Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-10-2014 PH2 Appeal of ARC Decision - Pacific Courtyards - Davis Appeali city Or San WIS OBISPO Filing Fee Date, Received PC Appeal: $273.00 Tree Appeal: $109.00 F P `� 1� Paid APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SECTION I. APPELLANT INFORMATION Name Mailing Address and Zip Code 4' f b t b 7 z s.3 Phone Fax Representative's Name Mailing Address and Zip Code Title Phone Fax SECTION 2. SUBJECT OFAPPEAL `134© f In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (copy attached), I hereby appeal the decision of the: T�C (Name of Officer, Committee or Commission decision being appealed) 2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: , t� 1P 112�/4j 3. The application or project was entitled: N� 4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member: on (Staff Member's Name and Department) (Date) 5. Has this rr?tter been the subject of a previous appeal? If so, when was it heard and by whom: %17 SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL Explain specifically what action /s you are appealing and why you believe the Council should consider your appeal. Include what evidence you have that supports your appeal. You may attach additional pages, if necessary. This form continues on the other side. Page 1 of 3 Appeal to City Council Regarding the Pacific Courtyard Project. Pl We feel that during the past year of multiple presentations regarding. the Pacific Courtyard project there have been several items of concern that have been expressed, but which received no follow up. These items concern issues of parking, fire safety, massing, creation of deadc zones at street level, complete impinging on sunlight available and solar possibilities l'dr 1322 Morro, and drawings used to give a favorable pictLrre of the finished project either using information inaccurately and or in other deceitful marnners. These issues are explained in Addendum A at the back of this Appeal Document, SECTION 4. APPELLANT'S RESPONSIBILITY The San Luis Obispo City Council values public participation in local government and encourages all forms of citizen involvement. However, due to real costs associated with City Council consideration of an appeal, including public notification, all appeals pertaining to a planning application or project are subject to a filing fee of $273', which must accompany the appeal form. Your right to exercise an appeal comes with certain responsibilities. If you file an appeal, please understand that it must be heard within 45 days from filing this form. You will be notified in writing of the exact date your appeal will be heard before the Council. You or your representative will be expected to attend the public hearing, and to be prepared to make your case. Your testimony is limited to 15 minutes. A continuance may be granted under certain and unusual circumstances. If you feel you need to request a continuance, you must submit your request in writing to the City Clerk. Please be advised that if your request for continuance is received after the appeal is noticed to the public, the Council may not be able to grant the request for continuance. Submitting a request for continuance does not guarantee that it will be granted; that action is at the discretion of the City Council. I hereby agree to appear and/or send a representative to appear on my behalf when said a "1 is sdkeduled for a public hearing before the City {Councit ignature of Appellant) (CJa #e) Exceptions to the fee: 1) Appeals of Tree Committee decisions are $109, 2) The above -named appellant has already paid the City $273 to appeal this same matter to a City official or Council advisory body. This item is hereby calendared for_ cc: City Attorney City Manager Department Head Advisory Body Chairperson Advisory Body Liaison City Clerk (original) Page 2 of 3 07/13 S-P T_ 3 1014 Addendum A The following are issues of concern which we believe the Council should consider in reviewing the approval of this project by the Architectural Review Committee (ARC): As a reminder, we would like to mention that this project was first reviewed by the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) November 25, 2013. This date is the Monday of Thanksgiving week; notice was received only three to five days prior to the meeting date, thus eliminating many people from attending as they were already out of town or caring for family gatherings on one of the most celebrated holidays of the year. At this first meeting, the CHC unanimously denied the project. Their concerns were the massing of the buildings and other architectural features that did not fit in with the adjacent and neighboring structures; it is important to keep in mind that this project is in the historic district of downtown San Luis Obispo, In a second meeting of the CHC, the project was again denied by a majority vote. These issues of massing and nonconformity to existing historic structures have also been a concern of members of the ARC. Regarding the massing of proposed structures, in addition to the non conformity to existing structures, the height