HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-18-16 ARC Correspondence - Item 1 (Bishop)�}- MEETING:-QM1 wk—PI 6
Jul 1 b, M6 ITEM NO.- 1
To the Architectural Review Committee:
I am writing regarding the ARC meeting on Monday, July 18, and item #1 on your agenda: 570 Higuera
Street.
I believe that the essential form and integrity of this historic property and its environment, an
environment which includes the long term residential areas adjacent to the Creamery property, will be
totally and irreparably impaired and changed by what has turned into a piecemeal consideration of all
plans for the Creamery project.
I would like to ask that the ARC postpone any action on this project tonight, and before making decisions
on the stage of the development that are being presented to you now, ask for additional time to review
and consider all plans that have been submitted to the city for all the stages of this project.
I feel deep concern regarding this project as I have attended meetings for this project since April 2015,
and have watched the plans change from a presentation of preservation, remodeling and rehabilitation
of a historic building with one new mixed use structure, to something very different.
Protecting a historic neighborhood may mean keeping it less developed and built up than some would
like. Please review and consider the entire plan for the Creamery area and the potential final outcome.
As currently being envisioned by the developers, this will no longer be the special downtown
neighborhood as we all know it, retaining history and open space as it was in this part of downtown SLO.
I have specific concerns regarding this development and they are listed below. Additional noise is a big
concern, and I have included thoughts on that.
Ursula Bishop
581 Dana Street
ub slo@yahoo.com
The following is an excerpt of a letter I sent neighbors regarding concerns about the Creamery
Development.
I want neighbors to understand the plans for the Creamery, as the whole picture of what is being
developed/proposed in that area is not being presented at once, and we need to be certain that the ARC
is award of all the changes that are approved/being proposed for that space, and the affect it will have
on the Dana Street neighborhood. Having this development move through city committees a piece at a
time, without the end result being considered as it develops, is just not right, and will create an
atmosphere that will forever change our area of downtown, and Dana Street as we know it.
First, apparently a taqueria with an outdoor patio has somehow already been approved through
previous decisions of the Cultural Heritage Committee and does not need to go to ARC or any other
planning group. I have questioned this with the city planning office and do not have yet have an answer
about how or when this happened. I believe the space was labeled as small retail space at some point,
and from that a restaurant and outdoor patio were allowed without the neighborhood being aware of
the specifics. This just feels dishonest to me, and indicative of other "conceptual ideas/proposed plans"
morphing into uses not quite the same as they were presented, as plans are approved and move
through committees. The taqueria and outdoor patio will be on the side of the building facing the
Nipomo Street parking lot/SLO Creek.
Second, the plans being looked at tomorrow night include changes to the interior area of the creamery
adjacent to Higuera Street. The area currently the parking lot and back part of Spikes. The plans include
an outdoor patio being added to Spikes, plus, the addition of a 2800 sf building labeled as the
marketplace or a farmers building. Uses for this building remain undefined, however, the conceptual
name is not related to the idealized use: the advertising poster of the proposed changes to the
Creamery posted throughout the Creamery, show the space as one big open restaurant type business,
with what appears to be a bar. And, all the large garage style doors are shown as open and the
courtyard area in front of this is filled with people seated at outdoor tables. Of course, there could be
other ways the interior space of the building ends up being developed, i.e. two or three businesses, vs.
one large on, but it is clear that there are going to be large wall size openings (4 are depicted in the
plans submitted to ARC) to open the spaces to the outdoors, and that the interior courtyard may turn
into a large outdoor patio extensions of these spaces. The courtyard is labelled a 'pedestrian plaza' in
the drawings submitted; however the advertising to potential renters clearly indicates a crowded patio
seating area. It also shows major changes to what was suggested in earlier staff report to the CHC,
including keeping a fountain for historical education purpose.
The third issue is that there are plans on file with the City Planning Department that include a 13,000 sf
4 story building that will house retail on the ground floor, and a combination of hotel/lofts and
apartments on the 2 -4th floors. The plan drawings appear to include a number of outdoor seating
areas/patio areas.
There are other issues we need to bring to the ARC tomorrow night. I want to address two, and I have
listed them below. They relate to the fact that this project backs up to a long term, residential
neighborhood. Many of the homes are owner occupied, and we have many long term renters. We are
considered a medium/heavy density neighborhood, and many residents on our street would be affected
by the proposed development. In other recent decisions, the Planning Commission has changed building
designs to protect nearby neighborhoods. For example, 1234 Broad Street was not allowed an open
marketplace design along Pacific Street to protect the neighborhoods near there. Our neighborhood is
much closer to the Creamery and I believe we should be given similar consideration, if not additional
consideration: There are a number of similar mixed use developments in various stages of development
downtown but none of them are as close to a dense, residential neighborhood. There is nothing along
the creek where a neighborhood backs up to a development proposal like this one. We need to ask the
city to slow down and really take a look at how this would affect the neighborhood. (And to take into
consideration the nearby development already approved for Monterey and Broad, which is in revision,
but is bringing potential noise and parking issues just one block away.)
Noise issues. To me, this is the big problem. Again, we have all chosen to live here and accept that with
living downtown comes varying levels of noise and other disruptions. Seasonal, weekly, nightly. What
we don't expect is that this city will allow this level to increase to a level that the approved and
proposed changes in the Creamery could bring. Changes to the proposed building plans to mitigate
noise would be ideal, as would limitations on the types of businesses approved for occupation. In lieu of
that we must get time limits on night noise and night usage of outdoor spaces. I understand 10 p.m. is a
standard we could ask for versus 11 p.m., but we are a residential area that is already affected by even
later bar closings, we have families with young children, we have older residents, we have residents who
work, so maybe we should request an earlier time.
We must ask for 24/7 regulations regarding any music, amplified or not. We can hear music from
approved events and sites, like the Jack House and Farmers Market. There is no need to add to this.
We need to ask about setting delivery hours so that we are not impacted by increased truck noise. We
were successful in having delivery hours build into the approval of Monterey Place, so this is doable.
Parking. There is no parking being provided on site with any of these proposed changes. The developer
is offering a combination of in lieu parking at the yet unbuilt Nipomo/Palm parking structure, and 19
spots in a parcel of land owned adjacent to the proposed changes on Higuera side of building. This lot
appears to back up directly to creek and homes on other side on Dana Street. Someone in the city with
common sense needs to proactively protect these neighbors from what is a large parking lot that will
definitely generate late night/early morning noise and ongoing daytime noise. In addition to general
noise of voices carrying, and louder voices at night, consider too that there will be new nearby buildings
and the creek, both of which amplify sound.
As we all know, people like free parking and close parking, and this will hit Dana Street hard. I don't
want to be bullied into a parking district. There has to be some protection for us from the parking issue.
Ursula Bishop
581 Dana Street
ub slo@vahoo.com