HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/25/2018 Item 1, Czhech
Goodwin, Heather
From:Genevieve Czech <agczech@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, July 23,
To:Advisory Bodies
Subject:PC communication
Honorable Chair and Commissioners: Re. the Use Permit for 790 Foothill
Were you to review the correspondence submitted to the May 7th ARC meeting, and the recommendations of the ARC
to the LR Developer for revision of his project submitted, you would note that the basic concerns expressed by both the
public and the ARC have not been properly met. While the LR architect did indeed make some changes according to the
ARC instructions, there remain underlying serious objections to the project being granted the mixed use permit. Mr.
Allan Cooper in his recent correspondence to you has demonstrated meticulous, detailed, thorough discussion of the
objections. He deserves the courtesy that each of those objections be answered in your discussion and evaluation at the
Wednesday, July 25th meeting.
One of the recommendations made by ARC in May was that the project should incorporate solar panels, and it seems
that the revised design has not included them. Further, the height of the building would benefit from reduction, and
would more readily integrate solar panels.
At the July 16th ARC meeting, Amy Nemcik found several aspects of the newly submitted design objectionable, and the
Chair, Allan Root, agreed with her. She recommended more articulation, particularly on the west side. She also
expressed the project's failure to achieve rhythm, balance and proportion, producing an overall chaotic impression.
At the ARC meeting both Mr. Codron and Mr. Davidson paid little attention to the ARC committee's considerations,
repeating that only matters of safety and health were appropriate objections to the project. Mr. Codron stated that he
"did not think they could object to the height", without providing a reason why. At the May meeting of ARC when the
traffic safety was challenged, Rachel assured the public that a proper report had been done in February, 2018. That
report obviously did not include the effect on the traffic situation of 22 Chorro which has not yet been inhabited. It has
been stated more than once, seemingly without making an impression, that the congestion at the Foothill/Chorro/Broad
junction is already below desired standard, that it is a #1 crash site, and that both the fire depot and Sierra Vista
ambulance service use the corridor frequently.
At the July 16th ARC meeting, members of the public questioned the purpose of a feature of this project, namely that
each of the bedrooms would have "privacy doors", allowing more beds to be installed. They were assured that these
"privacy doors" were merely to provide privacy, and that they would not serve to double the number of beds per room
in order to generate more income. The air was thick with the impression of deception. Public mistrust is well placed
given the 22 Chorro project. Under the guise of "mixed use affordable housing" the same developer was granted
exemptions in lot size and height;.The ground was hardly broken to begin construction, when the "Academy"
advertised "luxurious student rentals" at a price of $1,350 per bed.
That could hardly be called "affordable housing " even for students.The Council had hailed the 22 Chorro project as an
example of environment-friendly housing, while it is in fact an off-campus student dorm gouging students for their
monthly rent, thereby inflating the rental prices across SLO.
It is humiliating to the public, the City, the State, and to yourselves to enable a developer to seize an opportunity to be
exempted from CEQA guidelines due to the cry for affordable housing, when his project does not provide affordable
housing for the 75% of the city employees who cannot afford to live in SLO. This project is rather another off-campus
dorm for an overflow from Cal Poly. During the most recent ARC meeting the City staff ardently avoided the term
"students", using other terms such as "people, residents, folk". At one point Mr. Codron stated that single persons are
1
legitimate residents in a diverse population. Indeed; however, if these single individuals are transient students, they are
not part of our permanent workforce who are forced to live outside SLO, and commute to SLO. This project does nothing
for those who really do need affordable housing, apart from a mere 12 single person units of 450 sq. ft. at $800 per
month.
Please challenge this developer to return to his architects to draw up a plan for authentic affordable housing for that
diverse population needing access to transport, amenities, local schools and health facilities. There could be a courtyard
and a children's play area.
There could be a few units reserved for seniors, a dream of the SLO County Commission on Aging. Every square foot of
empty lot given over to off-campus dorms deprives the City of options to fulfill the affordable housing needs of our
community,
Give the developer the pride of truly contributing to affordable housing in SLO. Give yourselves the pride of reporting to
the City and Sacramento a model project worthy of exemptions fulfilling their requirement to house our workforce to
live in the city within which they work. Give that workforce an opportunity to both contribute to and enjoy the city
whose well being is in their interest, where their families will be educated and grow up during their most important
years.
Respectfully submitted and looking forward to a full and honest discussion of the pertinent, valuable and necessary
objections raised by the public in their correspondence and at your July 25th meeting,
Genevieve Czech
2