Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/11/2022 Item 4a, Lucas Wilbanks, Megan From:Hanh, Hannah Sent:Tuesday, May 10, 2022 2:02 PM To:Advisory Bodies Subject:FW: Please forward to Planning Commission re Item 4a May 11 mtg Good afternoon, I am forwarding written correspondence received for USE-0103-2022 (1701 Monterey), scheduled for review th on the May 11 Planning Commission hearing. Thank you, Hannah From: Bob < Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2022 2:01 PM To: Hanh, Hannah <hhanh@slocity.org> Subject: Please forward to Planning Commission re Item 4a May 11 mtg This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Thank you for the opportunity to address you about the proposed project for The Hub at 1701 Monterey, item 4a on your agenda. The idea for The Hub is in many respects a great one. It proposes an attractive gathering place for students, locals, and tourists with indoor and outdoor recreational activities. It would give San Luis something of what makes foreign towns seem so vibrant, human, and welcoming to locals and visitors as well. That the developers propose to repurpose much of what is already there is another attractive plus. The problem is that the character of the proposal for The Hub seems to collide with Ordinance 1651 (Attachment D of your agenda item) in some significant ways. First, though, some background about Ordinance 1651 might help understanding better the purpose and intent of the document. The San Luis Drive neighborhood is the only R1 residential zoned area in town that abuts directly with a Tourist/Commercial zoned area—upper Monterey Street. Because of potential conflicts that could arise, the citizens of the neighborhood banded together over thirty years ago to develop and foster the adoption of an ordinance that specified certain things necessary to control development and preserve the tranquility of the neighborhood--a closely knit community of families in about 170 residences spread out along a gradually rising landscape. The Ordinance also aims to protect the 1 upper reaches of San Luis Creek and the critters that visit occasionally, or dwell there. The creek both divides and joins the people on both its sides together So far, the ordinance has served our community well. It focuses on controlling noise and light, and the results have been substantially good. For example, because of the Ordinance, the developers of the La Quinta made significant changes that ameliorated its potentially disruptive character to the point where, despite its proposed 100+ rooms, it actual impact on our community is more like that of the “boutique” hotel it was originally characterized to be. But in the early 1990’s, when the ordinance was developed as Ordinance 1130, those who proposed it largely envisioned a series of developments that would follow in the train of the Apple Farm and the Peach Tree Inn. Thus, the current Ordinance reads like a guide to tweaking hotel construction rather than a more general guide to peaceful cohabitation. This explains why many of the design principles govern construction and deal only incidentally, or iby nference, with landscaping and the use of outdoor spaces. So as we approach this unique project within the context of the past on upper Monterey, we need to dig deeper into the design principles of the Ordinance to tease out their implications for a new proposal that is every bit as much about the outside a building as it is about the inside of it. I will touch on the design elements of the Ordinance 1651 and try to link some that otherwise don’t seem to apply to The Hub, to The Hub. The preamble to the ordinance says that it applies to “any new development, or use.” Now the applicants are to be applauded for repurposing the existing building and environs rather than demolishing everything and starting all over again from scratch. But even though there is no new construction, the result will clearly be a new use—a major shift from an outdoor garden retail shop that hosted maybe 15 potential buyers a day during business hours to a bar tavern restaurant outdoor recreation area retail shop brewery axe throwing pickle ball courting complex operating from 7 am to 10 pm that could easily see more people in any single day than Daylight Gardens saw in a month. And the people coming to the new site will not be quietly pondering the merits of spending $2,000 for a hammock, but rather they will arrive with the purpose of have lots of fun, some of it boisterous, for less than fifteen bucks. The traffic levels will be significantly different, and the character of interaction vastly different. Because the proposal is for a new use, a number of the design principles of 1651 will be applicable, either explicitly or implicitly. Because the applicant did not consider the project a new use, it addressed only some of these issues, and not always to the extent that the Ordinance requires. Criterion 2 of the Ordinance prohibits balconies and their doors facing the creek. This stricture on its face