HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-04-2017 Item 16, LopesRECEIVED
COUNCIL MEETING:
APR 0 5 2017
[TEM NO.: LCo
--
SLO CITY CLERK
From: James Lopes [
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 3:24 PM
To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slociy.org>
Subject: 71 Palomar appeal
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
I support the appeal of 71 Palomar, because:
• The project will eradicate a collection of trees which is itself historic and valuable to the neighborhood
and wildlife.
• The project is badly designed out of context with the scale of the neighborhood, without a gradation of
density.
• The project is not suitable for resident student circulation and recreation and will cause noise and other
impacts.
• The project does not conform with the Community Design Guidelines (CDG), which could feasibly be
implemented.
• The project is not appropriate for student housing, as it will double the density by splitting bedrooms as
occurred at The Ikon.
As for the need for housing, the City has ignored this need even in the LUCE update and Housing Element
update. It is not fair to residents to promote job growth and not provide the areas for housing which employees
can afford. Until the City staff, Council and commissions understand the symbiotic whole of both housing and
employment, we will be wildly accommodating over -built projects such as this one, in very inappropriate
configurations.
Let me repeat; it is not appropriate policy implementation to "build out" each parcel with the maximum allowed
by zoning. Instead, the CDG and regular zoning standards should be used to "fit" projects in their
neighborhoods, within the maximum allowance. Meantime, a strategic plan should be started with an inventory
of vacant and under-utilized parcels and their sustainable capacity for additional housing. Then, the existing
and potential numbers of employees should be determined in the non-residential zones and by areas. The
existing and potential housing demand can be determined by a qualified city planner skilled in "jobs -housing
balance" studies. These two sources of data would enable you to determine what types of housing are suitable
for the expected employees, and whether too many employees will be generated by non-residential zones,
which is already evident*. The prime sources of housing for local employees (not students) are on large parcels
where multi -family housing can be built, such as at Orcutt Specific Plan Area. This and other areas should be
changed to mostly multi -family housing to accommodate the incomes likely to occur with existing and future
employees.
This and other intrusive projects should be scaled to the existing neighborhood characters in their surroundings.
Sincerely,
James Lopes
* The LUCE EIR pointed out that the current jobs -to -housing ratio was already unbalanced at 1.6 to 1, and it
will worsen by doubling to 3 to 1 at build -out of the Land Use Element.
James Lopes
San Luis Obispo, CA