HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/3/2017 Item 13, Kulick (3)
Christian, Kevin
From:Ben Kulick <ben@stalwork.com>
Sent:Monday,
To:E-mail Council Website
Cc:Harmon, Heidi; Rivoire, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; Gomez, Aaron; Pease, Andy; Dietrick,
Christine; Ansolabehere, Jon
Subject:Letter to Mayor and Council Members- 1135 Santa Rosa
Attachments:17-10-02 1135 Santa Rosa- Letter to Council.pdf
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
Please see the attached letter regarding the ARC modification request before you on 10/03/17.
Thank you.
Respectfully Submitted
-Ben Kulick-
STALWORK, INC.
CONSTRUCTION + DESIGN
License #948012
P.O. Box 391
San Luis Obispo, California 93406
O 805.542.0033
F 805.542.0837
ben@stalwork.com
www.stalwork.com
1
1135 Santa Rosa
City Council Agenda
October 3rd, 2017
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
This letter is to provide some clarification on the ARC process and events surrounding the approvals and
completion of the building at 1135 Santa Rosa.
The ARC Process:
There is a notion or implication that Stalwork subverted an ARC process and it seems there is a general
concern on the “follow the rules” mantra. We respectfully request you to consider that the ARC review
and process is anything but clear, equitably applied, consistent, or aligned to establish guidelines. A few
summary points for your consideration:
1) The building color(s) were not “changed” without approval nor was the bulkhead removed
without notification. ALL city inspections were requested timely and appropriately. Stalwork as
the General Contractor received and requested all the required inspections and reviews. The
building department also specifically requested this review occur and instructed Stalwork to
follow up with the planning department. The planning department was contacted and
confirmed sign off on the building for a Certificate of Occupancy and final inspection. Stalwork
was subsequently informed that this “sign off” was a “mistake” by the City and promptly
followed procedures for a modification to ARC for approval.
Staff Report June 12th 2017:
“The project was first reviewed by the Commission on May 18, 2015, and approved on
July 6, 2015 (see Attachment 4).1 In completing the project, the approved design and colors were
changed without the approval of the Commission. The building color was changed to a single
shade of grey which did not match the color scheme approved by the Commission, and a cut-tile
bulkhead feature on the Marsh Street side of the building was not installed, per Condition 1 of
project approval. In addition, roof-mounted mechanical equipment, that was shown on plans as
screened from view, was visible from view of public streets and neighboring properties”
This statement in the staff report implies or could be interpreted that Stalwork did not follow
the appropriate processes in review and completion of this building. It is common place and
standard practice for elements of buildings, residences, and structures to evolve from the
planning stages to the completed structure. This is typical on almost every single construction
project, not an abnormality. Uses, tenants, and client desires evolve as the structure comes
together. This is why the inspection process occurs. This building was not hidden from view nor
were inspections averted or taken lightly. Inspections were requested, color was reviewed, and
Stalwork received a building final. The CITY now states this was a mistake. Judgement on based
on a “following the rules” mantra by City Council is not appropriate. It is important to us as the
applicant that the representation or perception on subversion is eliminated during
consideration. This is not a precedence “type” decision or an example of someone skirting or
avoiding the rules. An ARC stated reason for denial on our request for modification was that the
modification was different than the originally proposed project. This is not a suitable or
appropriate reason for denial and a clear process exists to apply for modification.
2) At the 1st ARC meeting to review the modification of building color and bulkhead the City of SLO
prepared a Staff Report for the ARC. The result of the 1st ARC meeting was a request to present
modifications to the building that addressed the concerns and design guidelines noted in the
Staff Report dated June 12th 2017. Stalwork was unable to present modifications based upon
these guidelines as Stalwork believed that the references to guidelines were incorrectly applied.
