HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-07-2017 Item 6, McLeanKGI.C1VCU
COUNCIL MEETING: 2 �_ j� _ FEB 0 6 2017
ITEM NO.: [,
I SLO CITY CLERK
From: cc me lean [
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2017 12:54 PM
To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil a@slocity.org>
Cc: Harmon, Heidi <hharmon@slocity.or>; Gomez, Aaron <agomez@slocity.or>; Pease, Andy <apease@slocity.prg>;
Rivoire, Dan <DRivoire@slocity.org>; Christianson, Carlyn <cchristianson@slocitv.org>
Subject: 22 Chorro appeal, City Council 2/7/17
Please post on Agenda Correspondence. Thank you.
Dear Mayor Harmon and Council members,
Thank you for your patience as you sit every other week and listen to presentations by staff,
developers and of course the three minute Public Comments. You represent the citizens of San Luis
Obispo and whatever you do cannot result in adverse effects on the residents or harm to our city.
You are elected to promote honest accountability and trust in government. Your leadership roles
require you to guide and direct staff actions and recommendations and not the other way around.
Staff shall present the Council with all relevant information, as well as alternatives, in an objective
and succinct manner. Similarly, staff is charged with the responsibility of providing advisory
bodies a brief background of the issues, a list of alternatives and balanced pros and cons for each
project. The Council and advisory body members should have sufficient information to reach
decisions based upon a clear, unbiased explanation of issues.
It is perhaps no fault of staff that neither you nor the ARC have received all the relevant
information necessary regarding 22 Chorro to arrive at a decision that would mitigate any adverse
effects on the project. I am asking you to be accountable and transparent by acknowledging that
you were not aware of the full text of the State Density Bonus Law where a project can be denied if
it can be proven that it will be adversely impacted by the surrounding environment and
transportation patterns. Staff has failed to show how to address the problem, exacerbated by the
40% parking reduction and the mechanical lifts, that there is virtually no overflow parking
available to the project in the immediate, already over -parked neighborhood nor has staff addressed
the risks to the project's tenants, their guests, the retail customers and service personnel by virtue of
being located at a "high crash location" along a roadway that is (and I quote) "already operating
below the established multi -modal level of service standards."
This project, as it is currently designed, should be denied and the residents' appeal upheld. Thank
you.
Sincerely,
Cheryl McLean
San Luis Obispo