The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04-02-2018 Item 4 - Lopes1 Tonikian, Victoria From:James Lopes < Sent:Friday, March 30, 2018 6:27 PM To:Advisory Bodies Cc:Davidson, Doug Subject:ARC item 4-2-18 - 667 Monterey March 30, 2018 Architectural Review Commission Dear Chairperson Wynn and Commissioners: RE: April 2, 2018 Agenda Item 3 ‐ 667 Monterey (Hodges/Garcia) The revised project does not have architecture that conforms with the Historic Preservation Guidelines or the Community Design Guidelines, as required. I am asking that you continue this item with direction to the applicant to use the previous, or very similar, architecture to accomplish the project revisions. The Cultural Heritage Commission had difficulty approving the staff recommendation for consistency (not conformity) with the Historical Preservation Guidelines. Initial comments were almost all negative. But, the commissioners were individually interviewed by Chair James Papp to explain why they stated that the project did not meet the guidelines. During these interviews / conversations, the commissioners had difficulty explaining to Mr. Papp's satisfaction the logic of their viewpoints, that the project was incompatible with the surrounding historical buildings. Mr. Papp in this process asked the applicant's architect, to describe to what historical style the proposed buildings refer. And, Mr. Garcia stated that he thought that the work of Irving Gill, in Southern California would be an applicable reference. Then, with further discussion by Mr. Papp, that Mr. Gill was a significant early Modernist interpreting the Mission style, the commissioners changed their initial comments from disapproval to approval and voted to recommend consistency. The staff and the CHC did not delve into the language or details of the required historic guidelines. Most important with the proposal is whether it "conforms with the goals and policies of the General Plan, the Historic Preservation Ordinance, the (Historic Preservation) Guidelines, the Community Design guidelines, and any applicable specific area plan, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties." (Historic Preservation Guidelines, Section 3.1.1, Conformance with Design Standards) This section requires that "construction in Historic districts and on properties that contain listed historic resources (the Leitcher house) shall conform with these policies. In its review of another project at 1327 Osos Street (Marshall/Jess), the Council, on appeal of ARC approval, directed the ARC and the Cultural Heritage Committee to meet to discuss how the project could be revised to conform with the policies, upon appeal by Save Our Downtown to the Council. The applicant's new architect presented a revised design, which is constructed today, at that joint hearing, making it very easy for the commissions to find it in conformity. (emphasis added) The question as we all know, is not whether the proposed architecture is favored, or liked. It might be fine someplace that does not have 19th and 20th turn‐of‐century, historic, wood‐sided and shingle‐roofed buildings. It might look great in Santa Barbara where these sorts of interpretations are required if not encouraged. Or, it might be compatible with the Children's Museum; however, the museum is not a historic building, and it is not the reference building or architecture for this project. The reference point is not the Mission, which is two blocks away and in the very distinctive, vernacular Mission style. The reference or basis of review is the neighborhood of these old, historic homes and boarding 2 houses, and the historic building at the end of Monterey Street, and the prevailing historic character of the Historic district. As with the previous project at 1327 Osos Street, staff has glossed over, or ignored, the adopted requirement that this project shall conform with the Historic Preservation Guidelines and Community Design Guidelines. This higher level of consideration and review has not been granted full scrutiny by the staff, and unwittingly by the CHC; they weren't instructed any more than the ARC on requiring compatibility. This project staff report gives the briefest summary of the Cultural Heritage Committee hearing. Information is lacking to gain an understanding of what the CHC voted about, which was erroneous in fact. Then on page 4, second paragraph, the staff report states that, "The revised architectural design includes a blend of modern style with elements that are complementary to the historic context of the area." This broad, summary conclusion is supported then by stating the architect's "elements": smooth troweled plaster, etc. These elements, it can be argued more successfully, are NOT compatible with the surrounding historic character, and the design does not conform with the Historic Guidelines. The use of plaster walls at three story heights and wide horizontal spaces, does not entail "articulation" that is compatible with the small‐scale and highly incised, rhythm of nearby historic structures. The staff states, "Vertical and horizontal articulation is provided by building massing and architectural details." This sort of conclusion makes no sense; the unrelieved massing, tall and wide singularly white surfaces do NOT provide articulation, which is compatible with the surrounding historic buildings or character (their rhythm, size, massing, texture, etc.). Much more can be said about the uninformed and cursory staff report, but I will just mention that the Nipomo Parking Garage / Little Theater are not approved nor built. They do not comprise any space in this historic neighborhood. They do not belong in this staff report. Let me turn to Findings 4, 5 and 6 on page 2 of Attachment 1, where I include comments in italics after each: 4. The project is consistent with Historic Preservation Program Guideline 3.2.1 since the mixed‐use buildings include pedestrian scale features consistent with the Downtown with ground level storefronts fronting Monterey Street and along the pedestrian paseo through the project. Lopes: The finding is incorrect; it refers to insignificant details which are themselves highly debatable and not substantial enough on which to base an approval. The finding does not confirm that the project "conforms" with the referenced guideline. And, in fact, the project does not conform, because the revised archtiecture does not have the small‐scale rhythm or highly textured surfaces of the neighboring historic buildings. It is not compatible with the signature Colonial adobe, Victorian and "railroad" architecture of the neighboring historic structures. In fact, the project is designed to be architecturally distinct from (incompatible) the district's prevailing historic character. The whole point of Mr. Gill's designs were to modernize Spanish Colonial architecture into Bau Haus architecture, not to be compatible with Victorian or Arts and Crafts houses, but to depart from them. 5. The proposed project is consistent with the scale and historic character of the surroundings and historic district since it provides articulation, step backs, and architectural details which break up the massing of buildings. Lopes: No, the project does not break up the massing of the buildings, nor does it provide signature architectural elements or exterior materials that are consistent with the nearby historic structures, which is clearly illustrated in Figure 2 of the Historic Guidelines. The enormous, heavy balcony and window lintels are exaggerations of human‐scale lintels at the Mission; they do not relate to the historic character of this neighborhood. 6. The project incorporates a significant amount articulation and introduces an architectural style where historic elements are reflected with materials, finishes, and details that are complementary to the downtown. Primary and secondary views of the Historic Leitcher 3 Building on site would be retained, and views of other nearby historic resources will not be obstructed consistent with Historic Preservation Program Guideline 3.2.2. Lopes: In violation of 3.2.2 ‐ Architectural Compatibility, the staff report and this finding are incorrect; this project introduces an early Modern style, which does not reflect, and required here, the (nearby and adjacent) historic elements "with materials, finishes, and details that are complementary to the downtown." The project has articulation, materials, finishes and details that are very different from those in the (historic) downtown. In violation of this guideline, the project will "sharply contrast with, and visually detract from the historic architectural character of historically designated structures located adjacent to the property to be developed, and detract from the prevailing historic architectural character of the historic district." It would be a very generous gesture to extend the favor of approving this project's revisions to the project applicant and architect. The lessons from the 1327 Osos project may be lost on current staff and representatives. The previous ARC and CHC are largely replaced by current members; the City Council has been mostly replaced. So it would be overlooked without these comments, that the requirement for conformity has not been met with this project revision. The proposed architecture should be compared with the previous approved architecture, which should be favored and required to be re‐instated and utilized to meet the applicant's changes in program. I am asking that you continue this item with direction to the applicant to use the previous, or very similar, architecture to accomplish the project revisions. I am also asking that you require that the project's retail floor area be restored to the previous approval, or close to it, if that is your purview. Thank you for your consideration, James Lopes