HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-17-2015 PH1 RogersSubject: FW: Hotel Monterey letter to Council MembertoUNCIL MEETING: 2-17— 115
Attachments: City Council letter final.pdf ITEM NO.:,--.
- - - -- Original Message - - - --
,
From: Kathryn Rogers [mailto:kathrynrogersl @mac.com] FEB 17 2015
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 8:31 AM
To: Mejia, Anthony
Subject: Hotel Monterey letter to Council Members
Dear Clerk,
I sent the attached email to each of the city council members. This copy is for your public record.
Thank you.
from the Deslz of "throw ELSemxlrath Rogers
Dear Jan,
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of the impact the Hotel Monterey will have
on this community. Having moved here from Los Angeles twelve years ago, I am loathe
to see upper Monterey Street become the Wilshire Boulevard of San Luis Obispo. The
project is attractive and appealing in many ways but its sheer mass and size are
daunting and set a precedent surely to be replicated. I am not an expert in this area but
members of the Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Commission are.
They have clearly delineated their concerns that the size and mass of the Hotel
Monterey is nonconforming with Ordinance 1130 and that the project as proposed is
inconsistent with the City's LUCE plan. So I will let the record speaks for itself. Having
been present at the meetings, I recorded their statements:
Planning Commissioner Dandekar:
Before I arrived, I thought, "Of course the neighbors will turn out to protect their property
rights." But what I heard tonight is more about the design. I put on the hat of an urban
designer. The idea with the LUCE plan was to improve the walkability of Upper
Monterey. I felt as if the opportunity to increase walkability was missed in this site.
What you see here [from the street level] is cars parked. It's not the way the other
hotels and restaurants [in Upper Monterey] work with ground level activity. The intent of
LUCE was to energize upper Monterey. Other hotels have something happening at the
street level but I don't see that here. I'm glad we can talk about mass and size.
Commissioner Multari:
I think the point that this is precedent setting is a very good one. While we were looking
at the LUCE update there were a couple of things that we talked about particularly when
we talked about upper Monterey there was a discussion about the importance of
compatibility between the residential and the commercial and that maybe that required a
re -look at 1130 to bring it more up to date a quarter of a century later. That the intent, if
anything, was stronger in protecting the residential character, not weakening it in any
way. I would point out that in the precedent setting is important. I think there is going to
redevelopment in upper Monterey and I think having new design guidelines for that area
is imperative.
Planning Commissioner Malak:
I agree mass, size, scale and compatibility is my concern. Design is urbane, chic for
this area, but it is the size and mass that concerns me. It is too large for this area.
Noise is a concern. Do we reduce the size to two stories?
Planning Commissioner Draze:
[Staff says] scale and massing usually is an ARC issue but I disagree. Our purview
should include mass and size. There should be more set back of the building from the
front. Creek set back is a concern.
Planning Commissioner Multari:
The staff, one of their problems, was trying to differentiate between which was the
ARC's jurisdiction and the Planning Commission's. They've suggested that we not
consider scale and mass. I think that's wrong. The driving motivation behind this special
designation [Ordinance 11301 was to ensure compatibility in this particular case
between commercial and residential. And so compatibility is a broad notion and it
encompasses all these elements including the size of the building, where it is located,
and scale and mass. I think that is a legitimate part of the analysis of compatibility. So I
do think it's important that we consider reducing the height, the number of rooms,
relocating the parking, reducing the number of parking.
Planning Commissioner Fowler:
At first I thought it was just people [neighbors] who are affected, but it is the whole city. It
is the corridor to the city. I'm glad we can look at mass and size. It's got to make sense
or we can't get these things built. What do we do when we've got these regulations?
We want the project and we want to keep our regulations. I think it is the wrong project.
It is too big. It does affect the character of the community. I cannot support this.
The Planning Commission voted 6 to 1 to deny administrative approval of the project
and uphold the appeal put forth by the neighborhood.
ARC Commissioner Curtis also voted to deny administrative approval and stated the
following objections:
"The project does not meet the site design, general design and neighborhood
compatibility standards. It is not of proportional size for neighborhood."
"Appropriate setbacks and massing are too large on rear of property facing creek.
This has appearance of a 5 story building ... with lights at night... which is detrimental to
that neighborhood."
These commissioners serve the interests of the city and citizens of SILO. I urge the
council not to approve the Monterey Hotel project until all concerns raised by the
commissioners are addressed by the applicants.
Respectfully submitted,
Kathryn Eisendrath Rogers