HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-04-2017 Item 16, CooperCOUNCIL MEETING:
ITEM NO.:-.-
MAR 3 0 2017
SLO CITY CLERK
From: Allan Cooper [
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 5:45 PM
To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncii@slocitv.ors>; Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.or>; Cohen, Rachel
<rcohen@slpcib.org>; Harmon, Heidi <hharmon@slocity.ore>; Christianson, Carlyn <cchristianson@slocitv.or >;
Rivoire, Dan <DRivoire@slncity.or >; Pease, Andy <apease@slocity.org>; Gomez, Aaron <agomez@slocity.org>
Subject: Public Hearing Item #16 - Appeal of ARC's Decision on 71 Palomar
Dear Michael and Rachel -
Would you kindly forward my letter attached below to the
City Council before their April 4th meeting? Thanks!
To: SLO City Council
Re: Public Hearing Item #16 - 71 Palomar Appeal
From: Allan Cooper
Date: March 29, 2017
Honorable Mayor and Council Members -
I am asking you to uphold the appeal filed by Teresa Matthews and Lydia Mourenza of the
Architectural Review Commission's decision to approve 71 Palomar.
The ARC at its August 1, 2016 conceptual review of 71 Palomar asked the developer to return
with the information and design changes listed below. When the ARC reviewed this project at
their January 30, 2017 meeting, the requested information was not provided and the design
changes were not made.
1. "Provide a tree survey, biological report, wildlife habitat information, bird survey and an
aesthetic analysis." The Tree Committee forwarded to the ARC grave concerns for the
accuracy of the tree survey and biological report and no bird survey was undertaken.
Instead, the biologist made one two-hour site visit and speculated on the types of
birds that might habituate this forest.
2. "Vintage of the trees (were they planted during the period of significance?)." The vintage of
the trees was not included in any of the arborists' reports.
3. "Carefully consider the use or need of water as a part of the new landscaping plan." This
was not done.
4. "Provide details on the landscape plans that show exactly how vegetation will be planted
along the northern property line." This was not provided as the same conceptual
landscape plan submitted to the ARC back in August 1, 2016 was resubmitted to the
ARC at their January 30, 2017 meeting.
5. "Reduce the number of bedrooms, especially in the structures closest to Luneta. Consider
putting single level structures at Luneta". This was not done.
6. "Pedestrian circulation between buildings appears too close. Provide wider walkways
between the buildings." This was not done.
The January 30, 2017 staff report stated that this project proposal conformed to the Land Use
and Housing Element Policies listed below. In fact, the project does not conform to these Land
Use and Housing Element Policies.
Staff cites LUE Policy 2.2.6 which includes a description of "quality neighborhoods". One of
these descriptors refers to a "A tree canopy" which, in the case of the 71 Palomar
proposal will be entirely removed.
2. Staff cites LUE Policy 2.2.7 which states that the City promotes "...infill development... that
contribute positively to existing neighborhoods and surrounding areas." It is obvious that
this infill project will not contribute positively to the surrounding areas as it will
overload the design capacity of both Palomar and Serrano Streets.
3. Staff cites Housing Element Policy 8.1 which encourages "...housing development that
meets a variety of special needs including large families, single parents, disabled persons,
the elderly, students, veterans, the homeless, utilizing universal design". This barracks -like
project could only appeal to students. The four very -low income units are not
designed to accommodate families, disabled persons, the elderly or veterans.
4. Staff cites Housing Element Policy 7.1 which states "Within established neighborhoods, new
residential development shall be of a character, size, density and quality that respects the
neighborhood character and maintains the quality of life for existing and future residents."
This project, because of its density, clearly does not fit into the character of the
adjoining R-1 neighborhood nor will it maintain quality of life for the existing
residents.
Staff does not include the following text of the Housing Accountability Act Section 1. Section
65589.5 of the Government Code which was amended to read:
"(e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve the local agency from complying
with the congestion management program required by Chapter 2.6 (commencing with
Section 65088) of Division 1 of Title 7"
Chapter 2.6. Congestion Management [65088 - 65089.10] (Chapter 2.6 added by Stats. 1989,
Ch. 106, Sec. 9.) 65088.
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(h) The removal of regulatory barriers to promote infill housing, transit -oriented development, or
mixed use commercial development does not preclude a city or county from holding a public
hearing nor finding that an individual infill project would be adversely impacted by the
surrounding environment or transportation patterns.
The neighborhood streets are already dangerous, heavily traveled and over -parked. The terrain
is hilly and the streets are windy and narrow. This proposed project is located approximately one
block from the proposed "Safe Routes to School" Plan and the "Broad Street Bike Boulevard"
Plan. These plans were not considered in relation to this development. The 33 student
apartment units will likely house a minimum of 146 occupants (two students per bedroom).
However the subterranean parking garage has only 63 parking spaces for the 146 minimum
number of (up to 274 maximum number of) residents. Because of accordion demising walls
running down the center of the long, narrow bedrooms with door access on each side of the
demising wall, each bedroom has the potential of accommodating not two but four students
resulting in a maximum occupancy of 274 (see below). Where will the extra 83 minimum to 211
maximum cars park except along the narrow, windy streets within this and adjoining
neighborhoods? Knowing the actual number of students who will reside here, there will be
inadequate provision of disabled access parking and guest parking not to mention inadequate
delivery truck loading and unloading space. This will result in unavoidable and unmitigable traffic
congestion, on -street parking and serious safety issues on Serrano Dr., Ramona Dr., Palomar
Ave., Broad St. and other adjacent streets. Even though no traffic/circulation study was required
for this project, it is obvious that this infill project will adversely impact the surrounding
transportation patterns.
Regarding the January 30, 2017 ARC review of 71 Palomar, the staff report stated that the
Commission's purview was tasked as follows:
1. Review the Cultural Heritage Committees recommendation (Attachment 4, CHC Resolution)
and take final action on the project's consistency with historic preservation standards
2. Review the project in terms of its consistency with the Community Design Guidelines and
applicable City policies and standards.
3. Review and take action on the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment 7).
However, the ARC neither weighed in on consistency with historic preservation
standards, nor did it address applicable City policies and standards nor did it address
the inadequacy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Thank you!
3 Bedroom Units:
(2 elongated bedrooms w/ two doors & 1 regular sized bedroom)
12 units (10 per unit) = 120
2 Bedroom Units:
(2 elongated bedrooms w/ two doors
16 units (8 per unit) = 144
Studios
5 studios (2 per studio) = 10