does not seem to apply because the applicant proposed no balconies. But it is important to consider why that rule was developed—the intent of the rule. Balconies were proscribed because by their nature, they invite guests from the inside of their rooms to the outside, where such gatherings can get boisterous (imagine Cal Poly students renting a room on a football weekend or a family 2 hanging out there for a graduation celebration). The noise that could emanate was considered enough of a problem that the City forbade such balconies altogether. Comparing that situation to what The Hub proposes, we see the potential for a lot more than occasional noise, something that could be likened to the noise of 100 balconies, for hours-long periods rather than for just twenty or thirty minutes. So we can infer that the design principle has serious implications for the noise-generating potential at The Hub. Criterion 3 calls for screening between the buildings and the creek, largely to block the view. Fortunately, foliage abounds by the creek and blocks the view for much of the neighborhood. But for those homes further up the hill, it may well be a different story. Their experience is they don’t need to buy tickets to the Cal Poly football games to hear all the action. It comes through loud and clear from the stadium speakers over a mile away. Criterion 6 says all new uses must be compatible with riparian habitat and adjacent residential uses, including light and glare, privacy, noise, and traffic. In all cases, such new uses shall be adequately buffered from creek and residents to mitigate potential offsite impacts. The applicant contends that all new uses are located far from the creek and residents. But the term “new uses” applies to the whole enterprise, not just to new individual features, one at a time. In almost all cases, new uses for parking are not adequately buffered. The three outdoor recreational areas, including one that is exceptionally large, have almost nothing but distance to buffer the sound. Some think that the dense foliage will offer buffering, but numerous studies have shown that such leafage barely muffles sounds. Criterion 7 is even more to the point here as it singles out noise generating uses and identifies parking and active outdoor recreation uses, for example, gathering areas. It says that these should be located on the interior of the site, buffered by buildings, such as what happens in a courtyard where sound is confined and bounces back and forth until it finally diminishes among the inner walls. There are several good examples on Monterey Street: the Quality Suites, La Quinta, the San Luis Creek Lodge, and the Peach Tree Inn are a few. But with The Hub, the main building—indeed the only building—is in the dead center of the lot, and the active recreation areas surround it like a horseshoe. Some noise will head directly towards the creek unbuffered, while sounds going in the opposite direction (away from the creek) will likely reflect off the building and bounce back toward the creek and residences. So in effect, the building doesn’t buffer the sounds, but instead redoubles the noise. Criterion 15 says no conference or convention centers. This proposal is clearly not a conference center. But the element also says that in any structure, none of the rooms facing creekside shall be used primarily for social gatherings, such as a ballroom. 3 The Hub has only one indoor room creekside. It is a very large, and it is the main one dedicated to indoor recreation, including live music. That use is incompatible with the applicable 1651criterion. Closing the doors and the windows will not be enough. What further exacerbates the situation is that this room is largely surrounded by the three major active outdoor recreations areas. By extension, if the inside area is clearly off limits in terms of the Ordinance, then the outside area is in even greater violation of intent. Outside active recreation is buffered by nothing more than part of a Butler building (belonging to the neighboring towing business) and a 10’ by 18’ temporary fabric tent offering no mass for buffering, and some fencing of dubious value for attenuating sound. Chess and checkers should pose no problem, but more active ones, like pickle ball, are known to be problems in residential areas because of noise issues. Criterion 16 says that openings resulting from ground parking oriented toward the creek (of which there are many) shall be prohibited. The applicant proposes to leave all surface parking as it is because it is not a “new use.” But a complex that by its very nature funnels hundreds of people and their cars in and out from 7 in the morning until 10 at night, is a substantially new use that has to deal with this issue. The proposed plan clearly does not. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposal. I sincerely hope that the applicants will be able to address satisfactorily these comments so that we can all enjoy access to this project. Bob Lucas 1831 San Luis Dr 805 459 4344 4