The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02-17-2015 PH1 NaficyFr•T1%�f ,' O.� 17 ''Lots ITEM COUNCIL M . - Pneled on Allernallve Fiber Paper 150% Sugar Cane. 50% Recycled Paper) Law Offices of Baba Naficy February 12,'2015 i r� Via hand delivery and email FEB r� San Luis Obispo City Council 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 emailcouncil@siocity.org RE: February 17, 2015 Appeal Hearing RE Monterey Hotel Dear Councilmember, I represent San Luis Drive Area Advocates for Balanced Community Development 1504 Marsh Street ( "Advocates "), on whose behalf I submit this letter in support of the appeal of the Architectural Review Committee's final design approval of the proposed Monterey San Luis Obispo Hotel (ARC Resolution No. ARC - 1022 -14.) My comments are also in,opposition to California 93401 the Project applicant's appeal of the Planning Commission's grant of Bob Lucas's appeal of a use permit for the Project. As set forth below, despite the revisions ph: 805.593.0926 proposed by the applicant, the Project remains inconsistent with the height, setback fax: 805.593.0946 and design requirements of Ordinance No. 1130 (1989 Series) ( "Ordinance "). Moreover, the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration ( "MND ") violates the bebaknahcy4,sbcglob d net requirements of CEQA and should therefore be rescinded. Owing to the Project's potentially significant environmental impacts, the City must prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to adequately analyze Project impacts and to consider the feasibility of alternatives and mitigation measures to avoid or order to reduce Project impacts to a less than significant level. This letter builds on and by this reference, specifically incorporates my December 8, 2014 letter to the Planning Commission. ` Even with the proposed revisions, the Proiect remains inconsistent with Ordinance No. 1130 It should be obvious to everyone that the provisions of the Ordinance are directly applicable to this Project. Many of the key provisions of the Ordinance were intended to address precisely the type of impacts this Project will have on the San Luis Drive neighborhood. By adopting the Ordinance and reclassifying the area's land use designation from C -T (Tourist Commercial) to C -T -S (Tourist Commercial Special Considerations), the City clearly intended to protect the San Luis Drive neighborhood from encroachment and significant impacts from commercial development on Monterey Blvd. The Planning Commission's discussion of the Ordinance included special consideration of the "structural mitigation measures" that Pneled on Allernallve Fiber Paper 150% Sugar Cane. 50% Recycled Paper) San Luis Obispo Planning Commission February 12, 2015 Page 2 of 4 are intended to ensure impact on the neighborhood is avoided to the maximum extent feasible.. The removal of balconies does not fully address the Project's inconsistency with Criterion 2, which requires "building openings" facing the creek be "minimized." The Planning Commission agreed with Bob Lucas that the Project does not minimize "building openings" as required by the Ordinance. Criterion No. 2 mandates that "Building openings (doors, windows, balconies, etc.) facing the creek shall be minimized. The Planning Commission correctly determined that "minimize" means as close to zero as possible. Merriam - Webster's online dictionary defines `minimize' as "to make (something bad or not wanted) as small as possible ". htt p:f lwww. tilerriam- webster .comldictionaiylrniniinize. The Project, as revised, is inconsistent with Criterion 2 because it contains the same number of openings as before. In other words the number of openings facing the creek has not been minimized. Staff's conclusion that "the applicant's revisions satisfy the reason for PC denial ..." ignores the Planning Commission's discussion and the clear mandate of the Ordinance. The Planning Commission denied the Project in part because it included too many "openings facing the creek "; at the time the Planning Commission considered the issue, the openings consisted of balconies. The Planning Commission did not consider whether the same number of windows as balconies would be consistent with Criterion 2, which does not distinguish between windows and balconies: they are both openings. The applicant has made no effort to reduce the number of openings facing the creek, as required by the Ordinance. Given the number of openings facing the creek, the Project remains inconsistent with Criterion 2. As was suggested at the Planning Commission meeting, the best and probably only way to minimize creek - facing openings would be to reorient the building such that its entire length no longer faces the creek. The proposed enclosed parking is inconsistent with Criterion No. 7, which requires noise generating uses such as parking be located "on the interior of the site, using buildings as a buffer. While the Planning Commission did spend time discussing how the originally proposed parking was unacceptable and capable of causing a lot of noise, the Planning Commission did not conclude that the problem would be avoided entirely by enclosing the parking with a wall. Criterion 7, requiring parking spaces be located in the