HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-07-2017 Item 6, ShinnCOUNCIL MEETING: - — KMS L_J VED
ITEM NO.:FEB 01 2017
From: Cohen, Rachel
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2017 1:27 PM
To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncii(@slocity.org>
Subject: FW: 22 Chorro: Architectural appeal hearing set for 02/07/17
Please see e-mail below.
Thank you,
Rachel Cohen
Associate Planner
Community Development
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E rcohenCc-r�.slocity.prc;
T 805.781.7574
slocity.org
From: Linda Shinn [
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2017 1:23 PM
To: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.o>
Subject: 22 Chorro: Architectural appeal hearing set for 02/07/17
Hi Rachel,
Would you please forward to all city council members the attached letter voicing my concerns with the
proposed building at 22 Chorro.
Thank you,
Linda
Linda Shinn
San Luis Obispo Realty
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "
To: Linda Shinn < >
Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2017 2:22 PM
Subject: Attached Image
Dear Council Members,
I am the owner of 27 Chorro, located on the corner of Chorro and Rougeot. I do not
support this building proposal as this project is not in accordance with the master plan
south of Foothill Blvd and is not a good fit for the neighborhood for many reasons.
First, this project will be an architectural eyesore standing at four stories, casting a
shadowy loom over the adjoining properties. All homes south of Foothill are R1
residences of single story with the exception of one or two. This proposed structure is
NOT in keeping with the consistent, uniform design of the neighborhood as directed by
the Master Plan. Personally, I do not wish to look out my dining room window to be
overshadowed by a looming monolithic tower casting shadows over my home.
Second, the traffic congestion at the intersection of Chorro and Foothill is already at a
peak volume. The ingress and egress to the proposed property is not acceptable. How
are vehicles traveling south from Foothill to enter the structure near Rougeout?
Vehicles waiting to turn left into the structure will create traffic back up at the Foothill
intersection creating serious safety hazards for vehicles as well as pedestrians.
Third, the developers included very low income households for one reason: to receive
a 35% density bonus. This equates to the City receiving maybe one or two affordable
housing opportunities. Why are the developers not offering low and moderate income
housing? Because they offer no benefits to the developers.
Fourth, the request of a 40% parking reduction is without merit. This developer stated
at the supervisory meeting if vehicle parking is not provided, tenants will resort to riding
a bike. This simply will not occur. Hurried tenants going to school or work will not wait
for the mechanical lift. Hence, the overflow vehicles will park on Rougeout, next to my
home. The lifts will be utilized however as a vessel to the rooftop patio for partying.
Little to no parking for commercial customers is planned.
The master plan was created to provide a uniform standard for this neighborhood.
Homeowners purchased property here for this uniformity. The developers' requests for
40% parking reduction with lifts, 35% density bonus and a structure increase from 35 to
45 feet should AGAiN be DENIED as it was by the Supervisors vote of 4 to 1.
I invite all members of the City Council to personally visit this site and view first hand the
incredibly small area of this parcel. This gesture in itself should convince you to
REJECT this proposal in totality.
Thank you, :
Linda Shinn
2/1/17