is clear that the Old Town Historic District should not be subjected to more projects with contemporary designs. Why else have a district? 2 2. The designer and the City should seek and use the best elements of historic architecture from within the district, to produce architecture that is historic in character and appearance. The boxy Bauhaus style is out of character with almost all historic buildings within the Old Town Historic District (some contemporary buildings were built without historic references, which led to formation of the district itself). Some members of the ARC actually favored the building design because it is out of context (in contrast to) the existing historic character of the church and residences. Some convoluted reasoning produced this conclusion - that in order not to mimic historical buildings and to highlight them more, new buildings should be in contrast to them by designing them in modern styles. We do not think that this is an appropriate logic to use. Preserving historic character means to respect and be in character and context of a historic setting. The project is not in conformity with this guideline from the Historic Preservation Guidelines, Section 5.2.2: "New development should not sharply contrast with (added emphasis), 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." The following issues also continue to be reasons to deny or re- design the project: 1. The upstairs decks create "overlooks" that will encourage visual and noise intrusion onto adjacent properties. 2. The height of the project will create a long firewall that is not in historic character with the residential Old Town Historic District. We suggest a lower wall, pitched roofs and `lay -down' parapets as a minimum to lower the wall height. 3. The parking exceptions with this design will create overcrowded parking on the street, impacting adjacent residences. 4. The office transformer box is not an historical feature in a historical district; it should be located underground. 5. The color of the building is too similar to the white color of the historic church. 3 6. Traditional, dignified porch entries should be designed for the main building entry on Osos Street and the residential units. 7. Regarding the three condominiums on Morro Street, we recommend that the rooftop patios be eliminated to avoid overlook and noise issues with neighboring properties. Instead, access should be provided to the second floor common courtyard. That space would provide a community area for all of the units. Sincerely, s /James Lopes For Save Our Downtown Approved 2014 perspective: (2) VIEW NORTH DOWN OSOS STREET Original 2009 approved design: Osos Street Elevation 4 Dear Mayor Marx and Members of the City Council, Nov. 7th 2014 We, the undersigned members of the LUCE Task Force, urge you to do what is best for the City of San Luis Obispo by taking all actions necessary to adopt the LUCE Update which was developed by our Task Force over the past two and one -half years and which was the subject of numerous Planning Commission and City Council hearings. As you know, our Task Force developed this update over the course of 34 meetings while taking into account the feedback we obtained from 13 public workshops and open houses, a community -wide survey and extensive input from City residents. We all volunteered for this project because we believe that long -term planning is critical to the future of our City. Although the LUCE Update is not perfect, and none of us agree with everything which is contained in it, we all agree that it provides a workable framework for the vision of our City over the next 20 years. Failure to adopt the LUCE Update will mean that thousands of hours of volunteer and staff time, more than $1 million in public funding, and extensive participation by hundreds of City residents will have been wasted. PLEASE DO NOT LET THAT HAPPEN! As your designated representatives on the LUCE Task Force, WE URGE YOU TAKE ALL ACTIONS NECESSARY TO ADOPT THE LUCE UPDATE. Thank you for your consideration, and for your thoughtful action on this matter. Eric Meyer, Chair Pierre Rademaker, Vice Chair Walter Bremer Russell Brown Chuck Crotser Hema Dandekar Jon Goetz Dave Juhnke Mike Multari Matt Quaglino Chris Richardson Rob Rossi