HomeMy WebLinkAbout3 Attachment 19 PC Staff Report (12-10-14)Meeting Date: Dec. 10, 2014
Item Number: 1
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review of an appeal of the Administrative Hearing Officer’s decision to approve an Administrative Use Permit for a proposed 102-unit multi-story hotel building with associated site improvements.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1845/1865 Monterey Street BY: Marcus Carloni, Associate Planner Phone Number: 781-7176 e-mail: mcarloni@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: AP-PC 143-13 FROM: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) denying the appeal and
upholding the Administrative Hearing Officer’s decision to approve the Administrative Use Permit
(the “Use Permit”) for the proposed project, based on findings, and subject to conditions.
SITE DATA
Applicant West Coast Asset Management
Representative George Garcia,
Garcia Architecture + Design
Appellant Bob Lucas, San Luis Drive
Zoning C-T-S & C/OS-5 (Tourist Commercial
Special Considerations &
Conservation/Open Space)
General Plan Tourist
Site Area 1.93 Acres
Environmental
Status
Mitigated Negative Declaration ER
143-13 (Adopted by ARC)
SUMMARY
The proposed project is a redevelopment of the subject location with a multi-story 102-unit hotel above
subterranean and at-grade parking. The property is located within a Special Considerations Overlay
zone governed by Ordinance No. 1130, approved in 1989. A Use Permit was approved by the
Administrative Hearing Officer on August 18th based on findings of consistency with Ordinance No.
1130 and applicable City standards, however, the project was appealed to the Planning Commission on
August 28th citing concerns with “openings facing the creek” and the “size and mass” of the proposed
structure [see section 2.3 for background].
Staff has reviewed the appeal letter and staff responses to pertinent items are provided in section 3.0
below. Ultimately, staff finds the project to comply with Ordinance No. 1130 and applicable City
standards and recommends the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Administrative
Hearing Officer’s approval of the Use Permit.
AP-PC 143-13 (1845/1865 Monterey Street)
Page 2
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The Planning Commission’s role is to determine whether the appeal of the Administrative Hearing
Officer’s decision is warranted as it relates to the requirements of Ordinance No. 1130 and applicable
City standards.
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 Site Information/Setting
The project site (two abutting parcels) is approximately 2 acres in size and is located in the Tourist
Commercial – Special Considerations (C-T-S) zone with Conservation/Open Space zoning at the
rear of the property along the creek corridor. The project site is currently developed with Pappy
McGregor’s Restaurant (1865 Monterey Street) and a single story structure (1845 Monterey Street)
which has been used as a residence and for commercial uses over time (this structure was approved
for demolition by the Architectural Review Commission). Behind the two structures is a large
paved parking area which slopes downward to San Luis Obispo Creek at the rear of the property.
The creek is bordered by extensive riparian vegetation. (See Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheet
SV1.0 for an existing site plan)
The project site is surrounded by Tourist Commercial zoned land (north, west, south) with a Low-
Density Residential neighborhood (San Luis Drive) located east of the project site across the creek.
2.2 Project Description
A summary of significant project features includes the following (Attachment 3, Project Plans &
Attachment 13, Colored Site Plan Exhibit):
1. Redevelopment of the subject location with a 102-room hotel including parking, guest
lounge, meeting space, fitness center, and managers unit.
a. 4-story building
b. Main entrance, hotel lobby, and outdoor terraces fronting Monterey Street
(Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheet A8.0).
c. Demolition of existing single-story structure (1845 Monterey Street) and
retention of Pappy McGregor’s restaurant (1865 Monterey Street). (Demolition
approved by ARC).
Site Size 1.93 Acres (62,353 sq. ft. C-T-S) & (21,920 sq. ft. C/OS-5)
Present Use & Development One SFR to be removed and one commercial building and
associated parking to remain
Land Use Designation Tourist Commercial (C-T) with Special Considerations and
Conservation Open Space (C/OS-5)
Access Monterey Street
Surrounding Use/Zoning North: Hotels (C-T-S zoning)
South: Hotels (C-T-S zoning)
East: San Luis Creek and Single-family residences (R-1)
West: Hotels (C-T zoning)
AP-PC 143-13 (1845/1865 Monterey Street)
Page 3
d. Tree removals (approved by ARC). No removal of heritage trees. Removal of
small native/non-native trees (largest native is a 10-inch Coast Live Oak along
the southern property line). Both the City Arborist and Natural Resources
Manager have reviewed the removals and concurred that the proposed landscape
plan, including both landscape trees and trees within the creek restoration area,
provide adequate mitigation.
