HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-01-16 ARC Correspondence - Item 1 (Delmartini)Lomeli, Monique
Subject: 71 Palomar ; Ago O -DI -l I nMeeting
From: Steve Delmartini [ Item:
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 6:31 PM
To: Advisory Bodies <advisorybodies@slocity.org>
Subject: 71 Palomar
ARC advisory body members
RECEIVED
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
JUL 2 9 2016
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
My first comment regarding this proposal is the continual need for new housing in San Luis Obispo. In my opinion, and
as most of you are aware, the lack of housing is at a critical stage. We simply don't have the supply for the demand side
of the equation no matter what style, size, shape or type of housing. I try to support infill housing.
Regarding the proposal, I will not be reiterating what the staff report states are needed by a development to fit within
the Design Guidelines and other development requirements as I think those are stated clearly.
After reviewing the report, I believe Mr. Riehl has made a serious effort to conform to those requirements by breaking
up the buildings, his consideration of the significance of the historic structure, reducing to a certain degree the scale and
mass of the overall development. Lets keep in mind this is an R-4 property which there are not many remaining in the
city of San Luis Obispo and because of that zoning it makes it more difficult to conform to some of the existing
neighborhood. On one hand R-1 and R-4 is a difficult fit when they are side by side but on the other hand it does
comply/conform to other buildings nearby that have a very similar use as multi family properties.
You have a difficult job at hand to satisfy not only conformity to your guidelines for development but the need to have
different zonings function in harmony as much as possible together. I for one, appreciate that this meeting is being
conducted to give Mr. Riehl some direction as to what will be expected when he returns to the ARC for final approval.
have seen the other side when a proposal is presented for approval and there are recommendations made by an
advisory body that that cause unexpected delays to get through the system and return again for review by the same
body. I would assume some certainty would be appreciated by the developer. It is an R-4 property that will be
developed if not now, at some point.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Steve Delmartini