On the 2nd ARC meeting on 09/11/17 to review our request for modification the Staff Report still
dated June 12th, 2017 had been completely modified from its previous form and all the original
Design Guidelines that were noted which Stalwork had identified as incorrectly applied had
been removed. These guidelines were deemed incorrect and modifications requested to the
building by ARC on these Staff Report guidelines would also be incorrect. Stalwork was only able
to see this information 10 days prior to the 2nd ARC meeting. At the ARC meeting the Staff
Report was revised AGAIN for the 3rd time as the cited references were deemed not applicable
again. ARC did not have this information in advance either as this last round of updates occurred
hours before the scheduled meeting. Stalwork has submitted the correct guidelines and matrix
for these guidelines to City Staff and the ARC repeatedly. None of these documents have been
acknowledged, referenced, or responded to by a single City Staff member or ARC member.
Consistent and continued requests for clarification and response have been requested. Not a
single response has been received to date. In this case the applicant was deemed correct and
the staff report had to be edited 3x. One may beg the question; is the staff report being
generated to support a position or are guidelines being reviewed to render a decision? It would
seem the prior if three wholly different criteria/Staff Reports were used to justify a position. The
process seems to be render a decision then apply criteria to support it. The current criteria for
“color” on this building comes from Chapter 4 and is quoted as a design guideline in the most
current Staff Report the applicant has seen:
ARC Staff report for September 9th, 2017 meeting:
“Finish materials. The exterior materials of downtown buildings involve several aspects
including color, texture, and materials. (§ 4 (D) (1))”
The NEXT SENTENCE in the Design Guidelines, not included in the Staff Report, says “Materials
with integral color such as smooth troweled plaster, tile, stone, and brick are encouraged.”
The ARC has continually admonished the color and finish on this building (As heard in ARC
recordings during unrelated ARC hearings). By guideline but missing from the staff report, the
finish on this building is specifically encouraged. There are NO applicable references to multi‐
color or references to reducing massing and encouraging articulation with color in any
applicable section. None. Zero. An application of guideline is appropriate and no interpretation
is required. It is clearly stated. The modification request meets the applicable guideline.
ARC Staff report for September 9th, 2017 meeting:
“The City encourages well-articulated, but not cluttered building elevations. Large roof and wall
planes unrelieved by shadow or texture interest are generally not acceptable… (§ 2.2 (B))”
This section is from the 2 pages of Design Guidelines that generically outline themes in
architecture in Chapter 2. This section is titled “General Design Principles” and is two pages of
statements regarding architecture and its principles.
Chapter 4 is titled “Downtown Design Guidelines.” In response to the cited section in the staff
report above from Chapter 2 and presented to ARC copied again for reference below:
“The City encourages well-articulated, but not cluttered building elevations. Large roof and wall
planes unrelieved by shadow or texture interest are generally not acceptable… (§ 2.2 (B))”
While this section from Chapter 2 is cited in the Staff Report, the Chapter 4 Downtown Design
Guidelines which include the below are omitted:
“In general, buildings should have either flat or stepped rooflines with parapets, and essentially
flat facades. Walls with round or curvilinear lines, or large pointed or slanted rooflines should
generally be avoided.”
Summary: The finish used on this building is encouraged but this was not included in the Staff
Report. A Design “Principle” stating “well‐articulated” was provided to the ARC, but the
Downtown Design “Guidelines” state that anything but flat facades are not acceptable. No
references to these guidelines were provided nor were responses to the applicants questions on
these guidelines received.
3) Façade Design and the Bulkhead:
ARC Staff Report September 11th 2017
Wall surfaces. Wall surfaces, particularly at the street level, should be varied and interesting,
rather than unbroken and monolithic, because blank walls discourage pedestrian traffic. This can
be achieved in a number of ways including: […] Constructing the facade with small human scale
materials such as brick or decorative tile along bulkheads… (§ 4.2 (C) (5))
Chapter 4, Downtown Design Guidelines:
“Wall surfaces. Wall surfaces, particularly at the street level, should be varied and interesting,
rather than unbroken and monolithic, because blank walls discourage pedestrian traffic. This
can be achieved in a number of ways including:” [Please note in this section, the words avoided
and encouraged are not used, but supplemented by “in a number of ways” as there are options
to achieve this design principle. Options presented in the guidelines are presented below. In the
Staff Report these were omitted and only one of the four options to achieve this was provided
to ARC. “[…]” replaced the guidelines in the same section.
