HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-07-2017 Item 6, CzechRECEWD
COUNCIL MEETIN(;: " 1 FEB 0 6 2017
!TEvI NO.:
From: Genevieve Czech [
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2017 6:55 PM
To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.oEg>
Subject: 22 Chorro appeal
Dear Lady Mayoress and Council Members:
Please rethink the entire 22 Chorro project under appeal and therefore under review. It is an abuse of a small
empty triangle of land, formerly a service station, and with toxic soil. It has the potential to be a wee, potential
pleasant open space in a neighborhood already impacted by commercial sites and small businesses, which
furthermore abut existing residential roads. Its location is unfit for increased traffic, which is inevitable, despite
claims of being pedestrian/ bicycle/bus friendly. A state inspector should be called upon to evaluate the health
and safety implications of the current proposed project, whose scope and density invite traffic accidents and
possible loss of life. At the October council meeting, it was reluctantly passed because the consensus expressed
by Mayor Marx was that "our hands are tied", due to the skill of the developer incorporating a minimum of so
called affordable housing units.
Our hands are not tied if health and safety risks can be demonstrated. Mr. John Ashbaugh has demonstrated this
in his arguments both in October and again in his correspondence to you, as did Allan Cooper in his recent,
cogently argued comment on the subject..
It seems that the City planners have identified the Foothill neighborhood as sufficiently on the edge of town
while being close to Cal Poly to present an opportunity to build multi -developments, masquerading as
infill/density affordable housing. This masquerade is and was a humiliating insult to all present at the October
Council meeting, wherein a contingent of Cal Poly students voted in favor of the project not as affordable
housing, but "affordable" college accommodation, (1 thousand dollars a month for a shared room) Carlyn
Christianson assumed that soon all of Foothill will house such developments. The local residents object to this
vision of their home neighborhood. Furthermore, the nearby fire station and hospital emergency service do not
benefit from an increase in traffic, nor delays caused by the congestion of a prolonged, exaggerated construction
site at its very vital corridor. Please engage in honest re-evaluation of the project, and open your eyes to the
excesses of this proposed project,imperiling the safety of the project's residents and the existing local
population.
Respectfully submitted, Genevieve, SLO