HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-05-2016 ARC Correspondence - Public Hearing 1 (Vujovich-La Barre)Meeting: "-1- 0-0s' l0
From: Mila Vujovich-LaBarre [
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2016 4:46 PM
helm: 1
To: Advisory Bodies <advisorybodies@slocity.org>
Cc: Lydia Mourenza < ; Ashbaugh, John <
Subject: 22 Chorro Proposal and the appointment of Lydia Mourenza
Mila Vujovich-La Barre
650 Skyline Drive
San Luis Obispo, California 93405
December 2, 2016
Architectural Review Commissioners
San Luis Obispo City Hall
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Members of the Architectural Review Commission,
RECEIVED
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DEC 0 5 2016
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
It is my hope that you deny the project at 22 Chorro Street that is on your agenda for December 5, 2016.
This mixed-use permit is in conflict with aspects of the General Plan. It is over -built, severely lacking in
appropriate parking spaces, and dangerous to both pedestrians and bicyclists. It also presents a true
danger to existing residents and surrounding structures.
It is also my hope that you find a way to resurrect and approve the appointment of Lydia Mourenza to the
Architectural Review Commission.
First, I will address my concerns about the proposed development for 22 Chorro Street.
Although details follow here, I just pragmatically encourage each of you to go to the intersection of Chorro
Street and Foothill Boulevard at the morning "rush hour" between 8am and 9am and again in the evening
between 4:30pm-5:30pm. Examine the vehicular, pedestrian, bike traffic and the bus stop immediately in
front of the proposed development. This intersection cannot accommodate too much more activity and
maintain the current level of service. In addition, the proposed lack of parking and the mechanical lift for
proposed parking will create backed up traffic in more than one direction on Chorro Street and on Foothill.
The fire crew from the station on North Chorro Street will simply not be able to appropriately respond to an
emergency or structure fire utilizing Chorro Street if this design is approved.
So, it is not just the visual aspects of this proposal that I object to, it is the real and present danger of
emergency access to individuals and structures, with a clogged intersection at Chorro Street and Foothill
Boulevard.
As background, the San Luis Obispo City Planning Commission, expertly examined many aspects of this
development and, after a lengthy discussion and listening to robust public testimony on August 24, 2016,
they denied the project 4-1.
This mixed-use project in the Foothill Boulevard Special Focus area, has a 40 percent parking reduction
and the use of mechanical parking lifts, and a height exception as an "affordable housing" incentive to
accommodate the development of the proposed project at 22 Chorro Street.
The Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo rightfully denied the proposed project. They
decided that:
1. The project will be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of those working or residing in the vicinity
because the proposed parking reduction is excessive and the height -was inconsistent with the General
Plan.
2. The request for reduced parking is inconsistent with San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 17. 16.
060 in that the requested parking reduction is excessive for the proposed use, and that the times of the
proposed mixed-use parking demand from the various uses will coincide in such a way that it will have
detrimental impacts on the surrounding area.
It is still of concern that neighborhoods, including the nearby shopping center will be severely impacted by
parking from this development.
3. The proposed project height is inconsistent with Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 9. 2
because the project will block views from Foothill Boulevard which is designated as having moderate
scenic value.
The proposed rendition before you tonight is not, to my knowledge, different from what was previously
denied.
4. The proposed project height is inconsistent with the Land Use Element Policy 2. 3. 9.E Compatible
Development: Architecture; the project' s height and scale does not provide a smooth transition between
the existing and proposed development.
The mass and scale of this development are completely incompatible with the adjacent R-1 homes on this
side of Foothill.
5. The proposed project height is inconsistent with the Community Design Guidelines sections 5. 3. A. 1
and 5. 3. C: the project's height and scale does not provide a smooth transition between the immediate
neighborhood.
This proposed project is overpowering and too big for this side of Foothill Boulevard as four-story building.
6. The proposed project height is inconsistent with the Land Use Element Policy 2. 3. 91 Compatible
Development: Privacy and Solar Access; the project will overlook onto adjacent properties and does not
respect the privacy of neighboring building and outdoor areas.
This project will undermine the privacy of the adjacent neighborhood.
Furthermore, it is important to realize that this site is zoned (C -C), (S -F). If it is Community Commercial (C-
C), it should be a "pedestrian -oriented shopping center." This project is not.
Special Focus Areas (S -F) in the community present opportunities to develop customized land use and
circulation approaches or special design implementation to "enhance their appearance" and achieve their
respective development potential in a manner that is "consistent with community values."
If it is a Special Focus area (S -F), it should "enhance the appearance of the neighborhood and be
consistent with community values". This project does not.
Since this is the Foothill Boulevard/Santa Rosa Special Focus Area the land uses should favor "meeting
rooms and conference facilities". This project does not contain either one.
The Council's stated Goal #34 encourages the "development of compact neighborhoods that protect the
quality of life in established neighborhoods." This project does not achieve these goals.
Also, "high density residential" near Cal Poly addresses attached dwellings "in two and three story
buildings". This is clearly a four- story building.
During the LUCE meetings, taller structures were discussed at length and approved for the other side of
Foothill Boulevard, in the shopping center, not the side where there is predominately R-1 residential
development.
This developer's project should be denied. It is student rental housing that should be built through a public-
private partnership with Cal Poly, on Cal Poly land, not at this location.
For you all to know, I did attend this developer's presentation at a "dwellforward" event at RRM prior to the
Planning Commission meeting and shared all of these same concerns with him in person in August. He did
not change any part of his proposal.
I also suggested to him that if he was such a proponent of "bike use and bike transit," that he should make
sure that he provides quality, Class 1 bike paths to and from his development, to ensure the safety of his
tenants and local residents. I also suggested that he build a pedestrian/ bike bridge over Santa Rosa to get
students to and from campus safely. This concept had been discussed in the LUCE meetings. The
developer stated that he was not interested in building the pedestrian/bike overpass since it would "be too
expensive."
Like many others, I was completely shocked when the City Council recently accepted this project (4-1).
Council John Ashbaugh was the only dissenting vote. He based many of his comments on my
aforementioned comments and his own research.
Secondly, you should also know that an esteemed community member Lydia Mourenza was denied an
appointment to your very commission recently by Mayor Jan Marx and Council Member Carlyn
Christianson due to her "past public comments and communications" that included her opposition to this
development and 71 Palomar, another development by this same developer. Also, for you to know, in my
recent interview for a position on the Planning Commission in late October, I was also questioned about my
sentiments towards 22 Chorro. Whether or not my disapproval of the current design for 22 Chorro was one
of the reasons that I was not selected is not known. I just find it incredibly odd that people who question
and research are not rewarded for their dedication to City government and process.
Hopefully, under the new Mayor Harmon and Council members Pease and Gomez, you can all investigate
the validity of the denial of Lydia Mourenza. I think that she would make an outstanding member of your
Commission. She is a retired attorney and judge. She would be replacing a retired attorney.
Please deny this project. Please reexamine the appointment of Lydia Mourenza to your Commission.
Please feel free to contact me in the event that you have any additional questions or desire clarification.
Thank you for your service and consideration.
Cordially,
Mila Vujovich-La Barre
650 Skyline Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405