Saturday, June 10, 2017
Do KANTI PATEL's False Parking Numbers Eviscerate San Marco Hotel PUD Proposal? -- Is Putative MARRIOTT RENAISSANCE Franchisee a Fraudfeasor?
From Captain Lee Geanuleas, U.S.N. (Ret.):
Adding to the MESS that was the city staff's presentation to the PZB on April 4th is this.
The picture below shows the architect's drawing for the San Marco Hotel's restaurant and bar. You'll note the architect included the seating for each room. If you add them up you get 105 total seats. This drawing has been on file with the city's Planning & Building Office since May 13, 2016 (see "received" stamp on second picture below).
If the city had this information for almost a year, then why did staff tell the PZB that for the purposes of calculating the hotel's required parking the hotel restaurant sat 50?
Even more puzzling, earlier at the very same hearing the applicant's representative told the PZB that the restaurant and bar sat 130 (!!). Then staff uses 50 as the basis of their calculations!
So now we know, that in the case of BOTH the hotel's ballroom and its restaurant/bar space we see the City Planning & Building Office, ON THE RECORD, significantly understating occupancy which then drives the required parking space number WAY DOWN.
This is more than just an "academic exercise" because the misinformation provided to the PZB (the city's legally designated planning authority) could have affected the outcome of the vote. Instead of 4-2 against the rezoning it could have been 5-0 or 4-1. Would a unanimous disapproval of the parking PUD rezoning by the PZB affected how the Commission handled the appeal?
And don't forget, at the appeal hearing the applicant's lawyer made a BIG DEAL about the fact that the PZB chairman questioned the city's calculation of required parking in order to convince the Commission to overturn the PZB's denial. How dare the chairman question the experts??!! Turns out the PZB chairman had every reason to question the numbers presented to the PZB.
Glad someone's paying attention!
See how bad information can cascade through a very critical planning process? What our city staff presents as "fact" to our legal planning authority really, really matters.
Garbage in - Garbage out?