HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-01-2016 ARC Correspondence - Public Comment (Crough)Comments concerning information that I believe the ARC should have before providing
guidance to the applicant
Commission Members: My name is Peter Crough and my wife Diane and I are the resident
homeowners of 633 Luneta Drive in San Luis Obispo.
I would like to talk with you tonight about what many local residents believe are crucial data
elements that the ARC should require before providing the applicant with guidance. These data
include both studies and in some cases further analysis. These may include:
1 Traffic Study
2 Parking Study
3 Additional CEQA compliant environmental studies focusing on, but not limited to, the
impact on the ecosystem of clear cutting our urban forest (including the impact of the
potential destruction of wildlife habitat).
4 Refined Density Analysis
5 Noise Analysis.
6 Revised affordable housing calculation.
7 An analysis of the proposed changes to the topography. These changes should be
meticulously identified and carefully examined for their potentially negative impact on
the significance of the historic home and on the surrounding neighborhood.
8 A more refined analysis of the impact of the project on the aesthetics of the
neighborhood.
9 An energy study analyzing the impact of potentially suboptimal energy-related design
aspects of the proposed project and suggested alternatives if applicable.
10 An analysis from a 3rd party structural engineer who is not associated with the project.
The engineer could be directed to examine the work of the applicant's engineer
regarding the safety of the proposed move of the historic home. But more importantly,
the analysis would contain an assessment of the viability of either working with the
existing foundation or placing the house on a new foundation that minimizes the move
in order to preserve the home's historic placement as much as possible.
11 Finally, a market assessment of proposed high level alternatives. In -other -words, are
there alternative financially viable - albeit not necessarily profit maximizing proposals,
that would preserve the historic home and the urban forest to the extent possible while
dramatically decreasing the proposed density and massing that would ultimately exist in
harmony with the surrounding neighborhood? At this point we don't know because we
haven't studied the issue. At the last CHC hearing it was suggested that the only
alternative to this proposal was to slowly allow the home to rot from neglect. I don't
believe that this applicant is the indispensable person without whom the property will
decay. I have little doubt, that after careful analysis, if it was determined that there are
no other feasible alternatives to this proposal, that the staff could inform the ownership
group that they will receive favorable treatment upon resubmittial and that given these
circumstances, the development community would line up around the block for an
opportunity to participate in this project. In-other-words, there is no downside to taking
your time and doing a careful analysis — you always have the option to go back to this
very lucrative proposal with another developer.
Until this work is completed, I don't believe that the ARC should provide the applicant with any
feedback.
I would like to thank you all again for your kind consideration.