2. Total of 141 at grade and subterranean parking spaces (Attachment 3, Project Plans,
Sheets AS1.0 and AS1.1).
a. A 12-space shared-use parking reduction (approved by Administrative Hearing
Officer).
b. Retention of 10 existing paved parking spaces located in the C/OS-5 zoned
portion of the site (Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheet AS1.0 callout 30).
3. Contemporary design incorporating cement plaster and composite wood siding with
alternating wood detailing on the entrance façade (Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheet
A8.1 view 07).
Table 2.2: Project Statistics
Item Proposed 1 Ordinance Standard 2
Street Yard setback 10 feet 10 feet
Side Yard Setbacks
East (C-T)
West (C-T)
South (C/OS-5)
0 feet
0 feet
20 feet
0 feet
0 feet
20 feet
Max. Height of Structure(s) 44.5 feet + 9 feet for
Architectural Projections
45 feet + 10 feet for Architectural Projections
Coverage (buildings & paving) 54% 75%
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.85 2.5
Parking Spaces
Vehicle
Motorcycle
Bicycle
141 spaces (7.84% reduction)3
7
7
153 spaces (138 w/ 10% shared-use parking
reduction)3
7
7
Notes: 1. Applicant’s project plans
2. City Zoning Regulations
3. 12 space shared-use parking reduction approved by Administrative Hearing Officer (a 7.84%
reduction)
2.3 Background and Use Permit Approval
The project site is located within a Special Considerations overlay zone which is governed by
Ordinance No. 1130 (1989 Series). The Special Considerations overlay was established at this
location to address land use compatibility between commercial uses and residential uses adjacent to
San Luis Creek. The Ordinance includes, but is not limited to, requirements related to lowered
height and additional setback from the creek and Conservation/Open Space boundary and a
structure’s relationship to the creek (e.g. lighting, glazing/openings/balconies, vegetation screening,
and grading/drainage). See Attachment 4, Ordinance No. 1130 (1989 Series)
Projects within a Special Considerations overlay zone require approval of an Administrative Use
Permit before a use may be established (Zoning Regulations Section 17.56.010.A). The
AP-PC 143-13 (1845/1865 Monterey Street)
Page 4
ARC Continuance
9-15-2014
ARC Approval
10-20-2014
ARC Appeal
10-30-2014
City Council
Review
Administrative Hearing Officer approved the Use Permit on August 18, 2014
finding the project to be consistent with the requirements of Ordinance No. 1130
(Attachment 5, Administrative Use Permit Staff Report).
2.3.1 Use Permit Appeal
On August 28th an appeal of the Administrative Hearing Officer’s approval of
the Use Permit was received. The appeal is related to “openings facing the
creek” and the “size and mass” of the proposed structure (Attachment 6, Use
Permit Appeal Letter). The appeal is discussed in section 3.0 below.
2.3.2 Review/Approval by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC)
Continuance. On September 15th the ARC reviewed and ultimately continued the proposed
project with six directional items for project modifications and additional information.
Directional items were related to: 1) additional noise information; 2) lighting analysis; 3)
modifications to creek-facing balconies; 4) additional detail of the lower level
parking area screening wall; 5) creek and upland plantings; and 6)
clarification on a Public Works condition related to driveway access. (The
September 15th ARC Staff Report and meeting minutes are included as
Attachment 10).
Approval. On October 20th the ARC granted final design approval finding the
project to be consistent with ARC direction, the Community Design
Guidelines, Ordinance No. 1130, and applicable City regulations. (The
October 20th ARC Staff Report and meeting minutes are included as
Attachment 11).
Appeal. On October 30th an appeal of the ARC’s approval of the project was
received. The appeal cites concerns related to CEQA review, openings facing
the creek, noise, scale/mass of the structure, glare, buffering, and grading.
