Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-04-2017 - Item 16, MatthewsTuesday April 4, 2017 San Luis Obispo, CA City Council meeting Mayor Harmon and City Council Members: My name is Dan Matthews. Along with my wife, I have been a long time resident of SLO and specifically the Palomar Ave neighborhood. I am speaking to you this evening to request that each of you be open to finding sufficient basis on which to uphold the appeal of the 71 Palomar project and deny the development of this valuable site as it is currently proposed. For over a year, the basic issues have been presented to numerous advisory bodies (CHC, Tree Committee and ARC) as well as to the City Council as to why the high density housing project, designed specifically for the student population, should be scaled back to a reasonable size and massing to honor the historic Sandford House and its existing setting on this 1.3 acre park like urban forest of a property. Cutting down 55 of the 59 trees, as proposed and relocating the house on the property, which dictates the elimination of some of the trees, would be an environmental and cultural travesty. It should not be necessary to cut the trees and move the house; the sole purpose of which is to cram more high density apartment style housing on this site behind the Sandford House. The prominence of this special home with the century old trees straddling the frontage would be lost forever. If affordable housing is what is needed for SLO, this project is not it.... As Alan Iftiniuk, president and CEO of French Hospital Medical Center, so eloquently stated in The Tribune "Local Viewpoint" this past Sunday, we need local housing for health care professionals, teachers, nurses, police and firefighters; all who work in our city .... thus work force housing! The 71 Palomar project housing, as currently designed with students in mind, would be unsuitable as work force housing for young families and professionals. The total push for this project is housing for students which, ideally, should be built on the Cal Poly or Cuesta College campuses so as not to adversely impact residential neighborhoods with spill over parking, excessive traffic, noise issues, etc. Speaking of traffic concerns, the city seems to want to ramrod high density housing projects, whether it be this one or the recently approved 22 Chorro student apartment style housing project through the approval process without concern for proper and thorough traffic studies. There are issues related to the proposed Broad St. Bicycle Boulevard for safer bike routes into town and also for children biking towards the elementary schools on the other side of Foothill Blvd. There are Issues related to two way traffic with a greatly increased flow of cars should Luneta Drive be allowed to open up as part of the 71 Palomar project. The project itself is designed with inadequate on-site parking for the potential number of residents. Spill over onto Palomar Ave, Luneta and Ramona Drives cannot be accommodated with existing parking already taken up by existing neighborhood and Valencia student housing residents. I could go on and on about the adverse affects of the 71 Palomar project; you have heard all of them! Keep in mind that this is a "gem" of a piece of property and it could be so much more than what this development project is offering for our city. Do not allow it to be destroyed and dishonored by the relocation of the historic house and clearing of more than 93% of the trees. A significant 95 foot century old Norfolk Pine tree cannot be replaced by two 15 gallon insignificant trees of any species. This development drastically needs to be scaled back in design and further studies related to traffic, noise, trees and resident wildlife need to be initiated. For all these reasons.... I recommend that you uphold the appeal of the 71 Palomar project. Dan Matthews SLO 2.