HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-05-2016 ARC Correspondence - Public Hearing 1 (Lopes 2)
From: James Lopes [
Sent: Monday, December 05, 2016 10:56 AM
Item: l
RECEIVED
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DEC 0 5 2016
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
To: Greg Wynn < ; Susan Ehdaie < ; Amy Nemcik Allen Root
< ; Angela Soll Brian Rolph < ;
Advisory Bodies <advisorybodies@slocity.org>
Cc: Richard Schmidt < ; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>
Subject: Re: ARC 22 Chorro
December 5, 2016
Architecture Review Commission
RE: 22 Chorro item 1
Dear Commissioners:
I hope that you will carefully read Richard Schmidt's letter and email. I ask you to find that the project needs to be
completely redesigned from the standpoint of City policies, the single-family neighborhood behind it, and the speed,
noise and pollution from traffic on Foothill Boulevard, among other serious concerns.
This project should be a one- or perhaps two-story complex behind parking and landscaping, well -buffered from
residences and from Foothill. The only instance of a taller building is at Tassajara and Foothill, which is three stories
behind a parking lot and extensive landscaping. At this commercial location though, the primary use should be
commercial not residential. A continuous safe pedestrian corridor needs to be designed along Foothill, and the City
has thoughtfully approved policies to implement that. If you wish to engage and implement the City's circulation goals
and policies, please make a motion responding to the concerns which Mr. Schmidt awesomely states in his letter.
Thank you in advance for taking action as he suggests.
Sincerely,
James Lopes
James Lopes
1336 Sweet Bay Lane
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
On 12/4/2016 11:58 AM, Richard Schmidt wrote:
Dear ARC,
Please find attached my comments on 22 Chorro, urging you to deny the project for numerous
important reasons.
But first, I'd like to point out, what I was taught about evaluating projects when I began my 8 years on
the Planning Commission: One must never judge a project by its developer, the developer's promises
or persuasions, or any representations of any particular tenant or style or type of tenancy. None of those
have any validity or enforceability or expectation of long tenure, even if sincere. The ONLY issue is
the physical project itself, whether it is a good addition to our city, whether it has problems that
outweigh any goodness, whether it meets our community's standards as laid out in things like the
zoning code, design standards, and general plan policies.
I am confident that if you filter out the emotional static of project proponents' pleadings (about bike
culture and the like), and evaluate the physical object itself, you will come to see its shortcomings.
Sincerely,
Richard Schmidt
Attachment: Letter pdf file