HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-05-2016 ARC Correspondence - Public Hearing 1 (Mourenza)Meeting. h/ 1 �. 0 s l
-----Original Message -----
From: Lydia Mourenza [
Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2016 11:16 AM
To: Advisory Bodies <advisorybodies@slocity.org>
Subject: ARC 12/5/16 item 1: 22 CHORRO
Please put in agenda correspondence, cc ARC members, thank you
RECEIVED
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DEC 0 5 2016
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
The currently proposed project for 22 CHORRO is defective and deficient on many levels. Excellent letters have been submitted
I will try to address issues that have been less discussed:
1. The location was previously used as a full service station engaged in both gasoline sales and automotive repair with
associated hazardous materials and is also located in proximity to prior dry cleaning establishment. There needs to be an
environmental evaluation of the soils on site and requirements for remediation.
2. Foothill is used as a guide for helicopters to Sierra Vista Hospital's 4th story helipad. The City Council questioned whether
this was reviewed and planning responded that 22 Chorro is not in the flight path of the SLO Airport (non responsive ); a
serious safety issue is presented requiring investigation.
3. NO traffic study with any consideration of the property as mixed-use with 100 residents.
4. Noise from roof deck will travel a significant distance due to particular geography of the area where residents up to six
blocks away from 22 CHORRO already hear Cal Poly games even inside with doors and windows closed.
5. If the roof deck is assessable to the public it will be a nuisance; if restricted entry there will no way for noise enforcement
thus no possible mitigation.
6. Lack of laundry facilities: costs to residents in transportation to laundromat and added vehicle travel in opposition to climate
goals.
7. No guarantee of parking for handicapped residents, visitors, or customers.
8. Potential of extra charge for residents to park on site would result in excess rent for the inclusionary units.
9. Solar panels should be required, preparation for future installation is meaningless.
10. Despite the assertion in the staff report ( page 57) this is not a low income project but market rate and private with the
minimum inclusionary to gain maximum bonuses. Rent and advertising should be for available unit, not "bed".
11. Changes need to be approved by ARC not CDD to prevent repeat of IKON (CA @ Taft) which as built looks nothing like what
was approved.
12. A neutral party (HASLO) should evaluate applicants and award low income units.
Lydia Mourenza Anholm, SLO
I