HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/19/2018 Item 2, Lopes
Goodwin, Heather
From:James Lopes <jameslopes@charter.net>
Sent:Sunday, November
To:Advisory Bodies; Oetzell, Walter
Cc:Allan Cooper; Russ Brown; Nick Wilson; Peter Johnson
Subject:Fwd: Re: Fwd: 1135 Santa Rosa - for Save Our Downtown mtg Monday
Architectural Review Commission
City of San Luis Obispo
RE: ARC Item 2 - 1135 Santa Rosa modifications
Dear Commissioners:
As a member of Save Our Downtown, I have the following comments that provide some needed background and
encourage a strong response from your Commission to the project proposals. I find it at least insensitive that two City
Council members, Pease and Christianson, reportedly met with the applicant team to negotiate the current proposal
with the applicant. This effort shows little or no respect to the staff or Architectural Review Commission for your
responsibilities, skills and abilities. This "team" even prejudged the feasibility or using colors on the wall planes, as
though no tangible solutions are available. Hopefully, your Commission will maintain your independence from this
"oversight," or which is obviously developer assistance. It is all too common to see or hear of what in the past was
winked at as "customer friendly," but in San Luis Obispo this practice needs to change in favor of representing residents,
policies and guidelines, and the process of review.
I also find it overly-protective of the applicant by the City Attorney to advise your Commission to rescind your previous
direction. It is clear that the Marsh Street elevation is even more stark than the west side of the building. The
southwest corner is the most articulated part of the building, so it is mystifying if the City Council had any idea what it
was directing in its motion. Your Commission should address the prominent concerns of the Council, take into account
the parenthetical but address the most prominent problems with the southwest and southeast (Marsh Street) facades.
Save Our Downtown has previously opposed the use of the dark color precisely in contradiction to the applicant's
claim that it is compatible with others used in the vicinity. The Community Design Guidelines, Section 3.1.B.12 (p. 21)
states that "Colors should be compatible with the existing colors of the surrounding area but need not duplicate existing
colors." The proposed color is obviously in contrast to and incompatible with the existing colors of the area. 12a) states
that "The use of muted tones for the structure's base color is recommended. Color should not be used as an attention-
getting device." The project color is clearly just such a device. It is clearly out of context and contrasts with (does not fit)
its surroundings.
The use of lighter colors should be required on the wall planes, even though the colors may end at a building corner,
or somewhere within a facade. Modern pilasters or trim moldings might delineate color changes. These lighter colors
should be applied to the large remaining wall planes on the southwest (parking lot) facade, and the southeast (Marsh
Street) facade.
The proposal for three metal awnings should be rejected in favor of effective awnings which are consistent with CDG
4.2.5 - Awnings (p. 50). They should also be required on the Marsh Street frontage between the wall sconces and
effectively block solar gain inside the windows.
The proposal for tree plantings should be accepted, but a speciman box tree should be planted where a large, mature
1
tree was removed with the construction project on the right side of the Marsh Street driveway. Additional trees should
be required within the planting strip along the Marsh Street frontage, to partially screen and break up the massive
facade. Oblong shaped trees, such as Brisbane box, might be effective. Or perhaps large shrubs, such as Pittosporum,
should be considered instead of trees, due to the narrow planter width. The oak street trees should not be relied on for
screening, since they will take decades to screen effectively, if they even survive. Most oak street trees on city streets
become twisted and deformed.
To clarify an incorrect assertion by the applicant, the term "bulkhead" is not only a semi-technical one applied to flood
protection, but also to the base of a building. In the Community Design Guidelines, , page 48, a "bulkhead" is simply a
base above which to locate windows and other facade features. The project has been treated incorrectly from the
standpoint of this guideline. Perhaps a tall base should be introduced in a lighter color, with a trim molding.
Sincerely,
James Lopes, AICP
2