HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-15-2016 Public Comment - CroughFrom: Advisory Bodies
To: peter.crough@gmail.com
Subject: RE: 71 Palomar "Please include this email with the March 15, 2015 correspondence for
the City Council, P.C. , A.R.C. and C.H.C."
From: [
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 12:00 PM
To: Advisory Bodies
Subject: 71 Palomar "Please include this email with the March 15, 2015 correspondence for the City Council, P.C. ,
A.R.C. and C.H.C."
To Whom it may concern,
We are the resident homeowners of 633 Luneta Drive directly across the street from the proposed 41 unit
apartment complex at 71 Palomar Avenue. On February 4"', we attended a meeting that was organized by
Rachel Cohen of the Community Development Department concerning the proposed 71 Palomar project. In
this meeting she provided a summary briefing of the proposed project. After listening to the briefing and
reviewing the materials, we strongly believe that the proposed development is at variance with the current
neighborhood environment of single-family residential homes immediately adjacent to it along Palomar
Avenue, Luneta Drive, and nearby Serrano Drive. We would like to mention just of few of the problems:
1. The proposal to widen Luneta and remove the existing barricades to create a through street will destroy the
beauty and serenity that has made our neighborhood unique for many years. It will take this beautiful and
peaceful residential street and convert it into a busy thoroughfare with potentially dangerous
repercussions. We strongly believe that a careful review of the alternatives to this proposal is clearly required.
2. The proposed 41 additional units will exacerbate the already troubling density related issues in the immediate
neighborhood due to the existing Valencia Student Housing Project. We believe that adding AT LEAST an
additional 82 more residents plus their guests to an already overburdened neighborhood will only add to the
current imbalance and severely impact our quality of life. (This estimate assumes an average occupancy of 2
people per unit.) The estimate is conservative and does not take into account that student occupied units are
often double the normal occupancy, and therefore, we believe that the final result would be greater than 82
additional residents.)
3. Please note that parking in the immediate vicinity is already a critical situation due to the Valencia Student
Apartments and the proximity of Cal Poly, as we regularly observe parked cars blocking the street corners and
the fire hydrant and we find that it is often the case that there are no nearby available spaces for guest
parking. We believe that the additional traffic burden from this project will result in more congestion than these
streets can safely handle. For example, Serrano Drive is barely wide enough for cars to pass each other and we
observe that most cars seem to drive down the middle of the street. This problem is compounded by the
situation at the intersection of Broad Street and Serrano Drive where it is often the case that with cars parked on
both sides of Broad Street it is very difficult to see cars or bicycles coming when you are attempting to pull out
onto Broad Street from Serrano Drive. This situation is potentially quite dangerous as Broad Street is a main
thoroughfare and perhaps an accident waiting to happen. The proposal to divert traffic from Ramona to Luneta
by removing the barriers and widening Luneta will clearly make this situation worse. We must have a
comprehensive traffic study to identify and quantify these and other issues and propose acceptable alternatives.
In summary, we believe that it is in the best interest of the community that no additional units be added to this
property. The existing historically registered structure has been on this property for approximately 100 years
and we don't believe that there is a compelling reason to alter the fundamental nature of our neighborhood to
enrich a developer who does not live in our city. The prospective developer seems to believe that he has an
inherent "right" to build the maximum number of units allowed under the upper density limits in the zoning
code when these are an upper limit and not a j!uarantee. There clearly should be a buffer between high
density student apartments and residential neighborhoods. The errors of the past are not a basis for continuance
of ill-conceived development. We do understand that it may not be possible to achieve the perfect solution as
there are competing interests with differing points of view. (Note that these opposing interests do not live in our
neighborhood!) Thus, at a minimum, this proposal clearly requires careful review by the Planning Commission
and the City Council with plenty of neighborhood input at each stage of a meticulous process in order to
achieve the best possible outcome.
We want to thank you for your kind consideration of our letter and we look forward to hearing from you soon
regarding this urgent matter.
Sincerely,
Diane Crough & Peter Crough
Contact Information
Email: peter.crough(Damail.com
Phone: (805) 752-1055
Address: 633 Luneta Drive
San Luis Obispo CA 93405