Agenda Item No. 14
Correspondence for Item 14. Regional Housing &
Infrastructure Plan
(CC Mtg 7/24/2023)
Supplemental Item –
Correspondence for Item 14. Regional Housing & Infrastructure Plan
1 Wendi Sims
From: betty winholtz <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2023 1:49 PM
To: CouncilMembers
Subject: agenda item #14
Dear City Council:
As a former city council member in Morro Bay 2002-2010, I understand that pressures and rules on city governments have changed, and to a large extent not for the better in terms of maintaining our Cities' individuality and local control. The most notable are the housing mandates from the State.
To that end, I want to express my concerns about your agenda item #14, Regional Housing & Infrastructure Plan or HIP. This presentation was made to the Morro Bay City Council at the end of June. I want to share the comments I made then with you.
This document is a game changer.
As you listen to this presentation, you will hear phrases like "accelerate" housing of all types, "resilient infrastructure" projects, and "regional conditions;" however, you won't hear phrases like community identity, citizen input, and local prioritization.
The document says stakeholders have agreed to this plan. Who are the stakeholders? City/county staffs, builders, developers, chambers of commerce, REACH, and maybe some of you, elected officials. However, not we who live, vote, pay taxes and fees here, regular people.
Who prepared this plan?
ECONorthwest (Seattle): "Our staff are top-notch: seasoned economists, savvy analysts, creative policy wonks, exceptional evaluators, talented communicators." BKF Engineers (Redwood City): Vision: "be the most sought-after and valued consulting firm for clients and employees by virtue of our reputation and work culture." Koble Collaborative (SLO): "We facilitate complex conversations by forging strong partnerships built on trust, communication, and reciprocity." This report is built on the assumption that "the housing, infrastructure and economic challenges that the region [County] faces are larger than any one entity can solve alone." Specifically, what? How are we not handling those challenges now? Particularly, Grover Beach who has taken major steps. How does it make it less of a challenge to align [mimic] our housing elements; how is it less challenging for consultants and other government agencies to direct what Grover builds? Every city in the nation has challenges. Every City in the County has challenges. Let our individual cities not become suburbs of SLO or SLO County.
2 The document states that what is proposed is "voluntary." Yet, HIP wants to be a factor in future "grant programming cycles" through SLOCOG who distributes money to the County and 7 cities within the County.
This is not a "receive and file" presentation. City Councils are asked to "comment and seek general support of regional collaboration moving forward." City Councils are being asked for a "recommitment" to letting HIP take charge.
The "SLOCOG Board of Directors will consider adoption of the HIP on August 2, 2023."
I strongly urge you to not recommit to this document as is. The agreement makes the City of Grover Beach dependent on outside values, outside economic standards, directs our housing program, and turns us generic. I believe in County cooperation. Your City already partners with the other city governments through SLOCOG, APCD, WRAC, and other programs. However, I don't believe in being co-opted. In fact, some of the details of the HIP won't be finished until July, so you are being asked to approved something you haven't seen in its completion.
At the least, suggest some modifying language. Has your planning commission seen this document? You are not alone in your concern. Atascadero raised questions at its council meeting last week.
Thank you for your time,
Betty Winholtz