The appeal of the ARC’s approval will be heard by the City Council at an
upcoming hearing.
3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
The following provides an analysis of the appeal of the Administrative Hearing Officer’s approval of
the project. The analysis is followed by a discussion of pertinent items related to Ordinance No. 1130
requirements.
3.1 Appeal Item #1 “openings facing the creek”: Ordinance No. 1130 Design Criteria #2 states
“building openings (doors, windows, balconies, etc.) facing the creek shall be minimized.” (See
Attachment 3, Project Plans, sheet A7.0 “east elevation” & Sheet A8.1 “view from east”).
The appellant’s letter expresses concern with the project’s compliance with Design Criteria #2,
indicating that the proposed “doors and balconies for the rooms facing the creek increases rather
than minimizes the openings.” Ultimately, the letter indicates that the historic context (i.e. existing
structures along the creek) of openings facing the creek should be used and indicates that “to add
Use Permit Approval
8-18-2014
Use Permit Appeal
8-28-2014
PC Review
12-10-2014
AP-PC 143-13 (1845/1865 Monterey Street)
Page 5
any [balconies and doors] is to maximize” (see appellant’s discussion in Attachment 6, Use Permit
Appeal Letter). The letter indicates that the proposed openings have the possibility to create “noise
from gatherings on the balcony, as well as an invasion of privacy of the San Luis Drive
neighborhood”.
Staff Response: Ordinance No. 1130 was established in 1989 to aid in addressing land use
compatibility issues due to the existence of commercial zoning adjacent to residential zoning.
The Ordinance requirements (Section 5) were labeled as “design criteria” and there is much
overlap between the requirements that are under the purview of the Planning and Architectural
Review Commission. Relative to Design Criteria #2, it was useful to get the ARC’s input on
the proposed building openings facing the creek.
Openings facing the creek. At the September 15th hearing, the ARC directed the applicant to
“look at ways to further minimize impacts to neighbors from the proposed balconies [facing
the creek], including the possibility of reducing the number and/or size of balconies, and
explore balcony screening alternatives such as taller guard railings.” In response to this
direction, the applicant removed the three balconies nearest the creek and the wrap around
portions of the three balconies adjacent to the skyway (i.e. the bridge connection), see image
below. This resulted in an additional 26% reduction in the square footage area of balconies
facing the creek (previously totaling 2,079 s.f., now totaling 1,533 s.f.).
Additionally, it is worth noting that the guardrail of each balcony continues downward (past an
individual balconies finished floor) and creates an awning-type enclosure for the balcony
below, further screening the space. See image below (far right callout).
At the September 15th hearing, the ARC determined the openings facing the creek have been
reduced to a level consistent with Ordinance 1130. The reduction in openings facing the creek
coupled with supporting documentation including, but not limited to, an acoustic analysis and
photometric study (which are discussed in section 3.3 of this report) allowed the ARC to
approve the revised design.
Noise and Privacy. The appeal letter cites concerns with the possibility of excessive noise from
gatherings on the balconies as well as the potential for invasion of privacy. Guest room
False balconies (3) Removed wrap-around
balconies (3)
Red line indicates
balcony finished
floor
AP-PC 143-13 (1845/1865 Monterey Street)
Page 6
balconies along the creek facing (east) façade are approximately five feet deep (a minimal area
adequate for getting some fresh air, but not large enough to entice gathering) and all common
hotel guest areas, including lobby, lounge, and outdoor spaces are oriented toward Monterey
Street and away from San Luis Obispo Creek (Attachment 3, Project Plans), consistent with
Ordinance No. 1130 Design Criteria #7. As detailed in section 3.3.1 below, the acoustic
anal ysis prepared by David Dubbink Associates concludes that sound generated from use of the
proposed balconies will dissipate to 39 decibels at the property line between the subject
property and the nearest residential properties, which complies with City day and nighttime
noise allowances of 50 decibels (daytime) and 45 decibels (nighttime).
Distance. Furthermore, the proposed hotel structure (east façade) is approximately 234 feet (or
78 yards) from the nearest residence (Attachment 8, Distance Study) and is separated by
significant vegetation, including evergreen trees. The applicant has provided photographs taken
from a flying drone (looking toward San Luis Drive) set to the height of various levels of the
proposed balconies. The photographs illustrate significant vegetation blocking overlook views
toward San Luis Drive residences (Attachment 9, Drone Photographs).
