HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-18-16 ARC Correspondence - Item TBD (McLean)meeting: 2 c a olly
Item: t'#a j t- An0--,z)'7Z5D
Lomeli, Monique
From: Goodwin, Heather
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 3:29 PM
To: Goodwin, Heather
Cc: Codron, Michael; Lomeli, Monique; Davidson, Doug; Fowler, Xzandrea; Leveille, Brian
Subject: Correspondence - 71 Palomar, please forward to Mayor, City Council, Planning
Commission, CHC, ARC, & official record
ARC, CHC, and PC members,
Below is correspondence regarding 71 Palomar,
BCC: ARC, CHC, PC Members
Thank you,
Heather Goodwin
Deputy City Clerk
clk Y �
+«
> `
CITY OF
X. rlk 11,11S01BTS
City Administration
City Clerk's Office
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
E h000dwinasiocity.org
T 805.781.7103
slocity.org
RECEIVED
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
MAR 16 2016
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
From: cc me lean [
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 9:27 AM
To: Advisory Bodies
Subject: 71 Palomar, please forward to Mayor, City Council, Planning Commission, CHC, ARC, & official record
616 Mission Lane
San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93405
Dear Mayor, City Council, Planning Commission, ARC & CHC,
am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed 41 unit apartment project at 71
Palomar. Following the CHC on March 28th it will then proceed to the ARC for final
approval. Recently I attended a Planning Commission where the subject was brought up by
Commissioner Malak that citizens are complaining to him that projects that were formerly seen by the
Planning Commission and /or City Council are now often given a final approval by a Director's
Decision at an Administrative Hearing or by the ARC. The 71 Palomar project is another instance
where this is indeed occurring.
The 71 Palomar project is bordered by a combination of narrow, steep, winding streets (Serrano,
Luneta, Ramona, Broad and Palomar) some with blind curves and already unsafe due to
traffic/circulation problems. The heavy mix of bicyclists, pedestrians, skateboarders and vehicle traffic
is a huge safety issue already. Removing the barricade on Luneta, adjacent to the apartment
development will exacerbate the traffic/circulation problems in our neighborhood. The addition of
many car trips due to the addition of 41 apartments and hundreds of cars from adjacent and
surrounding uphill streets that formerly could not use Serrano (via Luneta) to exit to Broad St. without
using Ramona or Foothill will be a traffic and safety nightmare.
The present plans to make a Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard (which is in the planning stages
between the city and bike groups) seems like a case of "the right hand not knowing what the left
hand is doing." The Bicycle Boulevard is necessary for the safety of the many parents and children
who pedal along the narrow portion of Broad St. on their way to and from either Bishop's Peak or
Pacheco School. A thorough traffic/circulation study of this area needs to occur during the school
year,not over summer vacation, and after the completion of the two shopping centers, presently under
construction on Foothill Blvd. before any approval of this project takes place. (The first public meeting
for the Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard is scheduled for March 24th.)
The 71 Palomar development is proposed for the present site of the Sandford House which is on the
city's Master List of Historic Buildings and is slated to be relocated on the site. Due to the
topography, the site sits high above the adjacent R-1 neighborhood and is quite prominent. The
lovely old house is likely to not survive the move and per the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and
Guidelines shouldn't be moved at all.
According to the General Plan the neighborhood, and those nearby, needs a long promised park and
this is the last possible suitable site in this area. A city park could allow for the Sandford House to be
utilized much like the Dallidet Adobe or Jack House. The mature heritage trees should be allowed to
remain and continue to provide homes for the many owls, hawks and other birds whose habitat would
be destroyed under the developer's plan to remove them.
The EI Segundo developer only has to take the 71 Palomar project through the CHC (March 28th)
followed by final approval by the ARC. As it stands now it is apparently being "fast tracked." It is
surprising that Mr. Codron has unilaterally decided not to direct it to the Planning Commission and
City Council in spite of the project's significant impact on this R-1 neighborhood.
I am respectfully requesting that this project be routed through both the Planning Commission and the
City Council before it receives final approval. Both the Planning Commission and the City Council are
uniquely qualified to address the adverse impacts this project will have on traffic, safety, on the
natural environment and on a historical resource. And finally, it is important that this project receives
further scrutiny, study and input from residents whose quality of life will be negatively impacted by this
project.
Sincerely,
Cheryl McLean