Appeals of BeachWalk Resort project in Pismo Beach

of 4

P14-000192 Appeal 5/6/15, 10:05 AM

The proposed Beachwalk Inn will occupy one of the last pieces of urban beachfront property in all of California. It is important to the city of Pismo Beach that this property be developed in a way that enhances the quaint character of our unique beach town. The driving factor should not be to maximize the number of beds and taxes paid to the city. Instead it should be a desire to use this last precious resource in a way that best compliments the size and scale of our city and makes the Beachwalk Inn a point of pride for both residents and guests alike.

I submitted my concerns about this project via email before the planning commission meeting. A copy of that email is included at the end of this document. During the planning commission meeting an additional item came to light that had not been disclosed to the public, the lot line adjustment.

I am appealing the planning commission's decision on 4/28/2015 to approve the Beachwalk Inn because the project has a number of features that are inconsistent with the General Plan's Building and Site Design Criteria. My specific complaints are listed below.

Problem #1: The hotel is a single large building

Section D-2a of the General Plan states:

New development should be designed to reflect the small-scale image of the city rather than create large monolithic buildings. Apartment, condominium and hotel buildings should preferably be contained in several smaller massed buildings rather than one large building.

The proposed hotel is one large building and is therefore inconsistent with the General Plan.

Solution: the hotel should be composed of several smaller massed buildings rather than one large building.

Problem #2: The exterior walls are not highly articulated


Building mass and building surfaces such as roofs and exterior walls shall be highly articulated to maintain a rich visual texture and an intimate building scale.

of 4

P14-000192 Appeal 5/6/15, 10:05 AM

The east wall of the hotel is not highly articulated, does not have a rich visual texture, and does not have an intimate building scale. In fact, it is one long, flat, three-story wall. The design is therefore inconsistent with the General Plan.

Solution: the east wall of the hotel should be highly articulated to maintain a rich visual texture and an intimate building scale.

Problem #3: The hotel does not compliment the surrounding architecture

Section D-2e of the General Plan states:

Project perimeter walls should complement surrounding architecture and neighborhood environment and should avoid monotony by utilizing elements of horizontal and vertical articulation.

The east and north walls of the hotel do not compliment the surrounding architecture at 160 Hinds and are therefore inconsistent with the General Plan.

Solution: The east and north walls of the hotel should compliment 160 Hinds by incorporating similar setbacks, landscaping and horizontal and vertical articulation.

Problem #4: The east wall does not have horizontal and vertical articulation

Section D-2e of the General Plan states:

Project perimeter walls should complement surrounding architecture and neighborhood environment and should avoid monotony by utilizing elements of horizontal and vertical articulation.

The east wall of the design is one long, monotonous wall with neither horizontal nor vertical articulation. The design is therefore inconsistent with the General Plan.

of 4

P14-000192 Appeal 5/6/15, 10:05 AM

Solution: the east wall should utilize elements of horizontal and vertical articulation to avoid monotony.

Problem #5: The architectural features on the east side of the hotel are not consistent with the rest of the development

Section D-2d of the General Plan states:

Architectural features shall be consistent throughout a development, even when a portion of the development is hidden from public view.

The east side of the hotel does not have the same architectural features as the other three sides. In particular, there is no articulation and no landscaping on the east wall. The design is therefore inconsistent with the General Plan.

east side vs. west side

Solution: the east side of the hotel should have articulation and landscaping consistent with the other sides of the hotel.

Problem #6: The setback on the east side of the hotel does not achieve the desired small-scale character


of 4

P14-000192 Appeal 5/6/15, 10:05 AM

Maximum height, setback, and site coverage standards to achieve the desired small-scale character will be regulated by City ordinance.

The hotel project was granted a zero setback variance along the east side of the property. A zero setback does not achieve the desired small-scale character and is therefore inconsistent with the General Plan.

Solution: the hotel should have standard city setbacks.

Problem #7: The lot line adjustment circumvents Coastal Zoning Code requirements

Section 17.081.030 of the Municipal Code states:

Special height limitations for ocean fronting parcels in the following planning areas shall be described below...