3.2 Appeal Item #2 “size and mass”: The appellant’s letter expresses concern with the size and
massing of the proposed hotel, indicated that the building is “out of scale with the surrounding
commercial buildings as well as with the residential area,” and the letter indicates that this presents
concerns with regard to “lighting, glare, noise, traffic, and invasion of privacy for living across th e
creek” (see appellant’s discussion in Attachment 6, Use Permit Appeal Letter).
Staff response: Ordinance No. 1130 does not include criteria for size and massing and does not
lower the maximum height allowed for structures in the Tourist Commercial zone (45-feet
maximum height1).
The Architectural Review Commission is tasked with reviewing the scale and massing of
projects, for consistency with the Community Design Guidelines. Over the course of two public
hearings the ARC considered the scale and massing of the project and ultimately found the
project to incorporate a mix of color/finish materials, articulation, siting, scale, and massing
that are compatible with the neighborhood, and granted final approval (Attachment 10,
September 15th ARC Staff Report and Minutes & Attachment 11, October 20th ARC Staff
Report, Minutes, and approval Resolution).
The Planning Commission is not tasked with reviewing the scale and massing of the project,
and the Ordinance does not include criteria for scale and massing which is under the ARC’s
purview, as discussed above. Rather, the Ordinance provides a stepped setback/height
allowance as follows:
Ordinance 1130 Design Criteria #1
a. “All new structures approved after adoption of this ordinance shall be set back a
minimum of 20 feet from the relocated C/OS-5 boundary.
1 Zoning Regulations Section 17.16.040 Height. The height of a building is the vertical distance from the average level of the ground
under the building to the topmost point of the roof, including parapets. The average level of the ground is determined by adding
the elevation of the lowest point of the part of the lot covered by the building to the elevation of the highest point of the part of the
lot covered by the building, and dividing by two. Height measurements shall be based on existing topography of the site, before
grading for proposed on-site improvements.
AP-PC 143-13 (1845/1865 Monterey Street)
Page 7
b. The setback area may be occupied by landscaping, fencing, and pedestrian
walkways and like features as determined by the Planning Commission. No new
facilities for parking, active recreation or noise generating equipment may
occupy the creek setback area.”
Ordinance 1130 Design Criteria #9
“Building height shall be restricted as follows:
a. Within 50 feet of the revised C/OS-5 boundary, maximum height shall be 25 feet.
b. Beyond 50 feet from the revised C/OS-5 boundary, maximum height shall be 45
feet.”
The proposed project complies with criteria 1 and 9 as depicted in Attachment 3 (Project Plans,
Sheet A6.0, callouts “45’ building height” & “25’ building height”), and despite Ordinance No.
1130 permitting the Planning Commission to allow for relief from the setback/height standards
in limited circumstances2, the project complies with the setback/height requirements of
Ordinance No. 1130; no exceptions are requested.
Staff is not asking the Planning Commission to make a determination on scale/massing in
response to the Use Permit appeal since scale/massing are under the purview of, and have been
approved by, the Architectural Review Commission and that decision is subject to a separate
appeal to the City Council.
3.3 Other Items Discussed in the Appeal Letter
3.3.1 Noise: One of the directional items provided by the ARC at the September 15th ARC
hearing was for the applicant to provide additional noise analysis related to the parking garage
and other potential hotel noise-generating activities (e.g. balconies facing the creek).
An Acoustic Analysis was prepared by David Dubbink Associates (Attachment 7). The report
reviews sound generated from the use of the proposed creek-facing balconies and parking areas
as compared to City noise requirements.
Balconies. The report concludes that sound produced from users of the proposed
balconies (loud voices were measured at 50 dB at a 50-foot distance) will dissipate to 39
decibels (Attachment 7, Acoustic Analysis, Table 4) at the property line between the
subject location and the adjacent R-1 residences, which is below the allowed daytime (50
dB) and nighttime (45dB) maximums, compliant with City noise requirements. This
conclusion from the report, relative to noise from the balconies, is illustrated in figures 4
through 6 of Attachment 4, Acoustic Analysis (the teal color represents the ambient noise
level ~47 dB).
