HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-17-2015 PH1 Lucas 2Subject: FW: Disagreement with Staff Agenda Report for February 17, 2105 City Council Meeting
1OUNCILMEETING: Z�I_1S TPM
From: wcwlucas@aol.com fmailto:wcwlucas @aol.com] —
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 10:55 AM FEB �,
To: Marx, Jan; Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; Rivoire, Dan; Mejia, Anthony
Cc: Boblucas(c aolxom
Subject: Disagreement with Staff Agenda Report for February 17, 2105 City Council Meeting
Mayor Marx and Council Members Christianson, Ashbaugh, Carpenter, and Rivoire,
I fully believed that when I saw the Staff Agenda Report for the February 17, 2015 City Council
meeting, credence would be given equally to discussions held about Size and Mass by both the
Architectural Review Commission and Planning Commission. But that was not the case; the PC size
and mass discussion was not part of the report, but the ARC, even though it hardly discussed the
issue directly (see minutes of ARC, October 20, 2014), was given full weight in the matter.
Discussions by the ARC seemed to focus on peripheral issues, like references to hopes for the future
of the city, types of hotel amenities they would like their visitors to enjoy in town, etc, when in fact the
issues of size and mass are quite different and require a very different approach.
Since the ARC meetings are not televised, there is no mechanism, except for the minutes, to report
on these proceedings. Fortunately, in an effort to educate ourselves, we made an audio recording of
each meeting, so we have been able to retrieve a more complete story than the minutes reflect.
wring both ARC meetings, the commissioner were confused about their role regarding ruling on size
and mass. At the end of the first meeting when the matter was being voted for continuance, a
commissioner stipulated twice that he did not want to see the project again until it had been sent to
the PC and approved for size and mass and for land use. Yet the project skirted the PC and was
returned directly to the ARC for its second review. However, even in the second ARC meeting (5
weeks later) some commissioners still said they were not sure if it was in their purview.
realize with this project in particular that some issues of who's ruling on what has been
confusing. But the statement in the Council Agenda Report (for 2/17/15, PH1 -5) that the city staff
"proceeded with the ARC process after the City received the appeal of the Use Permit, because
concerns cited in the appeal were largely related to the design for the project and it was appropriate
to see if the ARC process... would satisfy the concerns raised by residents within the San Luis Drive
Neighborhood" is inaccurate and misleading.
As neighbors petitioning the city for action on a very important matter, we felt like we were in a ping -
pong game with our very real concerns and objections being tossed from one court to another.
By the beginning of the second ARC hearing, it was obvious several commissioners had not done
their homework in regards to understanding the impact of Ordinance 1130 on this project, nor had
they clarified their role. But the project passed. City staff subsequently instructed the Planning
Commission not to rule on Size and Mass since that had already been ruled upon by the ARC.
When Commissioner Multari at the PC meeting disagreed with that direction from staff and said that
'ze and Mass was indeed under their (PC's) purview, I had finally found some hope that someone
.as following the rules. When his point of view was seconded by Commissioners Draze and
Chairman Larson, I felt comforted that the issues would finally be reviewed thoughtfully.
At the ARC meetings, the bias in favor of the architect and developers was evident and very
disappointing. The lone voice of Commissioner Ken Curtis was striking not only in the point by point
objection he made that demonstrated the violation of Ordinance 1130, but also that this project was
not consistent with the city's Community Guidelines and Design Standards. Surprisingly again, not
one question was directed to him from the other commissioners. Not one effort to begin a
discussion of those issues. Instead sentiments were expressed like, "I love the design "; "This city
needs this hotel "; "WE NEED this "; "Please don't go away ", and "I'll probably have a drink up there
myself," predominated. And then the vote.
Given the questionable quality of the ARC review, I am asking the City Council to direct its attention
to the judgements and comments of the Planning Commission. Throughout its hearing, we were
uniformly impressed with their thoughtfulness and professionalism.
Sincerely,
Wendy Lucas
1831 San Luis Drive, San Luis Obispo, Ca