HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-17-2015 PH1 Lucas 3Good evening Mayor Marx and Council Members
oz/1-11��
�o lv LaJcsa `�
I am Bob Lucas and have lived at 1831 San Luis Drive for 24 years. I am speaking
on behalf of the appellant, Angela Soll, who filed the appeal of the ARC decision
on behalf of the San Luis Drive area neighbors. Would those of you from the
neighborhood, and your supporters, please wave your hands. Thank you.
I am also the initiator of a public benefit corporation called the San Luis Drive
Area Advocates for Balanced Community Development on whose behalf you 7-: received a letter from our advisor, attorney Babak Nafisi. FEB The 228 page staff agenda report covers some of the long road bringing�s--her
tonight. Our journey began a year ago this month when we learned that a hotel
was proposed for upper Monterey street. I contacted Marcus Carloni about the
project, and when plans were ready for the public view in July, he facilitated a
meeting for a few neighbors with the Architect George Garcia, to review the
plans.
Shortly thereafter, at the Administrative Officer hearing on the Use Permit we got
the lay of the land, and our concerns grew over the openings facing the creek,
parking, protection of habitat, and size and mass.
This is now our fifth hearing on the issue. Our numbers have grown with each
hearing and our learning has become deeper.
At the center of all of our discussions, as it is of tonight's, is Ordinance 1130, put
in place in 1989 to protect our neighborhood, the only R1 in SLO that abuts a
Commercial /Tourist zone.
That document stands on its own, but at our Planning Commission hearing in
December, we were fortunate Commissioner Multari school us in its origins. He
was Director of Planning in 1989 when the Ordinance was promulgated, and
wrote the staff agenda report that led to its unanimous ratification by the City
Council.
The Planning Commission followed his lead and voted 6 to 1 to deny its permit
because of obvious violations of 1130. Thus issues we have fought for a long time
were validated, and not dismissed as revisionist interpretations of some
disgruntled people with a personal agenda.
Since then, the applicants have made a number of changes in the plans, which
staff has already enumerated.
Unfortunately serious problems remain that still concern us, and thus our
presence here tonight.
Primary among them are residual unbuffered parking, and size and mass. These, it
turns out, are intertwined.
The issue of traffic noise and parking shows up twice in the Ordinance, in items 6
and 7. Each instance refers to the need to buffer noise from traffic and parking by
siting those sources away from the creek and placing them on the side towards
Monterey street. This uses the buildings themselves to buffer the inevitable
sounds.
Commissioner Multari said that one prime purpose was to protect the integrity of
the neighborhood by ensuring that the negative impacts of new development
would be oriented towards Monterey Street, and away from the creek and San
Luis Drive neighborhood.
And a neighbor, Bob Tedone, looked into it further. He researched and wrote a
history of the ordinance, detailing the interactions between the neighborhood
and the commercial tourist area that led to Ordinance 1130. You have a copy of
his report, in which he found this interplay a consistent theme.
So it's clear that all parking should be buffered - -ALL OF IT, not just some. But
there is a problem, which I detailed in a letter to you, and which I'll highlight now:
(Marcus, can you bring up your slide that shows parking spaces on the ground
floor please. AS1.1)
Because of shared use with the restaurant, the applicant has requested a 15%
waiver, which reduces the required amount from 153 to 131 parking spaces.
Through re- engineering, the applicants have now fully enclosed the 56 parking
spaces in the basement.
(Grab your laser pointer)
The remaining spaces are located on ground floor, at grade level. About ten of
these are in the courtyard - -in the front and well buffered.
Another thirty -five or so are located underneath the building, which as you will
recall is open on all sides because it is suspended on pillars. Since sounds can't go
up, they will inevitably squish out the sides, and in some cases will be amplified,
so the buffering here is questionable.
What remains are 22 parking spaces outside the back of the building, between
the hotel and the creek. These are unbuffered, except for this wall at the far
perimeter of the building.
Then, if you add together the first two bays of parking, that amounts to 24
parking spaces. If only half of these are not properly buffered, that is 12 parking
spaces.
That's a lot of unbuffered parking spaces. Furthermore, it appears that through a
miscalculation, which I discovered only by accident a few days ago, the number of
spaces on the plans fall short by eight. So instead of the 131 spaces the formula
calls for, the plans have only 123 total. This exacerbates the problem.
Add these two together, and you have 30 parking spaces that present a big
problem.
My mind gravitates to simple solutions. It notes that each of three residence
levels has 34 guest rooms. If you got rid of the top level, and enclosed the ground
level parking, you wouldn't need the unbuffered 22 in the back nor the lost eight,
and the questionable buffering underneath the building would be solved. This
would bring the hotel into complete compliance with 1130 on this issue.
Please note that this act would not be a concession by the applicant; it would be
an act of compliance with the Ordinance.
(Marcus, would you open the first powerpoint file please)
The proposed building is governed by city -wide rules. A smaller building would
make the Monterey consistent with Community Design Guidelines that say,
among other things, that new commercial buildings should fit in with local
businesses and with the neighborhood both in size and in character. By now, your
inbox has been peppered with letters citing other rules, and you will hear more in
the speakers who come after me.
All this puts The Monterey out of sync with the surrounding buildings
First Graphic
The local situation looks something like this. Existing motels and hotels are 1 to 3
stories high, averaging about 2.2 stories. There are the Apple Farm, the Peach
Tree Inn, the San Luis Creek Lodge, and the Monday Club. A few are three stories
high, are less visible because of the terrain. The Holiday Inn Express across the
street, at three stories, is downhill from the street, so from street level it looks
like it is only two stories high. Same is true for the Quality Suites down the road.
By contrast, the Monterey site will be situated uphill from the street, on top of a
knoll. It will look and loom something like this.
Second Graphic
From grade, it ascends 45 feet, up to 355 feet above sea level, more than a story
higher than any other commercial building around, even those starting from
higher ground.
Now, the precedent this building sets deeply concerns us.
The LUCE report calls for revitalization on upper Monterey, which will be fostered
by consolidating lots so larger buildings can be put there. We know this is coming.
We won't fight this per se. But what we will fight for is: change that is
appropriate, and respectful of the creek and the R1 neighborhood next to it.
If this building is approved as currently proposed, it will set a precedent for the
future - -build as high as you can go, and build out to the outer limits.
We fear this. The reason is, consider this possible scenario - -The Peach Tree Inn.
This one story building is on a lot 25% wider than the Monterey's, and it sprawls
out toward the creek. The temptation to buy it and max out the possibilities
would be overwhelming. Having the Monterey as a reference point would make
argument easy: if a four story 102 room hotel can be squeezed onto a lot that
size, we qualify for a lot more since we have a larger lot. You might get something
like this.
Third Graphic
The possibility looms large. That explains why you have a petition signed by 129
residents of our neighborhood asking that Ordinance 1130 be strictly observed.
Since the beginning, our community has sought to bring the project into
compliance with applicable city codes and guidelines, especially 1130, to ensure
neighborhood wellness on the opposite side of the creek. Fully enforcing
Ordinance 1130 has the side benefit of controlling size and mass, a major concern
our community has about this present proposal as well as about its precedent for
the future.
As Planning Commissioner Fowler said: "This has to make sense ... it meets the
letter of law, but the wrong project for this site... Too big"
We are not against a hotel on this site. We recognize that one will be there some
day. But this one -- despite its appeal to some - -is too much of a good thing.
Thankyou