Parking areas. David Dubbink Associates also performed real-world testing to accumulate
data relative to typical uses associated with a parking area; door/trunk slams and horn
beeps (see Attachment 7, Acoustic Analysis, in particular, see Appendix A “Parking Lot
Noise” on page 14). The data from the analysis was then applied to the subject location
based on the design and site plan of the proposed hotel. The report concludes that sound
2 Ordinance No. 1130 Design Criteria #12: In special circumstances and by making findings for a variance, the Planning
Commission may vary the height and setback standards established by this ordinance.
AP-PC 143-13 (1845/1865 Monterey Street)
Page 8
produced from use of the ‘level 1’ and ‘lower level parking areas’ will dissipate to 33 and
41 decibels (respectively) at the property line between the subject location and the nearest
residential properties, which is below the allowed daytime (50 dB) and nighttime (45dB)
maximums, compliant with City noise requirements. The conclusion from the report,
relative to noise from the parking areas, is illustrated in figures 7 and 8 of Attachment 4,
Acoustic Analysis.
Noise Conclusion. Staff (and the Architectural Review Commission) finds the noise analysis
and sound associated with the hotel use to comply with the City’s noise requirements.
Furthermore, although the project complies with City noise requirements, the Acoustic
Analysis indicates that additional steps can be taken to reduce potential noise disturbance
(Attachment 7, page 13, “recommendations”). These additional steps include: 1) nighttime
staffing; 2) parking surface treatments to reduce tire squeal; 3) sound absorbing material to
reduce any echo effect; 4) a solid wall for the ramp accessing the lower level parking area; and
5) restricted construction hours. These additional steps were accepted by the applicant and
adopted by the ARC as conditions of approval (see conditions 10, 11, 12, 13 & 15 of
Attachment 11).
3.3.2 Lighting: A photometric analysis specific to the creek facing façade of the proposed hotel
has been prepared by Gray Electrical Consulting & Engineering (Attachment 12). The analysis
concludes that lighting levels in the creek area and at the boundary property line between the
subject location and the nearest residential properties will be 0.0 footcandles. All proposed
lighting levels shown on the photometric plan are consistent with the City’s Night Sky
Preservation requirements which allow a maximum of 10 footcandles for commercial and
residential properties (Municipal Code Section 17.23.040 subsections C & D).
Additionally, the City’s Night Sky Preservation requirements (section 17.23.040 subsection B)
state that “No lighting on a private property shall produce an illumination level greater than
two maintained horizontal footcandles at grade on any property within a residential zoning
district except on the site of the light source”. The lighting levels shown on the photometric
plans more than comply with this standard (although technically not required since the project
is not located within a residential zone).
3.4 ARC Condition of Approval #14: At the October 20th ARC hearing the ARC asked the
applicant to consider elimination of the 10 existing surface parking spaces adjacent to the lower
level parking garage (see Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheet AS1.0 callout 30 & Sheet A6.1) in an
effort to fully enclose the lower level parking area, the final layout of which was deemed subject to
the review of the Planning Commission. It was recognized by the ARC that the lower level parking
area complied with the City’s noise and lighting requirements, but further enclosure of the lower
level parking area may help to alleviate the concerns of neighboring residents.
The condition reads as follows: “The applicant shall consider the elimination of the 10 existing
surface spaces at the eastern edge of the property in an effort to fully enclose the lower level of the
parking garage subject to the review of the Planning Commission.”
Parking is proposed to be set back 20 feet from the C/OS boundary, which is approximately 90 feet
from the top of creek bank or 145 feet from the easterly property line (between the subject property
and the nearest residential properties). A combination of 5-foot tall walls/fencing and vegetation
AP-PC 143-13 (1845/1865 Monterey Street)
Page 9
have been provided which will buffer both light and noise from the creek and residences to the
west (across the creek). The applicant has provided a letter (Attachment 14, Applicant Letter) in
response to ARC condition No. 14 which highlights the projects compliance with the City’s noise
requirements and indicates that enclosing the lower level parking area will disrupt the layout of the
subterranean Rainstore stormwater detention system and complicate the draining strategy. The
applicant does not plan to eliminate the existing 10 parking spaces nor enclose the lower level
parking area.