of the townhouses stands in the path of sunlight for 1322 Morro and completely denies the owner of this building the ability to ever install solar systems despite that the side of the building that gets the most sunlight consists of 90 +% large windows. The plan presented to the ARC had insufficient parking according to city ordinance. Pam Ricci stated this several times in several meetings in no uncertain terms. She underscored the city is very strict about developers keeping to the guidelines of sufficient parking. The developers proposed several different ways to solve this issue, but none fulfilled the criteria. In the last ARC meeting, September 8, 2014, the developer stated they would request a parking reduction through requiring a shared parking program for all businesses in the new project. As most of us have experienced, this may look good on paper, but it is not a long term solution for the dilemma of insufficient area for all the parking required given the parameters of this project. Other complications of massing include the creation of a dead zone at the Pedestrian level; particularly, on Morro Street this project will allow human activity only in or on top of the massive townhouse structures. As the plans stand today, people inhabiting the new structures will enter their garages or their stair well to get into their above ground living space. Morro Street will lose most of the current people activity despite the work of the city to create and increase foot and bicycle traffic on that street. The massing creates another unconventional situation, which because of building size, fire trucks will not be able to drive on to the property. That is, they will not be able to drive on the property between 1322 Morro and the new structure and between 1336 Morro and the new structures. The ARC in conjunction with the Fire Department allowed fire safety to be dealt with by saying ladders should be permanently attached to Appeal to City Council re: Pacific Courtyard Project p. 2/3 September 13, 2014 the faces of the new structures. In case of fire, the firemen would climb these ladders carrying as much gear as possible and put out Tres. Unfortunately, the space between 1322 Morro and the proposed building is about five feet... a space too small for firefighters to easily do their jobs. Additionally, if a fire occurs in the center of the new project, firemen would have no direct access to the fire. Another issue of great concern has been how the ARC has allowed the Developer to present drawings that supposedly depict the finished project, but which are drawn with favorable and unrealistic views. For example, in the last ARC meeting the updated drawings were all drawn from a "Bird's Eye View" not from a pedestrian view. No one on the ARC took note of this, but a gentleman in the audience (known to the ARC members due to his history of serving on the SLO CHC and ARC for many years sometime in the past) spoke to the issue saying to the members of the ARC "these guys gave you bird's eye views, you have to get them to give you pedestrian views." No one in the room gave any follow up to this comment. Certainly, it should not be up to the public to catch this sleight -of -hand as the general public is not educated as Planners, Developers, or Architects... the public relies on the selected officials serving the public on the ARC and CHC to catch these maneuvers to dupe the public. Shame on the ARC! Another issue that is under the heading of sleight-of-hand used by the developer is that the drawings presented seemed not use the same scale of drawing for existing buildings as it did for proposed building. This differential use of scale created a much more favorable picture for the public, particularly with regard to the massing issue. Another sleight -of -hand used by the Developer is the unconventional fire safety solution was never shown on any drawings... that is, no pictures shown during the meetings open to the public showed ladders permanently fastened to the exterior of the new structures. In closing we would like to point out the developer has not made provisions for security lighting or for shading new street lights from the residential home at 1336 Morro. We would like to thank the members of the City Counsel in advance for reading and considering the deleterious stressors this proposed project has on the owners of 1322 and 1336 Morro Street and to all residents and visitors to our city. If you would like to contact us about our situation and/or our appeal, please call Alice Davis 805- 801 -6167. Thank -you and Best pprds, Alice Davis Stew Jenkins r Diane Jenkins f Appeal to City Council re: Pacific Courtyard Project p. 3/3 September 13, 2014 DUPLICATE RECEIPT CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO RECYD BY: FINANCE CASHIER 010003;8466 PAYOR: ALICE H DAUIS TODAY'S DATE 09/16/14 REGISTER DATE: 09/13!14 TIME; 11:51 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT OUST ID:APPEAL -ARC APPEAL MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE $273.00 TOTAL DUE: $273.00 TENDERED. $273.00 CHANGE: $.DO CHECK . $273.00 REF NUM: 3182