interior of the Project, is a structural mitigation intended to reduce noise impacts to the maximum extent possible by using buildings (not walls) to buffer noise. The revised Project still proposes to locate a parking structure in the very back of the project, at a location that is as close to the creek and the residential neighborhood as possible. It is important to note that the prohibition against locating parking spaces at the creek end of the site is absolute. The Ordinance does not include an exception for a parking structure that is enclosed or one that a noise expert has determined would not generate noise above the City thresholds. (Please see critique of the Noise Report provided in my Dec. 8, 2014 letter). San Luis Obispo Planning Commission February 12, 2015 Page 3 of 4 Criterion 7 requires all parking uses to be located in the project's interior, without regard to whether the parking is enclosed or not or whether.or not it would generate noise above the City thresholds. Accordingly, the Project as revised remains inconsistent with Criterion 7. The proposed relocation of the subterranean stormwater retention system below existing parking spaces would be in violation of Criterion 10, which prohibits grading within the creek setback area. The Staff Report makes several references to removing the existing parking spaces and relocating the proposed stormwater retention system below the existing parking spaces. According to the Staff Report, "grading within the setback will be required for the removal of existing paving and installation of the Rainstore system. PH1-12. Staff neglects to note, however, that grading within the creek setback is specifically prohibited pursuant to Criterion No. 10, which states: Grading within the creek set back shall be limited to that necessary to stabilize the creekbank and to accommodate landscaping, and shall be done in a manner which does not increase, erosion of the creekbank or result in the removal of creekside vegetation. (Emphasis added). Accordingly, relocation of the stormwater retention system is prohibited as it will require impermissible grading within the creek setback. Project revisions fail to address the building's height, which the Planning Commission concluded was inconsistent with the Ordinance and incompatible with the neighborhood. Planning Commissioners expressed serious concern about the Project's height, which because of the higher elevation of the site relative to the residential neighborhood on the other side of the creek, would be wholly incompatible with the neighborhood. Staff essentially ignores the Planning Commission and the public's concern about the building's height, and instead creates a distraction by discussing cosmetic changes to the fagade, as well as noise and lighting. The Planning Commission was aware that trees partially blocking the building, but nevertheless concluded the building was simply too tall and too massive for the site. The Project remains too tall and too massive for the site and should therefore be denied. The Staff Report does not address CEQA concerns which should be considered in connection with both appeals My December 8, 2014 letter raised a number of concerns about the inadequacies of the Mitigated Negative Declaration that Staff prepared in connection with this Project. Staff has essentially double- downed on the MND and has refused even to attempt address any of the issues I raised in my letter. As I believe the Staff Report does not substantively address any of the issues I raised in my previous letter, I will not make any additional comments here. I reiterate that the MND does not comply with CEQA and must therefore be revised and replaced with a legally adequate Environmental Impact Report. San Luis Obispo Planning Commission February 12, 2015 Page 4 of 4 Conclusion Unfortunately, the Planning Commission's robust and detailed discussion of the Ordinance and its application to the Project has fallen on deaf ears. Seemingly, the Staff, whose initial analysis of the Project all but ignored these provisions, did not benefit from the Planning Commission's careful consideration of the Project's many inconsistencies with the Ordinance. Staff continues to uncritically recommend approval of the Project when the Project, even as revised, does not conform to some of the most basic requirements of the Ordinance. Given the discrepancy between the Staff and Planning gommission's assessment of the scope of the Ordinance and its application to the Project, I urge you to send the revised Project back to the Planning Commission for re- evaluation before you consider the appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the use permit. If you are not inclined to send the revised Project back to the Planning Commission, I urge you to deny the Applicant's appeal and grant Bob Lucas's appeal of the ARC. As set forth above, the Project remains inconsistent with key provisions of the Ordinance and the MND is woefully inadequate. Sincerely, C:�, Babak Naficy Counsel for San Luis Drive Area Advocates for Balanced Community Development cc. Marcus Carloni via email only r 0 V y. 10 0 n w 0 b fD CD r7 w r 0 ol cn 10 0 n Cl) 0 w r N O C N� 0 n 9 w 0 N N CG U-1 w C) v �z N M Ln N fD CD -n m m era N 0