5.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Comments from the other departments have been incorporated into the recommended resolution as
conditions of approval and/or code requirements.
6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A Mitigated Negative Declaration (ER 143-13) was approved by the Architectural Review
Commission at the October 20, 2014 hearing. The environmental document was not a part of the
Administrative Hearing Officer’s Use Permit approval because, at the time of that review (prior to the
appeal), the ARC was the highest approval body.
7.0 CONCLUSION
The appeal of the Administrative Hearing Officer’s decision to approve the Administrative Use Permit
cited concerns with “openings facing the creek” and the “size and mass” of the proposed structure.
Through the Architectural Review Commission’s review and direction, the applicant revised the size
and number of balconies facing the creek and the ARC ultimately approved the redesign based on
compliance with Ordinance No. 1130 design criteria #23. Supporting documentation including, but not
limited to, the acoustic analysis and photometric study concluded that noise and lighting associated
with openings facing the creek are within City requirements. Furthermore, the proposed hotel structure
is 234 feet away from the nearest residence across the creek (to the east) and photographs taken by a
flying drone illustrate significant vegetation blocking overlook views toward San Luis Drive
residences.
Ordinance No. 1130 does not include criteria for size and massing and does not lower the maximum
height allowance for structures in the Tourist Commercial zone (45-feet). The project complies with
all height and setback requirements of Ordinance No. 1130 and the Zoning Regulations. The ARC (the
City’s advisory body tasked with reviewing scale and massing of projects for Community Design
Guidelines consistency) reviewed the project over the course of two public hearings and found the
project’s design, including the scale and massing, to be consistent with the Community Design
Guidelines, and approved the project.
Ordinance No. 1130 was adopted in 1989 to aid in addressing land use compatibility issues due to the
existence of commercial zoning adjacent to residential zoning. As shown on plans and supporting
documentation (acoustic analysis, photometric study, etc.), the proposed project was designed within
the requirements of the Ordinance and successfully mitigates land use compatibility issues associated
with residential zoning adjacent to commercial zoning.
3 Ordinance No. 1130 Design Criteria #2: Building openings (doors, windows, balconies, etc.) facing the creek shall be minimized.
AP-PC 143-13 (1845/1865 Monterey Street)
Page 10
8.0 ALTERNATIVES
8.1. Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues.
8.2. Uphold the appeal and overturn the Administrative Hearing Officer’s approval of the Use
Permit based on findings of inconsistency with Ordinance No. 1130 and applicable City
regulations.
9.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Vicinity map (Attached to 2-17-15 City Council Report)
3. Project Plans
4. Ordinance No. 1130 (1989 series) (Attached to 2-17-15 City Council Report)
5. Use Permit Staff Report (A 143-13) August 18, 2014 (Attached to 2-17-15 City Council Report)
6. Use Permit Appeal Letter (A 143-13) (Attached to 2-17-15 City Council Report)
7. Acoustic Analysis (Attached to 2-17-15 City Council Report)
8. Distance Study (Attached to 2-17-15 City Council Report)
9. Drone Photographs (Attached to 2-17-15 City Council Report)
10. ARC Staff Report September 15, 2014 + Minutes (Attached to 2-17-15 City Council Report)
11. ARC Staff Report October 20, 2014 + Minutes and approval Resolution (Attached to 2-17-
15 City Council Report)
12. Photometric Analysis (Attached to 2-17-15 City Council Report)
13. Colored Site Plan Exhibit (Attached to 2-17-15 City Council Report)
14. Applicant Letter related to ARC condition #14
Included in Committee member portfolio: Project Plans
Available at ARC Hearing: Colors and Materials Board
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. PC-XXXX-14
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
OFFICER’S DECISION TO APPROVE AN ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT (A 143-13)
FOR A PROPOSED 102-UNIT MULTI-STORY HOTEL BUILDING WITH ASSOCIATED
SITE IMPROVEMENTS, AS REPRESENTED IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED DECEMBER 10, 2014
(1845-1865 MONTEREY STREET, AP-PC 143-13)
WHEREAS, on August 18, 2014, the Administrative Hearing Officer of the City of San Luis
Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San
Luis Obispo, California, and approved an Administrative Use Permit (A 143-13) pursuant to San
Luis Obispo Municipal Code section 17.58.030.A, West Coast Asset Management, applicant; and
WHEREAS, on August 28, 2014, Bob Lucas, San Luis Drive resident, filed an appeal of the
Administrative Hearing Officer’s approval of the Use Permit; and
WHEREAS, on December 10, 2014, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis
Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, for the purpose of considering the appeal of the Administrative Hearing
Officer’s decision approving the subject Use Permit; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the
testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff,
presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San
Luis Obispo as follows:
Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following
findings:
