HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-24-2016 PC Correspondence - Item 1 (Vujovich-LaBarre)1
Lomeli, Monique
Subject:Planning Commission - 22 Chorro 8/24/16
From: Mila Vujovich‐LaBarre [
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 4:51 PM
To: Advisory Bodies <advisorybodies@slocity.org>
Cc: Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; Ashbaugh, John <jashbaugh@slocity.org>; Rivoire, Dan <DRivoire@slocity.org>;
carlyn christenson <cchristenson@slocity.org>; Carpenter, Dan <dcarpenter@slocity.org>
Subject: Planning Commission ‐ 22 Chorro 8/24/16
August 23, 2016
Dear SLO Planning Commissioners Hemalata Dandekar, John Fowler, Daniel Knight, John
Larsen, Ronald Malak, and Charles Stevenson,
As a resident of the Foothill area, I have witnessed the metamorphosis of the property at 22
North Chorro. As many of you know this area and this particular site were discussed during the
hearings for the Land Use Circulation Element (LUCE).
The new developer has a plan before you on August 24, 2016, that is far from ideal for the
neighborhood!
Since you have already received a number of detailed letters from opponents about this site, I
will simply embellish a few of the points that I am most concerned with.
For your information, as a current candidate for San Luis Obispo City Council, I did accept an
invitation to the Homebuilders Association gathering at RRM to both meet a variety of builders
and to see this particular developer’s presentation to a group of people after the social part of
the evening.
Since I did ask questions during the presentation, the developer from Southern California did
talk to me after the presentation about my concerns for about 25 minutes.
Those concerns are:
1.The height. The developer is requesting an exception that should not be allowed. It
should remain at a maximum of 35 feet. A height beyond that will not complement the
adjacent residential neighborhoods and it will block public views throughout the view
corridor of Foothill and of Chorro.
2)This appears to be student housing with 23 two‐bedroom, two bath units and
Meeting: PC 08-24-2016
Item 1
Received By: Community Development
Department
08-24-2016
2
4 studios that could potentially house approximately 100 people. This is strictly rental housing
at approximately $900 per bedroom. Other residents are concerned that the price after
construction will escalate to a per bed cost. It will not present itself as affordable housing to
most students or young professionals. Also, for your information, there are two‐bedroom
apartments designed so that they could easily become 4‐bedrooms due to a partition that is
in the plans. This has been done with ICON Student apartments at Taft and Kentucky. Rent
there is by the bed is at $999 per month. http://iconslo.com/unitplan
3) The parking is not well‐organized and only allows for approximately 33 parking spots. The
developer seems convinced that due to his time living in New York City and other metropolitan
areas, that people will abandon the notion of having a personal vehicle. He has loaded up the
design with bike parking and included a potential bike repair shop. Again, there are 33 spots
for potentially 100 residents. This does not have a parking plan for any guests.
4) His graphic design of the property omits any drawings of bike lanes, a bus stop and traffic on
Foothill Boulevard.
5) Several people during the LUCE process discussed the dangerous intersection at North
Chorro and Foothill. His design somehow shows a widened North Chorro but does not address
the shift in the road there ‐ mid‐intersection at Foothill and North Chorro ‐ where there are
accidents annually.
6) I tried to tell the developer a way to “win some hearts” when we spoke after the meeting. I
reminded him that since he has an impacted proposal at both 71 Palomar and now another at
22 North Chorro, both which are severely short short on parking and heavy on bike use,
perhaps he could consider building a bike and pedestrian bridge for residents from the Foothill
Shopping Center across Santa Rosa towards Mustang Village and Cal Poly. This idea was
discussed during the LUCE process. He stated that that would be“too expensive” and that he
was not interested building a bridge to facilitate safe bike and pedestrian travel.
7) This proposal appears to be inconsistent with neighborhood character given that
commercial development in the area is two‐stories. In addition, the adjacent residential
properties have a 20‐foot setback. This proposal allows for no setback on Chorro.
8) The rooftop patio is not in keeping with the neighborhood character. If it is indeed
communal, I sense that it would not be well‐received by the quiet, established, adjacent
neighborhood.
9) There did not appear to be solar panels or substantial green‐build, sustainable elements
incorporated in the design.
3
In short, this developer, as an investor, is obviously attempting to maximize an existing
footprint to make a profit and provide for housing in the local, desirable rental market.
I did tell him last week in person to please go back to the proverbial drawing board with his
plan. I reminded him kindly that we are not El Segundo where he works, or Manhattan Beach
where he lives.
Please carefully review the current proposal for 22 North Chorro and deny this current
plan.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Mila Vujovich‐La Barre
650 Skyline Drive
San Luis Obispo, California 93405
milavu@hotmail.com