HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/20/2023 Item 5j, Nguyen
Kimmie Nguyen <
To:CityClerk; E-mail Council Website
Cc:prohousingpolicies@hcd.ca.gov
Subject:6/20 San Luis Obispo City Council Item 5.j - Prohousing Designation Program
Application
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Members of the City Council,
I am writing to express my concerns regarding the Prohousing Designation Criteria Assessment. I always
support the City pursuing grant funding where State and Federal grants align with our goals and values as a
city, especially in addressing the housing crisis.
However, the staff assessment reads as self-congratulatory, lauding the City's progressive housing policy in
item after item. In reality, the majority of policy changes are merely following explicit mandates by the State
and avoiding policies which are now illegal. Just a few examples:
1B - Duplexes are allowed by right in existing low-density single family residential zones only as a
result of Senate Bill 9, not City policy
1E, 1F, 2I - ADUs are allowed within the low-density single family residential zones as a result of
numerous successive ADU laws, not City policy. The City doesn't require parking for them because the
State has made it illegal for local agencies to do so. The City processes ADU permits within 60 days
because the State requires it.
2C - 1142 Monterey was passed through a "streamlined" process only after housing advocates reminded the
ARC/PC that additional hearings for qualifying affordable projects are unlawful re: the Housing Accountability
Act.
3F - Reasonable accommodation has been required in every California city to ensure equal access to housing
since the 1960s.
Instead of settling for the bare minimum requirements set by state law, we should aim to exceed them and
proactively address our housing challenges. This table documents the remarkable missed opportunities that
the City could have taken with previous Councils and decision-makers; opportunities that I hope you will
consider strongly in your future directives to staff.
In particular, I would like to call your attention to items 1A, 1B, and 1C. These categories touch on missing
middle housing uses (duplexes, multiplexes, bungalow courts etc.) in low-density, single-family residential
zones, and sufficient RHNA rezoning sites. Category 2A already allows missing middle projects to be reviewed
ministerially, except that the City's zoning doesn't allow missing middle in the exact places where they have
always made the most sense (single-family neighborhoods, which comprise most of the landmass of the city) -
making this an odd, ineffective half-measure. This is where I believe the Council and staff departments have
the most opportunity to make huge changes to benefit our community. Making strides in these areas would
allow for gently increasing density in our existing neighborhoods, rather than building huge apartment towers or
expanding into our precious greenbelt.
1
In light of these concerns, I ask that the City Council reevaluate the Prohousing Designation Criteria
Assessment and critically ask whether we are doing all we can to provide the housing our families and workers
need to live here. New efforts such as the Downtown Flexible Density program makes me hopeful that our
housing policies will continue to evolve in a positive direction.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Best,
Kimmie Nguyen
Resident
2