HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/24/2019 Item 1, Lopes
From:James Lopes <
To:Advisory Bodies; Cohen, Rachel
Cc:Allan Cooper; Nick Wilson; Peter Johnson
Subject:SLO Planning Commission review of Housing Update
April 24, 2019
Planning Commission
City of San Luis Obispo, California
RE: Housing Update
Dear Planning Commissioners:
The staff report and presentation is an overview and narrative of over-statements and wishful thinking. I can only hope
that the future Housing Element work program and projects will report with more attention to facts and accuracy about
state and local policies.
Allan Cooper provided you with a detailed assessment of looming housing construction. Staff has not forecast how
much worse job growth from City promotion will increase the jobs/housing imbalance. No discussion was provided of
the City's growth management policies/standards for residential as well as non-residential growth, and how this growth
will challenge decision-making in light of the State housing laws.
Staff could point out in a simple table what is provided and what is missing in the Inclusionary Housing Program, such as
the lack of a city-wide funding source for affordable housing, an experienced housing development director, and a
higher requirement for affordable units.
Staff could mention that the "overall housing crisis" was and is created locally by organizations and the City. The
mistake these groups made was to promote tourism and "head of household" jobs without anticipating publicly the
housing demand that now results. And, they fell short of their goals, since the vast majority of new jobs are likely low-
wage service and tech jobs (the City has not researched this). Staff did not mention that the "market rate" housing price
is not a LOCAL market rate, but it is state- and world-wide, due to the promotional marketing of the city and county for
tourism and "economic development." Our community is suffering the headaches which San Francisco, the Bay Area,
and to the south the Los Angeles metro area, suffer due to their unfettered economic promotion.
It is correct to say that the HCD has increased its requirements "to ensure compliance with State law." While vastly
increasing lower-income jobs, most cities have not even zoned land to build housing affordable for them. Our City has
not tailored its zoning and policies to the influx of low-wage workers we see commuting each day. It is embarrassing to
read that the City trumpets that it had a Housing Element which qualified it to obtain a $1 million grant for the LUCE
update. Actually , this update did no such thing to update how much land was vacant or under-utilized for housing
production and for job growth. It made no analysis of the imbalance between such areas, even if it did some
background study about zoning capacity. So, the outcome of the LUCE is a continued huge imbalance between land
zoned for housing and for commerce. And, the land zoned for housing is not necessarily zoned at the right densities to
serve such commercial growth. I again ask your Commission to ask for such a study with the Housing Element update, to
"nail down" the future likely growth in our Land Use Element. The staff list for the Housing Element work program of
1
course does not include such an obvious, essential project. Of that list, it is inadvisable to enter into such peripheral or
undefined programs as items 1, 2, 3 and 5.
It is an error for staff to state that density may not be reduced for a HAA housing project, since the law clearly states
that density may not be reduced to where it is infeasible to build the proposed affordable units. Actually, in that case,
the law states that density still may be reduced, but only if supported by objective health and safety standards and
researched objective data. So, once again, staff have clipped the City's capability to produce affordable housing projects
which conform to design guidelines and neighborhood character.
No mention was made that all of the State housing laws will only result in 10 percent or so of the entire projects being
affordable. The remaining 90 percent or so are allowed to sell at the "market rate." The point I made earlier reflects
here - that the market rate prices are too high for almost all local employees and residents (probably 90 percent of our
population) and are selling to new, wealthier residents. Staff has been requested to compare the trends of incomes
within San Luis Obispo County, with the trends in housing prices. I think that we are becoming too much like our
northern and southern neighbors in the extreme disparity in incomes. This is all too apparent, but it is not mentioned as
an emergency by staff, which could raise the level of discussion to a regional one as to the most creative ways forward
we can devise to limit the impacts of promotional efforts and increase the benefits of a more robust housing plan and
program. In other words, we need to balance job growth with housing development, to not outstrip our supply as we
have done, but to restore a balance which fits within our regional growth. And, we need staff who will respond to this
apparent situation with clear information and straight-forward proposals.
Thank you,
James Lopes
2