HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-11-2017 ARC Correspondence - Item 2 (Lopes)1
912 Bluebell Way
San Luis Obispo, California 9340 1
September 9, 2017
Architectural Review Commission
City of San Luis Obispo
RE: Item 2: September 11, 2017 Agenda, Item 2: 1135 Santa Rosa Street
Dear Chairperson Wynn and Commissioners:
I support the viewpoints and reasoning of staff and the recommendation to deny the
requested modifications to the approved project . I ask that you create and pass a
Condition of Approval to require the applicant to provide conforming changes to
the building and colors within an am bitious but reasonable time, with a penalty to
rescind the Certificate of Occupancy (which was granted in error ) and vacation of the
premises by the occupants within a short time if the condition is not met . Other
penalties should be included such as a bond to the City to fund and make the
required changes at the applicant ’s expense, and a property tax lien for surety . I’m
requesting that the City Attorney draft the basics of this condition , to be at the ready
at the hearing to finalize it.
I ’m also requesting that your Chairperson recuse himself from the hearing if he feels
that his relationship with the a rchitect is too close to be impartial and diligent in
pursuing the facts and policies of this matter. My concern is based on t he July 12,
2017 email from Ben Kul ick to Mr. Wynn has the tone of one close friend to another
rather than to an officer of the City .
The applicant’s business , Stalwork, is a newer San Luis Obispo firm which focuses
on modern design and signature bla ck color schemes, most notably at the
headquarters office on Parker Street. The use of a dark charcoal color on this
building is obviously and simply an advertising statement for the firm ’s new office and
presence downtown in the subject building .
The points made by Allan Cooper in his letter are valuable in support of a denial. In
addition to Mr. Cooper ’s references to nonconformities wi th policies, the architect and
perhaps the Commission may have overlooked the fact that the
Community Design Guidelines are stru ctured in encapsulating,
descending order, from communitywide to general to type of use
and area. Section 3.1 on page 17 states general Commercial
Project Design Guidelines which overarch more specific area
guidelines, such as for downtown.
Guideline 3.1.A.2 - The second design objective for all commercial projects is
to, “Avoid “boxy” structures with large, flat wall planes by articulating bui lding
2
forms and elevations to create interesting roof lines , building shapes, and
patterns of shade and shadow.” Unfortunately this guidelines was ignored.
Quite a few general guidelines are relevant to this project ’s failure to be
conforming within their guidance. Guideline 3.1.B.12 a – Colors, especially
has not been met: “Colors should be compatible with the existing colors of the
surrounding area but need not duplicate existing colors.” And, the next
guideline 12.b has been ignored: “The use of muted tones for the structure ’s
base color is recommended.” Dark charcoal is almost black in saturation and
is at the extreme end of the color range; it is not a muted color. It is as
extr eme as a bright yellow or red, as it is at the dark end of their hues .
The modern style here is a pr oblem since t his project location within the downtown
should have a traditional rather than modern design basis, which unfortunately has
not been observed by the City staff or ARC. Within the downtown, more classic
design themes are important, and this keystone corner to the downtown shou ld be
treated the same as or more importantly as others in the district. A classic design
concept is the tripartite segmentation of wall planes into a base indicating support of
the building mass, a middle segment of wall articulati on and openings, and a top
segment of cornices and moldings. The concept is describ ed and illustrated in the
Community Design Guidelines , and it is the basis that a “bulkhead” should be the
bottom segment, rather than acting as a flood control device (see Guideline 4.2.C.7
and Figure 4-2). It is the applicant ’s responsibility to design a building which
embraces the concept without being awkward or stark.
At your hearing on July 10, 2017, it seemed that your commission was interested in
allowing some amount of this charcoal color among other lighter ones, as a friendly
compromise with the applicant. This is not an approach I recommend now or in the
future, in particular when an a pplicant is intran sigent on such an important matter.
This charcoal is not conducive to a stucco wall. And, the only other color in the area
with this saturation is the brown bank vault at the Bank of America corner,
surrounded by a white build ing.
A charcoal building might be acceptabl e elsewhere, perhaps in Europe, but in our
Mediterranean climate , solar heat gain from the dark color is itself a negative factor
which will worsen with increased climate warming. The very dark color also is prone
to fading and showing dust and minerals from water. The photo s below show how
the color is already deteriorat ing and streaking from sun and weather exposure (it is
not a “patina ”):
3
The appearance of this building is not imposing ; it is forbidding and sinister, and it is
patently apparent that the design intent of this company is to look menacing as a
trademark theme. I would ho pe that City policies and representatives do not embrace
or even accept this approach anywhere in the city, including the airport area. Black
in Europe is used occasionally for storefronts as an expression of couture, which
should be enough to experience here.
It is patently obvious the applicant is testing the City’s resolve and intelligence. The
staff have done a n excellent and diligent job keeping the facts in order and pol icies
apparent. I hope that your Commission will set a precedent that defends and
upholds the policies and planned appearance of the City and downt own as well.
Sincerely,
James Lopes