HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/25/2018 Item 1, Ayral
Goodwin, Heather
From:odileayral@gmail.com on behalf of Odile Ayral <oayral@calpoly.edu>
Sent: 9:23 AM
To:Advisory Bodies
Subject:PC communication
Dear Commissioners,
Before I express my concerns about this project, I wish to point out that the ARC, at their last meeting,
discussed mostly color and materials, and did not address the major issues presented by the project (such as
height blocking views, room layout, parking, traffic, safety, and of course CEQA, General Plan, etc.) It is
therefore up to you to consider these issues, and to recognize that the ARC 3-2 vote should not influence your
decision, since they did not deal with the most serious problems presented by this project.
1) Affordability and other issues
790 Foothill is 22 Chorro's big brother right across the street. Presented by the same developer, it is three times
the size and three times as overwhelming, and offers the same argument: it is a mixed development that will
have 12 studio units for very low income residents. It claims to abide by the Housing Elements requirement
described by the Staff on p. 8 of their report:
The HE further states that affordable housing units should be intermixed and not segregated by economic status
and encourages housing development that meets a variety of special needs, including large families, single
parents, disabled persons, the elderly, students, veterans, the homeless, or those seeking congregate care, group
housing, single-room occupancy or co-housing accommodations, utilizing universal design (HE Policy 8.1).
But we have learned from 22 Chorro that the claims made by the developer are simply not true, and the
results do not match the HE requirements. 22 Chorro was supposed to offer housing for everyone, but as
soon as it got going, a huge banner advertising "luxury student apartments" was draped on the facility, and the
rooms were rented "per bed." At $1,350 per bed a month, or $5,400 a month for a two bedroom apartment
(without parking!), they are giving a terrible example to the surrounding landlords, who may not hesitate to
raise their rents accordingly.
But what about the small studios that are being offered for "very low income residents"? First, since they are
part of a student apartment building, they will be occupied by students, and not be available to a variety of
special needs. Yes, they are somewhat "intermixed and not segregated by economic status" as HE demands, but
because they are priced lower by design, and therefore look different, they scream "low income," and their
occupants are sure to be viewed by the other residents as "those we are subsidizing with our high rents." And
this is assuming that very low income people can even afford these studios. At more than $800 per month,
and without parking, these studios are not affordable to very low income students. Five students living
together in a house renting for $3,500 per month, an average rate in SLO these days, can for $700 a month each,
enjoy a large living room besides a shared bedroom, a yard, and parking for their cars. They would be foolish
to choose to live at 22 Chorro.
These prices, and the fact that the apartments would be built for students was hidden from the public in the case
of 22 Chorro even though the Staff should have required some kind of financial accountability. At least, we
now know what this developer has done, and what he intends to repeat. Furthermore, he never owned the land
1
at 22 Chorro, and he has already sold that project before it is even completed. It is one of these operations that
exploits loopholes, when other people are willing to let them exploit them.
I therefore urge you to require a complete financial disclosure for 790 Foothill, as well as a complete
financial disclosure for 22 Chorro in order to see how much profit the developer made in this case,
whether he really needed all the special considerations that he received in order to build the so-called
"very low income units," whether he needs them now for 790 Foothill, and especially, whether the 12
studios included in 790 Foothill deserve to be called "very low income housing."
2) Health, safety and welfare of persons living or working in the building and in the vicinity
As one who has lived about three blocks away from this intersection for 40 years, I understand its lack of
safety. This is why I never walked on Foothill to go to Cal Poly where I was teaching, but stuck to Highland
instead. Noise, traffic, air pollution, dangerous crossings, you get it all. And this intersection was declared a
high crash area, and rated D before the building of 22 Chorro. These well known problems will get much worse
if this project is approved for the following reasons:
--The bedrooms at both 22 Chorro and 790 Foothill can easily be divided because there is a demising wall that
runs down the center of each bedroom, and we can expect the number of tenants to be twice as large as
presented, therefore the number of cars as well. I fail to understand why the ARC did not return the project
to the developer to force him to alter the layout of the bedrooms.
--There will therefore be a shortfall of anywhere between 150 and 300 parking spaces, and we can foresee
students invading the vicinity in order to find parking because (whether we like it or not) they all own a car.
--Entrances and exits are problematic for both 22 Chorro and 790 Foothill, and will add to the lack of safety. At
22 Chorro, tenants will compete with people entering and leaving Ferrini square to reach Starbuck and Jamba
Juice, where the entrance is already tricky. We need to know how many accidents this building may add to the
intersection before we add more problems with another building of the same type.
--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.
--Finally, these large student housings 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.
Therefore, this project will have a significant, adverse impact upon the public health and safety, which
can be easily proven if a new traffic and safety study is done by the City.
One would expect that such a traffic and safety study would have been done, first before the approval of 22
Chorro, and presently, before the review of 790 Foothill, but this is not the case. In their report the Staff states:
Existing conditions reflects 2016 traffic counts and the existing transportation network (p. 57)
Traffic counts were collected in 2016 by the City of San Luis Obispo as a part of their biannual traffic count
data program (p. 63)
The three most recent years of Annual Traffic Safety Reports (2014, 2015, and 2016) were reviewed for study
intersection collision report. (p. 66)
Therefore there has not been any new traffic study since 2016, and the Staff used the numbers provided
in 2016 as a base for their present study. This study overlooks the fact that, even if it is the same intersection,
2
the surroundings are completely different now from what they were in 2016. During 2015 and 2016, two
shopping centers on Foothill boulevard--University Square and Foothill Plaza--were being remodeled and
therefore barely functioning. University Square reopened around mid 2016, with a new grocery store called
Lassens. Foothill Plaza reopened in 2017 with a new grocery store called California Markets. These grocery
stores are popular, and along with restaurants, cafes, and various other stores, attract a large number of residents
from all over town. And, of course, 22 Chorro was not even in the picture at that time. Consequently, the
findings the Staff is providing are misleading and useless. One also has to wonder why studies were done
each year until 2016, and then stopped abruptly after 2016 when they were most needed.
I therefore urge you to demand a new traffic and safety study of the area after 22 Chorro is up and
running, and all the students are back.
In conclusion, I urge you to continue this item and ask the applicant to provide financial accountability,
and request that the City complete a new traffic and safety study no earlier than next October after the
students are back, and 22 Chorro is functioning.
Sincerely,
Odile Ayral
Professor Emeritus, Cal Poly
3