HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-18-2016 Item 20, GradyCOUNCIL MEETING:-
ITEM NO.: - . :Z -C—) -
To: Gallagher, Carrie
Subject: RE: 22 Chorro St. EkECEIVED
17 2015
From: John Grady [
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 3:13 PM ITY CLEI
To: E-mail Council Website <ernailcouncil@slocity.org>
Subject: 22 Chorro St.
Dear Mayor Marx and City Council Members,
strongly urge your support of the Planning Commission's 4-1 decision to deny the proposed
development at 22 Chorro Street.
Why does our city even have zoning regulations, height restrictions, and parking requirements if staff
and you do not uphold them? It seems in recent years nearly every major development proposed in
or near downtown has requested exceptions to our city's height and parking restrictions. And it's
usually under the guise of 'affordable housing' or'workforce housing' (which has no clear
definition). This latest developer has coined a new term -'very low income housing'- I suppose
because of the severity of the exemptions they are requesting you consider.
And what low income housing is offered in exchange for not following the rules? Four studio units
- the smallest of the units - representing merely 11 % of the project's housing. It is insulting that you
would even consider granting their many exceptions for this pitiful offer. And a 40% reduction in
parking is untenable. How could you even consider 33 parking spaces for 27 units, many (most) of
which will have two or more occupants (and vehicles)? Plus there is parking needed for the ground
floor commercial space. This is grossly inadequate and residents will be forced to park cars in the
already impacted adjoining neighborhood. And to think that many residents will simply use bicycles
for transportation is a denial of reality. Lastly, the height is excessive, exceeds the general plan
stipulations, and will further erode our valued view shed.
Staff seems to be a tireless cheerleader of countless recent projects (like this) that don't conform to
our city's guidelines. It's as if staff works for the development community rather than enforcing our
city's code and building requirements. I believe most city residents oppose projects like this and are
looking to you - our elected representatives - to hear us and uphold our wishes and our general plan.
I have heard this theme repeated throughout the current city council campaign.
Please adopt the resolution (attachment A) to uphold the Planning Commission's 4-1 decision and
deny this project.
Thank you.
John Grady
San Luis Obispo