Shortly before the planning commission meeting, 150 Hinds was subdivided into two lots, a large inland parcel and a small coastal parcel. This was done to circumvent the 1983 Coastal Zoning Code's height and setback requirements. Previous to this action 150 Hinds was a single oceanfront parcel upon which buildings would be limited to more restrictive height and setback requirements. After the subdivision, the hotel can be three stories tall, almost up to the boardwalk on Hinds Avenue. Allowing such a large building adjacent to the boardwalk, particularly when the oceanfront lot dimensions were specifically contrived to make it legal, goes against the spirit and intentions of the Coastal Zoning Code requirements.

Solution: 150 Hinds should remain a single lot or be subdivided in such a way that the coastal parcel on Hinds has the same depth as the coastal parcel on Stimson.

From: David Riggle [email protected]: Comments on the 147 Stimson / 150 Hinds Hotel Project

Date: April 27, 2015 at 7:50 AMTo: [email protected]

Hi Jan,

My wife and I are residents at 160 Hinds Avenue #205, Pismo Beach. We will be two of the people most affected by this hotel project. We always knew a three story hotel would someday go up on 150 Hinds, so we can't mourn the loss of our ocean view. However, there are aspects of the hotel design that could be modified in order to show some consideration to the neighbors next door at 160 Hinds.

1. Setbacks, daylight plane, architectural discord

As shown in the Hinds elevation (http://pismobeach.org/DocumentCenter/View/45736), the east side of the hotel rises vertically three stories into a long, flat wall. Visually, that is not attractive.

This view will be seen by every Pismo Beach tourist as he leaves the pier parking lot. It will be his last impression of downtown Pismo Beach. The city should try harder to make Pismo Beach's coming of age a thing of beauty. A staggered height and depth to east wall of the new hotel would be more attractive and smooth the transition between the two quite different architectural styles at 160 Hinds and 150 Hinds.

2. Windows looking into windows

As shown in the 2nd and 3rd floor plans and the east elevation (http://pismobeach.org/DocumentCenter/View/45736), the hotel has rooms facing east with windows that look directly into the windows of residences at 160 Hinds. That is not a good view for either residents or hotel guests.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://pismobeach.org/DocumentCenter/View/45736http://pismobeach.org/DocumentCenter/View/45736

An earlier proposal for the hotel had trees and architectural features that showed some consideration for the neighbors at 160 Hinds. That earlier design can be found here (http://www.landadvisors.com/pdf/56356-CASL30085PKG.PDF). Note the trees and increased setback between 160 and 150 Hinds to provide a more pleasant view for both neighbors and hotel guests, and to allow some sunlight into 160 Hinds.

The new hotel should incorporate these previous design features to avoid the awkwardness of windows looking into windows for their neighbors and guests.

3. Hinds Ave circle

The proposed design includes a turn-around circle at the end of Hinds Avenue (http://pismobeach.org/DocumentCenter/View/45736). However, the designers have skewed the circle to put most of it onto city land and the pier parking lot.
http://www.landadvisors.com/pdf/56356-CASL30085PKG.PDFhttp://pismobeach.org/DocumentCenter/View/45736

The circle should be centered on Hinds Avenue and the hotel should give up land equal to what the city must give up.

4. Underground parking at sea level

Last year's storm brought waves up the Hinds ramp and over the iceplant at 150 Hinds. Below is one of our pictures of the storm.

About a hundred years ago a similar storm washed away part of the hotel at 150 Hinds. Here are pictures from the county historical society.

It isn't too hard to imagine what such a storm (or tsunami) could do 50 years from now when the sea level is significantly higher than it is today.

An underground parking garage at or below sea level seems like a really bad idea. The Hinds Ave ramp will be the only opening in the seawall from Addie St to Main St, so large waves will be funneled up the Hinds Ave ramp and down into the parking garage. A ground level parking lot would be a much safer solution.

5. Size

The proposed hotel is quite large for the piece of land. It will be the largest hotel downtown. Something smaller would better fit the character of the last classic California beach town.

Sincerely,

Dave Riggle160 Hinds Avenue #205Pismo Beach, CA

Hampton Appeal - Beach Walk Resort 05-05-2015Riggle Apeal - Beach Walk Resort 05-06-2015Ruiz Appeal - Beach Walk Resort 05-07-2015Tanner Appeal - Beach Walk Resort 05-07-2015

Appeals of BeachWalk Resort project in Pismo Beach

Documents

Transcript of Appeals of BeachWalk Resort project in Pismo Beach