22 Chorro: State mandates and magical thinking

Relax. Take a deep breath. Keep repeating our mantra: “SLO is the happiest city in North America.” Indulge in some magical thinking.

That’s what I told myself recently as my San Luis Obispo City Council colleagues approved 22 Chorro, reversing a 4-1 denial by our Planning Commission.

This four-story, 27-unit project received a 25 percent increase in height, a 40 percent reduction in parking and a 35 percent increase in density — all because it offers dubious and token “affordable housing.”

We’re supposed to believe that — magically — the vast majority of the about 100 occupants of this project won’t have private cars or trucks. Of the 33 parking spaces, six are reserved for the 1,600-square-foot retail use on the corner. The 27 tenant spaces rely upon mechanical parking elevators that won’t even accommodate larger cars or trucks. The “extra” cars and trucks will inevitably spill into the crowded neighborhood streets and commercial parking areas nearby.

To the south, curb parking already chokes Chorro Street and presents a substantial safety hazard because of the lack of sidewalks and inadequate sight distance on the approach to the hill beyond Rougeot Place. Pedestrians here are often at risk as they walk in the travel lanes.

How did this project qualify for so many exceptions to city standards? Basically, four of the units are studios limited to $650 per month rent for households earning less than $27,000 per year. Granted, the lucky tenants of these studios will benefit from rents slightly lower than market, but the seven added units gained from the 35 percent density bonus could rent for up to $1,000 a month per bed, based on a comparable project nearby.

Yes, state law now “mandates” density bonuses to promote affordable housing. Not so long ago, the City Council stood united against state mandates for regional housing allocations that threatened local “home rule.” To give in to such threats is a shameful surrender of local control.

Indeed, these same density-bonus laws do permit us to deny bonuses or concessions where there are significant, quantifiable adverse health and safety impacts. We could have easily made such findings based on inadequate on-site parking alone. There is no data to support the contention that only one-fourth of the tenants in this project will bring cars or trucks, but common sense suggests that we should get such data before relying on such magical thinking.

The 22 Chorro project was exempt from any parking studies because of recent amendments to the California Environmental Quality Act. A CEQA exemption doesn’t absolve us of the need to apply our own critical thinking, however, nor does it compel us to flout adopted city standards that exist to assure that impacts such as parking will not disrupt our neighborhood.

Councilwoman Carlyn Christianson actually suggested that soon, all of Foothill Boulevard would become a four-story canyon of apartment projects. This remark is offensive to the letter and spirit of our recently updated General Plan that established a 35-foot height limit in our neighborhood.

Councilman Dan Carpenter offered to “solve” the parking problem by requiring gift cards be provided to tenants who promise not to bring cars. Really. Gift cards. That’s his mitigation. And we didn’t even impose that bogus condition on this project.

Another of my colleagues essentially admitted there will be parking impacts by suggesting that we could merely create a neighborhood parking district to address this problem in the future.

Say what? We create a parking crisis with a project where only one-fourth of the tenants will have a cramped parking space in a mechanical lift on-site, and the rest will have to find parking in adjoining streets or commercial areas. That crisis then forces the neighbors to go through the painful process of creating a parking district to defend themselves against those clearly avoidable parking impacts. Then that district forces the rest of us to risk a parking ticket any time we visit friends in that neighborhood!

What can you do to create the future we really want? Get engaged in the upcoming overhaul of our zoning ordinance. Clarify the limits — and there must be reasonable limits — to the concessions available to any project, and let’s get real “affordable housing.”

Let’s remember why our city gained this reputation for being happy. It has nothing to do with magical thinking, and everything to do with being well-planned.

Meanwhile, I’ll try to relax. Chill out. Meditate about being such a happy place. Maybe it’ll all go away.

Except it won’t. Our Foothill neighborhood will suffer from a project that significantly violates our zoning standards that were developed over many decades of experience to protect our health, safety, and general welfare. And unless the council renews its commitment to sound planning, your neighborhood may be next.

This story was originally published November 12, 2016 at 8:34 PM with the headline "22 Chorro: State mandates and magical thinking."