HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-27-2016 PC Agenda Correspondence Item 2 (Lucas)0'ry rbF fat t,. t13P(_
Meeting: PC, 1.27,Wa)la
Item: 2
From: Bob [niailto:boblucas @aoi.com] - --
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 4:02 PM
To: Codron, Michael
Cc: Cohen, Rachel; slocat hotmail.com; carsonbritzt gmail.com; wcwlucas@aol.com;
al lancoope(a)gmail.com
Subject: Planning Commission Correspondence concerning 1101 Monterey Street development
Members of the Planning Commission:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the development proposed for 1101
Monterey Street.
In an email sent to you on Wednesday, January 20, Allan Cooper from Save Our
Downtown gathered an exhaustive list of relevant policies and decisions applicable to
the proposed development. In so doing, he has provided information to complement the
Agenda Report and deepen perspective. I want to second what he said there, and to
add some personal comments.
The project proposed by Firestone and Parker at 1101 Monterey sprawls well beyond
what the area's zoning will permit. They propose a building that is far taller than
anything in the project's zoned area, and taller than any building in the zone where such
a development would be allowed. In short, they ask for conceptual approval of a project
unfit for its current zoning.
The applicants have invoked a Planned Development hoping for an exception to current
rules. But they give no justification for why the City should waive its current policies in
favor of their vision. I have tried, but cannot follow the Byzantine paths through the
regulations to see which limits pertain to which zones, and which areas are blessed with
the flexibility the applicants rely upon. But I have not been successful. I cannot judge
whether the rationale for so doing has any validity at all.
The Agenda Report has helped by isolating two key elements: workforce /affordable
housing, and pedestrian amenities. Yet nowhere in the information offered in
descriptions of the project is there any mention of workforce housing. Given the sprawl
of the project, I would imagine that adding another thirty feet in height to two buildings
would require a lot of such housing to justify it, so much so as to drive the project, to be
its distinguishing feature. Yet, of the 124,000 square feet of people -space and another
five decks of parking covering a third of a downtown block, one finds no description or
sketches of workforce housing. Nothing.
The plans do feature the plaza, its single pedestrian amenity. However, at the ARC
meeting, the plaza was criticized for, among other things, facing Santa Rosa Street, the
city's major N -S thoroughfare, for languishing in shadows, and for exposing its users to
chilling winds and exhaust fumes. People inured to the inconveniences and hardships
of city life may find respite in such a plaza, but I doubt that many local pedestrians will.
Thus, the two major elements singled out in the agenda report to justify a project going
67% beyond the limits are anemic in their impact. In another time or world, these two
rationales might have worked to bolster an argument for a project maximizing the full 45
feet zoning allowed, but not to justify going beyond what zoning allowed.
Finally, the applicants' proposed location coincides exactly with where City policy
dictates building height and mass ought to be tapering off. At that very point, the
applicants propose increasing height, size and mass instead of diminishing it. I
encourage the Planning Commission to reject this project summarily because it
requests conceptual approval of something that flies in the face of all past precedent
and current zoning with no obvious justification.
I commend the applicants for submitting their project for conceptual review. Doing so
was wise, and will save a lot of people a lot of misguided effort. But I believe there is
little point in discussing whether there are enough driveways when the viability of the
whole project depends on a major exception for which there is no justification.
Respectfully,
Robert A. Lucas
1831 San Luis Drive
40 -year resident
805 459 4344