Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-17-2015 PH1 Johnson 1COUNCIL MEETING: —2- – 1 -I S ITEM NO.:__ __ _Pal l FEB 12 2015 • council mcmoRAn u DATE: February 11, 2015 TO: City Council VIA: Katie Lichtig, City Manager FROM: Derek Johnson, Community Development Director SUBJECT: PH -1 — 1845 Monterey Hotel Staff has received a request from a Councilmember for the following information and is distributing it to all Council members regarding the 1845 Monterey Hotel project. Question /Comment: Could the Council consider a condition on this project which would require the developer to work with the Monday Club to construct a more effective, permanent, vegetated screen along their northern property line so as to block out the unsightly view of (and from) the Travel Lodge over the Monday Club garden area? Staff Response: The Monday Club is one lot removed from the proposed hotel; separated by the Travelodge and not directly adjacent. Staff analysis determined that the proposed hotel does not pose significant effects on the Monday Club because the proposed project does not obscure views of, intrude upon, shadow, nor otherwise negatively affect the historic context or integrity of the Monday Club. The City cannot require the applicant to make improvements to off -site properties, unless the Council determines that the project creates a potentially significant effect on the Monday Club that needs to be mitigated by landscape plantings. The applicant appears amenable to the possibility of providing landscaping for the Monday Club. In November /December (2014) the applicant met with the Monday Club and discussed possible options for landscaping along their north property line. The Council could condition the project encouraging the applicant to work with the Monday Club to provide a landscaped screen on the northern property line of the Monday Club. Questions /Comments With respect to 1865 Monterey Street where Council will consider a 102 -room hotel next week, I expect that a large part of our task is evaluating — and mitigating — the aesthetic impacts of this project. In doing so, I would like specifically to take into account the larger context of the upper Monterey Street corridor, which is a key gateway to our City. As such, I have a few questions about the overhead utility lines in the area: 1. Will the developer of The Monterey Hotel be required to underground the overhead utilities along his own frontage? Response: The adopted undergrounding ordinance does not require projects to underground adjacent above ground lines unless they are a large subdivision or there is significant widening taking place. Monterey is contained in an Undergrounding District (No. 17) so no "new" utilities can be placed along the corridor. The project is required to underground all service connections to the public right of way lines so as improve onsite conditions. a. If not, can we consider requiring the developer to contribute a `fair share" of the funds needed to complete this undergrounding effort? Response: No, we currently do not have an undergrounding fee for these types of projects nor have we historically collected funds for this type of work. b. How about requiring the developer to complete additional o ff undergrounding efforts in the vicinity? e.g., south to Grand Avenue in front of the Travelodge and Monday Club? Again, I'm asking that this be included in the evaluation of aesthetics, and CEQA mitigation of significant impacts. Response: Absent a direct nexus to the project, the City cannot require offsite undergrounding related to adjacent properties. 2. What about our overall City efforts to underground the overhead utility lines along upper Monterey? a. Does the City have our own list of priorities for City utility line underground projects? If so, where does Upper Monterey Street area fall on the list? Response: Upper Monterey is in an underground district currently second on the list. (Broad Street is now complete). b. Is there any phasing involved? Could we envision a `phase one" project, for example, that includes a `fair share" contribution from the developer, combined with use of PUC Tariff Rule 20A funding, for example? Response: No. The Rule 20A program is currently in deficit because the Broad Street Undergrounding project "borrowed" funds into future years. There is approximately $1,867,000 still owed on this project with annual funds of $180,000 in revenue. Please contact Marcus Carloni (mcarloniC&slocit�org) or Derek Johnson (djohnson(adslocity.org) should there be any questions.