The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About8/21/2018 Item 17, Wyatt (2) Christian, Kevin To:Codron, Michael Subject:RE: Zoning Code update tomorrow: eliminate Table 2A reduction in affordable housing From: Anne Wyatt < Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2018 10:54:48 AM To: Christianson, Carlyn; Harmon, Heidi; Scott Smith; Jerry Rioux; Codron, Michael Subject: Re: Zoning Code update tomorrow: eliminate Table 2A reduction in affordable housing Carlyn/All: thanks. I see inclination to avoid more changes, and I'd prefer to be basket weaving today and this evening rather than be a crazy advocate attempting to split hairs and drag you and others somewhere you're not keen on going. I know everyone included here works hard to do better for the community, and I absolutely agree; most of the revisions tonight are improvements, and I'm highly supportive and appreciative of a lot of work that's gone into them. However, ARTICLE 8 of the zoning code you are asked to approve is called HOUSING-RELATED REGULATIONS including Chapter 17.138 INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REQUIREMENTS-RELATED REGULATIONS. \[your staff report section 8-1 on page 379 of 490.\] and this opportunity to improve the inclusionary regulation should not be missed. How about pulling just Article 8, this inclusionary housing section, pasted in below, and directing staff to bring the section back in two months with further review, including review of deletion of table 2A? That would buy some time to figure out what changes need to be and where they belong, run some statistical analysis, and give others a chance to weigh in on this specific item, without too much further delay? This section is here, in zoning, Article 8, chapter 17,138-- not in the housing element, and it is an outdated allowance that needs to be changed. Only the 2 tables are tacked to the very last page of the housing element, as Appendix N here: http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=5204. These tables are just referenced in Appendix N of the housing element. They are not explained, and it would be rare and kind of odd to see important policy parked as an Appendix (N at that) don't you think? The City's inclusionary requirements are severely hindered by these adjustment factors that no longer make sense, as they did when they were written long ago, and they are completely relevant to your discussion of density and community benefit from density tonight. The community needs you to promise actual benefit to feel they get something along with all these negative impacts of density. Already over a third of your City households are single person households and over half of the City's renter households are struggling. If you're going to justify the higher heights and density, in general, as community benefit, the community needs some real promise of affordable units in them. It's kind of a questionable promise now, with no inclusionary requirement on projects of less than 5 units; with even tiny market priced units out of range of so many residents;and with this table 2A reduction factor in the plan, basically allowing 0 affordable for many of the new units we're going to see proposed. (Of course, affordable may be added for density bonuses and other concessions, if they make sense to builders.) Michael and Derek should not have to negotiate hard for affordable units. They should just be clearly required, as stated in this zoning ordinance, without the table 2a reductions. 1 Our old assumptions about high profit in large homes and downtown small studios being affordable and practical have gone by the wayside. The profit's going to be in the small units now, and affordability is out of the equation without mandates. Somebody told me, by way of example upcoming or in the pipeline, Belsher is penciling in something like $2k/month rent for some of his upcoming downtown tiny studios. That's all fine, but really, why should one out of every ten of those studios not be affordable? Why should John be able to say, "Oh, table 2A allows me to construct these small studios with no inclusionary requirement because they are all under 1,100 square feet." That table was made in a time that those smaller units may have been affordable. They're not now. Thanks again to all. -a anne wyatt Executive Director HomeShareSLO www.HomeShareSLO.org (805) 215-5474 office Creating Housing Solutions by Connecting People and homes On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 3:48 PM, Christianson, Carlyn <cchristianson@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Anne, Just to get back to you—I checked with staff and as I suspected, this was not part of the Zoning update but instead is part of updating the Housing Element, which is already getting started as we speak. So the city (and Council and staff) now have your comments re 2A captured for that effort, keep up the good work. Thanks again, Carlyn Carlyn Christianson Vice Mayor Office of the City Council 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E cchristianson@slocity.org T 805.781.7122 C 805.550.9320 slocity.org 2 From: Anne Wyatt < Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 1:56 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Zoning Code update tomorrow: eliminate Table 2A reduction in affordable housing Dear Mayor Harmon, Council Members and Staff: Thank you for your work on zoning code changes, on agenda for approval tomorrow. Knowing you all support affordable housing for members of this community I'd request one essential change in regard to inclusionary housing table 2A reductions. Otherwise, I wholeheartedly encourage you to approve changes as proposed by staff, in particular housing items:  allowance for permitting tiny houses on wheels (THOWs)  RV parks allowed in C-T zone  setback planes for development  increased densities and allowances in downtown district including required housing It would be difficult to miss the criticism you now receive for city density additions. With wildfires raging in much of the state and air quality, GHG reduction and multi-modal goals difficult to manage with decentralized development, it is important to remind people that density in established communities is sound wild land fire resistant and smart development. That said, no resident of this town is immune to the frustrations involved with density impacts on a daily basis, and you may be better able to promise to us community members that the density increases will bring substantive community benefit. As you know, affordable housing is critically deficient and market based new housing--even teeny-tiny houses and small downtown studio apartments--are not affordable and will not be affordable without your intervention. Check out small one-bedroom at De Tolosa Ranch going for over $2065-2265/month here: https://www.detolosaranch.com/ . This expensive rental market reality means the City desperately needs dedicated income restricted affordable units, those affordable to the increasing number of senior women, for example, trying to make it on average Social Security income of $1100 per month, that we get desperate pleas for help from daily. If you are going to increase densities and continue to allow development, the community would benefit from the actual requirement that each project will include affordable housing or adequate payment of in lieu fees. In theory, your inclusionary housing policy requires this. In fact, it requires a minimum amount, at best, and at worst, very little, due to Table 2A reductions. 3 Table 2A problem: Currently, under Table 2A, Inclusionary Housing Adjustment Factors, on page 385 (Section 8-7) of your staff report, and referenced on the last page of your housing element, also below, your inclusionary requirements are significantly decreased on smaller newly constructed units. Table 2A was written and included in a time-gone-by when average City homes were over 2,000 square feet, and small units may have actually been affordable, so it made some sense. Now, most homes in the City and County will likely be 1500 square feet and under due to changed buyer demand; older single person households and Millennials seek smaller housing. I don't believe that the occasional larger City home is even required to pay inclusionary fees, if not in a multi-unit development, so the added adjustment on the large house size probably brings little to no bonus, while the reductions of the requirement on the lower end mean developers of smaller housing--that they are likely going to build anyway to meet current demand--provide fewer inclusionary affordable units and less in lieu fee payments. Please require affordable housing for City residents, per intent of your inclusionary ordinance, by eliminating Table 2A as part of your zoning code updates tomorrow. Provision of actual minimum amounts of affordable housing is something the community has made clear they expect and many desperately need. As written and included, Table 2A precludes your ability to provide for it and minimizes community enhancing benefits of density. With thanks for the work you do and your thoughtful consideration of this issue, -anne anne wyatt Executive Director HomeShareSLO 4 www.HomeShareSLO.org (805) 215-5474 office Creating Housing Solutions by Connecting People and homes 5