Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-01-16 ARC Correspondence - Item 1 (Cooper)Lomeli, Monique Subject: 71 Palomar Meeting: C U1 (, RECEIVED CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Item: JUL 2 8 2016 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT From: Allan Cooper [ Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 12:36 PM To: Advisory Bodies <advisorvkaodies@slocity.org>; Price, Lee <LPrice@slocity.org>; rcohn@slocity.orR Subject: 71 Palomar Dear Rachel and/or Lee - Could you do me a favor? Could you see to it that my message below is forwarded to the Architectural Review Commission before their August 1, 2016 meeting? Thanks! To: SLO Architectural Review Commission Re: 71 Palomar From: Allan Cooper, San Luis Obispo Honorable Chair & Commissioners - Firstly, it is my understanding that without a CEQA compliant initial study, you should NOT be reviewing 71 Palomar, even on a conceptual basis (see below). I am recommending that you continue this project to a date uncertain until a CEQA compliant initial study can be made available to you. However, given the possibility that staff will dismiss this legal issue as a mere technicality, I am prepared to provide you with my critique of 71 Palomar. Without belaboring my concern that this project will denude the site of a virtual forest of 100 year old specimen trees and will, result in delisting the historical Sandford house (by unnecessarily relocating it), I thought I might instead counter the developer's claim that this project, as it is currently designed, would help address the City's unmet demand for "workforce housing". There is nothing "family friendly" about this project nor does it accommodate the most basic needs for "work force housing". There is virtually no storage either within the apartments or within the garage. The floor plans show elongated, narrow bedrooms with tiny closets. However two bedrooms are long enough to accommodate two beds at opposite ends of the room thereby permitting five students to occupy each unit. Two of the three bedrooms are entered through double doors. The developer is apparently anticipating frequent occupant turnover (i.e, beds can be moved more easily through double doors than single doors). The galley kitchens are minuscule and access to the living room (with the exception of those first floor units accessed by stairs 3, 5 and 6) is via the kitchen. There will be no privacy as all bedrooms, living rooms, etc. have windows that look directly into the windows of nearby (very nearby!) identical units. The meager open space accommodates some seating and a fire pit and there are no secure (fenced) children play areas either at the ground level or in the form of a capacious outdoor balcony. Circulation through the units and through the site is tortured and claustrophobic. The long, dark and dangerous stairs that run up to the second floor units may not even meet code without an intermediate landing. The dark, narrow corridors leading to the bedrooms could only be accessed keeping lights on throughout the day and this applies to the interior bathrooms as well. So much for energy conservation. Nobody supporting a "starter family" of one or two dependents would ever consider making grocery deliveries or dump runs to and from the second story units. Only a college student would have the stamina to trek the four floors from the lowest parking level to any of the second floor units. So this project is "de facto" student housing. It is neither suitable for so-called "work -force" housing nor is it suitable for families. The design is so miserly and unforgiving that it could be perceived to be one step below on -campus dormitory living. I can only guess that, for students, the only incentive to live here would be that they would have the opportunity to party with impunity without interference from Cal Poly's resident advisors and that the rent - at five students per unit - might compete with the costs of on -campus living. In conclusion, I am hoping you might bring some or all of these points up with the architect. If the architect is unwilling to make any changes then I recommend you deny this project. Thank you. If your conceptual review of 71 Palomar August 1, 2016 commits the developer, in any way, to a "course of action", you will be in violation of the law and unnecessarily subjecting the City to a lawsuit. See below: 14 CCR § 15004 § 15004. Time of Preparation. (a) Before granting any approval of a project subject to CEQA, every lead agency or responsible agency shall consider a final EIR or negative declaration or another document authorized by these guidelines to be used in the place of an EIR or negative declaration. CEQA compliance must occur before the public agency approves a project. The term "approves" however, does not mean final approval. Instead, "approval' refers to "the decision by a public agency which commits the agency to a definite course of action in regard to a project intended to be carried out by any person." 2 P.S. I cringe when others promote themselves by rattling off either their credentials or accomplishments. However, in the event that any one of you might be interested in my background, please bear with me. I'm a registered architect, AIA emeritus member, former architecture practitioner having received several design awards, architecture professor, architecture department head and associate dean. I've also served 14 years on two architecture review boards (Pismo Beach and SLO) and one planning commission. 3