“a. Dividing the facade into a series of display windows with smaller panes of glass; “
1135 Santa Rosa meets this criteria word for word.
“b. Constructing the facade with small human scale materials such as brick or decorative tile
along bulkheads…. Storefront windows should not begin at the level of the sidewalk, but should
sit above a base, commonly called a “bulkhead,” of 18 to 36 inches in height.”
Stalwork during the original ARC review before construction showed these windows 18” above
the building base where a bulkhead may have been applicable. Again this is just one way to
achieve the criteria noted in wall surfaces. At ARC direction the windows, in direct contradiction
the stated guideline, were lowered via comments by ARC. At this point ARC did not consider this
guideline and lowered the windows making a bulkhead inappropriate.
“c. Providing traditional recessed entries; and”
1135 Santa Rosa followed this guideline word for word.
“d. Careful sizing, placement and overall design of signage.”
The Chair of the ARC stated this was the most appropriate and elegant use of building signage
he had witnessed. Chair Wynn even stated a photograph of this signage should be used as
reference for signage criteria on future buildings.
In summary, wall surfaces can be addressed in a number of ways. Three of the four suggested
criteria were followed exactly, and the 4th, albeit not a requirement, was not implemented
because ARC directed the applicant to lower the windows to the base of the building rather than
18 to 36 inches in height.
Lastly these wall surface requirements all center around the architectural concept of the
Pedestrian Experience as noted by ARC and the Staff reports.
Another way to achieve an interesting, varied, and inviting pedestrian experience would be via
setback and landscaping. The stated City Urban Forestry Goals and the encouragement for
citizens to linger should be considered. At 1135 Santa Rosa, Stalwork requested, there was no
mandate, to replace and add trees to the corridor at the building owner’s expense. The street
tree requirement were four (4) 24” boxes. Six new 24” box trees and city approved tree grates
were installed by the owner. Additionally one (1) 24” box and (6) 48” box full size specimens
were also installed. A planning requirement by code of 4 trees were required, yet 13 trees were
installed, 7 of which were mature sized. Finally a robust and highly maintained rose garden was
installed for the enjoyment of all pedestrians. Continuously pedestrians linger, photograph and
pick roses in front of the building. The support and interest of this alternative feature has been
universally accepted. Achievement of pedestrian experience and enjoyment has many methods,
this one has been celebrated. The requested modification to remove the bulkhead is allowed
and appropriate by guideline.
By way of example the pedestrian experience created by bulkhead or alternate feature of the
immediately neighboring buildings is shown below in photographs:
The pedestrian experience at 1135 Santa Rosa:
Below is the location where the bulkhead was shown originally. It is located on the building along a
single short section of the Marsh Street elevation. It is neither appropriate with the lowered windows
nor required by guideline to achieve a pedestrian experience. The bulkhead height would reach the
lowest grid on the window as required by ARC and would not be visible. It makes no contribution to the
pedestrian or human scale of 1135 Santa Rosa, which is why Stalwork has requested a modification to
eliminate.
One important note on the building color cited by the public has been regarding thermal efficiency and
climate change. The correction to roof top equipment screening and visibility has been corrected, but
the genesis of this issue was solar power. The reason some of the roof top equipment became visible is
because 1135 Santa Rosa is an electrically net zero building and the roof was covered with solar panels.
As far as we know this is the only building in downtown San Luis Obispo built with a net neutral power
grid. Previous projects have been approved and supported by ARC and City Council based upon their
environmental benefits yet never installed the proposed solar panels on these projects, some of which
used these as THE architectural prominent feature in the ARC building elevations. No code enforcement
has yet to occur.
Paint colors?! We as a city support them all. A recently painted historic building.
Stalwork is committed to city process. These processes to those not involved seem clear cut and
defined, but they are fluid and challenging on both sides of any project. I ask you to consider our request
for modification based upon guideline, in which compliance to guideline is unquestionably clear. 1135
Santa Rosa is an outstanding contribution to the city and clearly not a public nuisance.
Thank you
Stalwork, Inc.
Applicant