1. That the above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.
2. That the proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of those
working or residing in the vicinity since the proposed project is consistent with the site’s
zoning and property development standards, the requirements of Ordinance No. 1130 (1989
Series), and will be subject to conformance with all applicable building, fire, and safety codes.
3. That the proposed project has been designed to be compatible with the adjacent creek and
residential uses along San Luis Drive in accordance with the design criteria set forth in
Ordinance No. 1130.
Planning Commission Resolution No. XXXX-14 Attachment 1
AP-PC 143-13 (1845/1865 Monterey Street)
Page 2
4. That, as modified by the Architectural Review Commission, the building openings facing the
creek within the proposed project are sufficiently minimized in size and number consistent
with Ordinance No. 1130.
5. That, as confirmed by the various “drone” photographs and other similar evidence provided by
the applicant, the proposed project is sufficiently screened from overlook views of San Luis
Drive due to the design of the proposed building, landscaping, and the distance and the
densely vegetated creek between the project and the nearest adjacent residence (approx. 78
yards).
6. That, as confirmed by the photometric analysis prepared by Gray Electrical Consulting &
Engineering, the lighting between the buildings and the creek is sufficiently limited in
intensity and scale necessary for security and identification and does not shine offsite,
consistent with the City’s Night Sky Preservation Ordinance and Ordinance No. 1130 design
requirements.
7. That, due to the design of the proposed project, noise generating uses are located on the
interior of the site and that, as confirmed by the acoustic analysis prepared by David Dubbink
Associates, anticipated noise levels are within all City standards..
8. That the Architectural Review Commission is the City’s authority tasked with reviewing the
scale and massing of projects for consistency with the Community Design Guidelines and that
such criterion is not within Ordinance No. 1130. That, on October 20, 2014, the Architectural
Review Commission found the project to incorporate a mix of color/finish materials,
articulation, siting, scale, and massing that are compatible with the neighborhood, and granted
final design approval based on consistency with the Community Design Guidelines and
Ordinance No. 1130.
9. That the proposed shared parking reduction (12 parking spaces) will consolidate parking and
minimize area devoted exclusively to parking, consistent with the intent of the Zoning
Regulations.
Section 2. Environmental Review. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (ER 143-13) was
adopted by the Architectural Review Commission on October 20, 2014. The Architectural Review
Commission found the MND to adequately identify the project's potentially significant impacts and
found that those potential impacts were mitigated to a less than significant level with incorporation
of mitigation measures and monitoring programs.
Section 3. Action. The Planning Commission does hereby deny the appeal, upholding the
Administrative Hearing Officer’s decision approving the Administrative Use Permit subject to the
following conditions:
1. The proposed use shall operate in accordance with the submitted project description and
project plans.
2. The affected parties must record an agreement governing the shared parking prior to
recordation of the Lot Line Adjustment in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney.
Planning Commission Resolution No. XXXX-14 Attachment 1
AP-PC 143-13 (1845/1865 Monterey Street)
Page 3
3. The Use Permit shall be reviewed by the Community Development Director for compliance
with conditions of approval, or to determine whether a modification of the Use Permit is
necessary upon significant change to the business as represented in the Administrative
Hearing Agenda Report dated August 18, 2014 and the Planning Commission Agenda Report
dated December 10, 2014, or in the event of a change in ownership which may result in
deviation from the project description or approved plans.
