HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-04-2017 Item 16, LipperRECEIVED
COUNCIL MEETING: 4 –4/ –
ITEM NO.: �— APR 0 3 2017
5LO CITY C.LF-F.K
From: Al Lipper [
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2017 2:43 PM
To: Harmon, Heidi <hharmon@slocity.orp; Rivoire, Dan <DRivoire@slocitv.ore>; Christianson, Carlyn
<cchristianson@slocity.or>; Gomez, Aaron <agomez@slocity.ore>; Pease, Andy <apease@slocity.org>; E-mail Council
Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>
Subject: Please consider this for 71 Palomar
Dear Mayor Harmon and Council Members,
I'm writing to you today regarding the appeal of the ARC's decision to approve 71 Palomar, and I'm requesting that
you support this appeal. That is, the approval should be reversed.
Before I go into the details, I just wanted to thank you for your patience with this issue. I know you probably have to
deal with a lot of emotionally charged people, and I imagine that's not always easy.
I promise, I'm not going to yell at you or insult you :-)
Honestly, I do believe that someone should be able to build something on that property, but it's the magnitude and
incompatibility of the proposed project that I have issue with (I live on Luneta with my family, so this really impacts me
and my kids).
Here's why I think the ARC's decision to approve the 71 Palomar project is erroneous:
1. During their August review of the project, the ARC made a number of requests of the developer. A number of
these requests were simply not complied with:
a. The developer was asked to reduce the number of bedrooms in the design. This was simply not done.
b. The developer was asked for a comprehensive biological report including wildlife and trees. Again, this was
not done. The tree committee expressed serious concerns, yet these seem to have been overlooked.
2. There has been no traffic study, though one should be done for a development in a residential neighborhood that
will house over 140 people.
Moving the main house destroys the cultural landscape of the property. It is located at the peak of the property
in a deliberate location intended to emphasize the significance of the house.
It is simply being shuffled over to the side to allow room for much larger structures. This will destroy the house's
appearance of significance on the property.
Imagine you are building a large house for your family or grandkids. Would you choose a random location, or very
carefully try to pick the perfect spot on the property for it? My guess is that the house was located with the same
deliberation.
3. The mass and scale of the proposed development is excessive. The developer was asked to reduce the size of the
project. It is simply too large to be compatible with the property and the surrounding neighborhood.
4. There are so many old growth trees on the property. We NEED more trees in our city. Cutting these down seems
very contrary to the guidance provided by the tree committee.
Stepping back, there's a big picture here. This is simply a profit center for an out-of-town developer. He's
checked the right boxes to make it look like workforce housing, but we all know it's not (The developer freely
admits it's student housing).
The job of city staff is to make sure all the right boxes are checked.
But one thing that makes the City Council so great is that you see beyond the check boxes and understand the
bigger picture.
You can freely consider questions like..
"Do we really need some more minor off -campus housing?" without needing to pretend it's workforce housing.
"Given what this particular developer has done with the student housing he built in Santa Barbara, do we really
want that to happen here in our city?"
"If this project is opposed by so many residents, why not wait for a developer who is willing to propose something
more neighborhood friendly?"
Sure, when the rules are not black -and -white on an issue, we can usually find ones that support either perspective
and say we did what the rules said.
But, what would it take to go home at night and say to yourself "I really did the right thing here for the
people"?
Thanks for taking the time to consider what I've written.
-- Al Lipper