HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/16/2018 Item 2, Ayral
Purrington, Teresa
From:odileayral@gmail.com on behalf of Odile Ayral <oayral@calpoly.edu>
Sent: 35 PM
To:Advisory Bodies
Subject:ARC communication Item#2
Dear Commissioners,
You recently received a memorandum from Assistant City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere, reminding you again
and again that a significant, quantifiable, and unavoidable impact to the public health and safety has to exist
before you can deny or reduce the density of the 790 Foothill project. Unfortunately, the same attorney forgot
to mention that a thorough and quantifiable study of the safety of this area as it is today, including 22 Chorro,
has not been completed by the Staff. Therefore, as of today, it is the word of the Staff versus the word of the
Residents who live around this intersection, and in this case, the Staff is making a case for developers instead of
protecting community welfare.
I am one of the residents who lives close to 22 Chorro, and I go through the Chorro / Foothill intersection
several times a week. I was once involved in an accident at this point, and I was able to avoid a couple more at
the same intersection. I know how congested and dangerous it is, but I have no means to prove it
officially. The only people who can prove it are the Staff, but for reasons I would like to hear, they have been
reluctant to undertake a complete up-to-date traffic and safety study, and instead have resorted to revised out-of-
date data. A new complete study on the safety of the area needs to be undertaken on site after 22 Chorro opens,
complete with observation of cars entering and leaving the building. This is the only way we could measure the
impact of 22 Chorro upon the neighborhood, and anticipate the significance of placing a building three times the
size of 22 Chorro right across from it. At this point, the Staff does not have any right to claim that the project
will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the
vicinity, because they have not done their homework.
My belief that this project will seriously be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or
working at the site or in the vicinity is based upon the following:
1. This intersection was declared a high crash area, and rated D before the reopening of University Square and
the construction of 22 Chorro. Obviously, it will be worse after 22 Chorro opens, and much worse if 790
Foothill is built.
2. The number of tenants at both 22 Chorro and 790 Foothill will probably be twice as large as claimed by the
developer because the layout of the bedrooms makes them easy to divide, and we have seen in the past that this
is exactly what happens in similar situations.
3. The consequences of the parking reduction will therefore be twice as severe, and according to Allan Cooper's
calculations, there will be a shortfall of around 313 off-street parking spaces in the neighborhood. We will see
large numbers of students scrambling to find parking places in the vicinity, and thus creating more
problems. Even now, students leave their cars in the surrounding streets all day long, seven days a week,
leaving no parking for visitors. This is why permit districts are being created.
4. Entrances and exits at 22 Chorro and 790 Foothill are awkward and dangerously placed. Even now, access
to Ferrini Square (where Starbucks is) is clumsy, and often blocks traffic. What will it be when 22 Chorro is
1
occupied and competes with people entering and leaving Ferrini Square? Access to 790 Foothill appears to be
equally dangerous due to the large number of cars expected to enter and exit on a very busy boulevard.
5. In order to avoid delays at this congested intersection, people will short-cut through residential
neighborhoods even more than they are now, and create more problems for those who live there.
6. Finally, these large student housing across from each other will not be supervised, as they would be if they
were on campus. Past experience has shown that we can expect huge problems of noise, drinking, drugs, and
many headaches for the SLOPD and the neighbors.
7. When we speak about workforce housing, we do not speak about student dorms. These are two different
things. One belongs in the city, the other one on campus. Using a new law that is supposed to help increase
workforce and affordable housing, and twisting it in order to build luxury student apartments (as 22 Chorro is
advertised) that will bring a lot of money to the developer, ought to be viewed as both illegal and
discriminatory, since it precludes anyone else from living there (I challenge any Staff member who says the
contrary to live there for a few months!)
I urge you to postpone any decision on this building until 22 Chorro is completed, and a serious multimodal
traffic and safety study of the area can be made. Since we don't want the study to be skewed, I also urge you to
instruct the Staff to undertake it after 22 Chorro is up and running. Thank you.
Odile Ayral
2