4. This use permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission if the City receives
substantiated written complaints from any citizen, Code Enforcement Officer, or Police
Department employee, that includes information and/or evidence supporting a conclusion that
a violation of this Use Permit, or of City ordinances or regulations applicable to the property
or the operation of the business, has occurred. At the time of the Use Permit review, to insure
on-going compatibility of the uses on the project site, conditions of approval may be added,
deleted, or modified.
5. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers,
and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City and/or its agents,
officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval by the City of this
project, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review
(“Indemnified Claims”). The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Indemnified
Claim upon being presented with the Indemnified Claim, and City shall fully cooperate in the
defense against an Indemnified Claim.
6. The applicant shall provide an on-site manager contact for neighboring residences and to
coordinate special events with neighboring commercial properties.
On motion by , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 10th day of December, 2014.
_____________________________
Pam Ricci, Secretary
Planning Commission
g a r c i a a r c h i t e c t u r e + d e s i g n
1 3 0 8 m o n t e r e y s t r e e t , s u I t e 2 3 0 , s a n l u i s o b i s p o , c a l i f o r n i a 9 3 4 0 1
p h o n e 8 0 5 . 7 8 3 . 1 8 8 0 f a x 8 0 5 . 7 8 3 . 1 8 8 1 w w w . g a r c i a a r c h d e s i g n . c o m
26 November 2014
Marcus Carloni, Associate Planner
Community Development Department
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Subject: Response to Condition #14 / Resolution ARC-1022-14
The Monterey Hotel, 1845 Monterey Street, San Luis Obispo
Marcus:
As you know, on October 20th 2014, the Architectural Review Commission granted final
approval to the proposed Monterey Hotel project, making findings for consistency with the
requirements of Ordinance 1130 as well as the City’s Community Design Guidelines, and
adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration (ER 143-13) for the hotel project, subject to
proposed mitigations and conditions.
However, in response to anecdotal public testimony regarding possible noise concerns that may
impact the residential neighbors across the creek, the ARC added a condition suggesting that
the applicant “consider the elimination of the 10 existing surface spaces at the eastern edge of
the property in an effort to fully enclose the lower level of the parking garage, subject to review
by the Planning Commission”. Based on information provided by the applicant, as well as
supporting testimony provided by the project’s acoustic consultant and technical data provided
in the project Noise Study, there are neither findings, basis, nor any substantiation that
eliminating these existing parking spaces and fully enclosing the lower parking level would result
in further noise reduction, as the project already complies with and performs well below the
noise thresholds of the City’s Noise Element.
In addition, the project’s proposed Rainstore storm water detention facility is currently located
within the open drive aisle portion of this lower parking level. Fully enclosing this area with a
continuous wall and (below-grade) footing will result in reduced infiltration performance of this
on-site LID strategy. Of greater concern would be the potential for flooding of what would now
be a fully-enclosed basement, should the proposed storm water facility fail and be deprived of
an emergency overflow path directly to the creek, as it is currently designed.
Lastly, please note that this project was recently registered with the US Green Build Council
(USGBC) for LEED certification (Project ID #1000051844). Any revision to our current on-site
storm water mitigation strategy would likely result in lower on-site storm water quality
performance, and jeopardize the project’s ability to achieve LEED certification status for
Sections 6.1 (Quality) and 6.2 (Quantity).
p a g e 2 g a r c i a a r c h i t e c t u r e + d e s i g n
g a r c i a a r c h i t e c t u r e + d e s i g n
1 3 0 8 m o n t e r e y s t r e e t , s u I t e 2 3 0 , s a n l u i s o b i s p o , c a l i f o r n i a 9 3 4 0 1
p h o n e 8 0 5 . 7 8 3 . 1 8 8 0 f a x 8 0 5 . 7 8 3 . 1 8 8 1 w w w . g a r c i a a r c h d e s i g n . c o m
In summation, we are open to continuing a dialog with the Planning Commission in order to
achieve a mutually satisfactory design solution to all project stakeholders. However at this
juncture there appears to be neither technical, factual, or otherwise any compelling reason to
redesign this specific area of the project.
Sincerely,
g a r c i a a r c h i t e c t u r e + d e s i g n
George F. Garcia, AIA
cc: Andrew Parker, Jess Parker / West Coast Asset Management