Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-01-16 ARC Correspondence - Item 1 (Smith)Lomeli, Monique Subject: ARC Meeting - August 1st - 71 Palomar Meeting: &g o- 01 + P1� From: carolyn smith [mailto: Item: Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2016 11:03 PM To: Advisory Bodies <advisorybodies@slocity.or > Subject: ARC Meeting - August 1st - 71 Palomar Dear Commissioners: RECEIVED CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AUG 01 2016 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT I am very disappointed and frustrated with the sequence of meetings and, in my opinion, the underhanded process for the 71 Palomar project. The ARC is being asked to "conceptually" review this project prior to the completion of a more in depth environmental review. It seems to me that any comments or suggestions made to the developer by this commission, prior to completion of a revised environmental report, will be premature. After a more thorough study of the historical nature of this site, including the historical trees, wildlife/bird habitat and other major issues is completed, it could be determined that significant changes to the design of the project will be necessary. Therefore, in an effort to save time and duplicate efforts, I ask you to postpone this meeting until such time as the revised environmental report is completed. However, if you choose to review the project at this time, please seriously consider the historical nature of this site. Moving the Sandford Home from its current location, removing a majority of the mature historical trees in the process, and then surrounding the home with numerous buildings, will result in the Home becoming just part of the project—losing it's historical prominence. The numerous trees that surround the home have magnified the home's visual uniqueness for many many years, as well as being home to a variety of birds and wildlife. Any project on this property should emphasize the Sanford home, not diminish it, and certainly another, smaller design would be more appropriate that would not require moving the Sanford Home and/or removing the majority of the wonderful historical trees surrounding the home. Certainly there are alternative designs that could be more sensitive to the historical home and surrounding natural habitat. I have lived in SLO for 36 years and during that time, our city leaders have taken pride in preserving our historical homes and character. It has been a large part of the reason SLO is such a desirable and unique place to live. However, it appears the current city regime is willing to literally wipe out those many years of hard work, all under the pretense of providing "affordable" housing for our workforce families. This project is just one example of the fallacy of this effort. This out of town developer, as others, is not being honest about the targeted demographics of his project. He is building in a prime area for student housing and the current design of the project is not appropriate or desirable for a family. If this project was truthfully being built for our workforce families, one would expect a quality design appropriate for family living with larger living space and lots of ground level outdoor play and picnic areas. The current design is very desirable for students, not families, who will be willing to pay prime market rental rates to be near Cal Poly. Working adults and/or families will not be able to compete for these rental units, thus eliminating the affordable workforce housing desired. Unfortunately, this is not the first, nor probably the last, time this has occurred. Just one recent example is the Icon Project on Taft and Kentucky Streets. I attended the various ARC meetings and City Council appeal hearing, and the out of town developer in that project, also adjacent to single family homes, was making the exact same disingenuous claims as the Palomar developer -- that the units would be affordable for workforce families. He even had a few young people speak up claiming they would love to move their families into this project. Some of us later discovered that several of those speakers were in some way connected to the developer and/or had financial gain from the development. To make matters worse, recently the developer of the Icon project, currently under construction, tried to make some "modifications" to the approved design, on the sly. It was discovered by a resident that the developer had partitioned the two bedroom units (which was a City Council requirement in the appeal decision) into four bedrooms, right under the city's nose. After the modification was reported to the CDD, the developer was forced to remove the partitioned walls and revert the plan to what was approved. Who knows what will occur after the final inspection is completed? It's obvious the developer's intent was to maximize profits by increasing the number of student renters in the project. Renting at $ woo.00 per beci, one can clearly realize the potential maximized profits that can be made, which makes the units nowhere near affordable for working families as the ARC members and the Council were assured. The developer of 71 Palomar has claimed that, other than the 3 or 4 affordable smaller studios, the units will be rented at "market value." As exampled above, the market rental rate, particularly in this part of the city, is very high. In fact, students often out -bid working families when rentals are advertised. As a rental home owner in SLO for many years, I experienced this practice first hand. Each time I rent my home, a large number of families and student groups apply for the property. For the past 8 years or so, some of the student groups have offered me significantly more than my rental rate to help move their applications to the top. While I never accepted any of those offers, other landlords do, which is clear evidence that market rental rates in SLO often price families out of the market. So, if you are inclined to approve this project as submitted, despite the irreparable damage to this historical site, because you are being told it will provide much needed "affordable" housing for our workforce families, please reconsider. Not only will this project NOT be affordable for working families, there will be no accountability for not producing what this developer claims his project will provide. The nearby residents will have to suffer the consequences of your approval of this high density student housing project for years to come. So, as appointed stewards of your city, please protect this neighborhood and protect and preserve a treasured historical site. Thank you. Carolyn Smith SLO Resident