HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/05/1999, 4 - Residential Growth Management For Major Residential Annexations (GPI 126-99)0
council
ac En as REpo]Z-t
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: Arnold B. Jonas CD
Community Development Director
Prepared By: Glen Matteson, ,AAssociate Planner
M. WnxDak Oct. 5, 1999
SUBJECT: GROWTH MANAGEMENT FOR MAJOR RESIDENTIAL ANNEXATIONS
(GPI 126-99)
CAO RECOMMENDATION
1. Introduce an ordinance to print, replacing Chapter 17.88 of the Municipal Code with new
regulations, to set procedures for phasing development in major residential annexations,
consistent with the adopted General Plan.
2. Adopt a resolution establishing a phasing schedule for major residential annexations, based
on growth averaging one percent annually over three-year periods, and projected rates of
infill development.
3. Initiate consideration of amendments to the Land Use Element and the Housing Element of
the General Plan, to make housing that is affordable to moderate -income households (as
defined in the General Plan) exempt from growth limits.
REPORT IN BRIEF
The General Plan says the city's population should grow not much faster or slower than one
percent per year. This growth rate is to be achieved by phasing residential development within
annexations. Phasing priority is to be determined by housing affordability and open space
protection. Staff and the Planning Commission recommend a citywide phasing procedure and
schedule to implement the adopted policy, while allowing flexibility for responding to conditions
that may not be foreseen when the schedule is first approved. The recommended rules would
replace the City's existing Residential Growth Management Regulations, which will expire at the
end of the year. The recommended rules would not restrict the pace of housing construction
inside the 1994 city limits or in some recent, relatively small annexations.
The Planning Commission also recommends that the City Council initiate the process for
considering an amendment to the General Plan, to make dwellings affordable to moderate -
income residents exempt from the growth limit, as dwellings affordable to low-income residents
already are. This change is intended to encourage construction of housing affordable to
moderate -income residents, but it could result in a higher growth rate. Hearings concerning this
amendment and any resulting change to the growth management rules probably would be held
early in the year 2000.
i-1
Council Agenda Report - Residential Growth Management
Page 2
DISCUSSION
General Plan Policy
The General Plan provides a comprehensive, long-range vision focusing on preserving
community resources and meeting community needs. Since the mid-1970's, the General Plan has
targeted a population growth rate not to exceed an average of one percent yearly after 1990.
According to the General Plan, "The City's housing supply shall grow no faster than one percent
per year, averaged over a 36-month period, excluding dwellings affordable to residents with -very
low or low incomes... Before a residential expansion [annexation] area is developed, the City
must have adopted a specific plan or a development plan for it. Such plans for residential
expansion projects will provide for phased development" consistent with one -percent annual,
citywide population growth and taking into account expected in -fill residential development
within the 1994 City limits (Land Use Element policies 1.11.2 and 1.11.3).
The General plan also says "Though the periods of development of the major residential
expansion areas may overlap, the City prefers to complete one neighborhood before beginning
another. The sequence of development of the major residential expansion areas will be decided
based on the affordability of dwellings, and other public benefits, primarily open space. The area
committing to development of the largest number of dwellings affordable to residents with very
low, low, or moderate incomes would be developed first, with open space dedication or other
public benefits used to decide the order if two or three areas offer substantially the same housing
affordability..." (Land Use Element policy 1.11.3).
The General Plan clearly intends that residential growth management be achieved through
phasing of expansion areas rather than through a citywide queuing, lottery, or scoring system for
individual development projects. This policy remains in effect regardless of the status of the
current Residential Growth Management Regulations or the Water Allocation Regulations (see
"Existing Regulations" below).
Decision Context
Four major expansion areas identified by the General Plan are now in planning review: Dalidio,
Irish Hills (DeVaul), Margarita, and Orcutt (order of listing intends no priority). These areas are
shown on a location map (Attachment #7). Staff has drafted growth -phasing provisions for the
Margarita Area Specific Plan and has encouraged those preparing the other plans to do likewise.
Deciding growth phasing for any one area requires consideration of the citywide context,
including the development potential of other expansion areas and infill development. The City
Council has the authority to approve specific plans and development plans, and to decide the
phasing rules.
Council Agenda Report - Residential Growth Management
Page 3
Pending Projects
The table below shows the estimated housing capacity, processing status, proposed affordable
housing performance, and proposed open space dedications for each major residential expansion
area (with no significance to the order of listing).
Major Residential
(no significance to listing order)
Expansion Area
Processing Status
Dalidio
EIR, annexation, and prezoning
180 - 200
pending for overall area (focusing
dwellings
on commercial component); no
development plan for residential
component has ^been proposed
his Hills NorthZ
EIR certified; annexation &
270 dwellings
prezoning approved by City;
plan in review
-._..__......._. _.. _. _—.__
Irish Hills South
..development
No current application
150riwelling.s_.—._a�------_..__._
Orcutt Area
Draft specific plan submitted; EIR
640 dwellings
_scope being decided ..._.._..............
Margarita Area
Draft specific plan approved by
1,200 dwellings
Council May 1998; EIR in
preparation; annexations and tract
map for part in review
Notes for table:
iansion Areas
Proposed
Affordable Housing:'
.......................... _... _...,...._..._......... ......
_.
lower moderate
9 5% 18 10%
Proposed Open
Space Protection:
open land
as fraction of area
not determined (part
of Prefiimo Creek
corridor)
13 5% 25 10% 1 78% (hills)
... ................ .... ...... ..... _..._........... ..... _...... _..—-------- _...------..._._......--
50% (hills)
32 _ 5% w 64 10% 35% to 40%3 (hill
and creek corridors
_......_..._...... .............
�. _.
55 5% 110 10% 40% (hills; creek
corridors)
1 - Shows number of affordable dwellings and percent of total dwellings, assuming compliance with
current City requirements only; subject to change due to revision of the draft plans.
2 - The pending DeVaul Ranch application covers about two-thirds of the development potential
estimated for the area labeled "Irish Hills" in the General Plan, the pending DeVaul Ranch
application is referred to in this report as "Irish Hills North."
3 - Depends on classification of creek corridors as linear parks or as open space.
Owners, applicants, and representatives for these areas are listed in Attachment #4.
Previously Approved Phasing Plans
The Edna -Islay Specific Plan, adopted in 1982, was the City's first, and to date only, plan for the
phased development of a large residential expansion area. That plan contains a rather complex,
nine -part sequential phasing. It allowed construction of a maximum annual average of 94
dwellings, over 11 years. Actual development has taken longer (about 18 years), with the last
phases just now being developed.
tf_�b
Council Agenda Report - Residential Growth Management
Page 4
Current Regulations
The Municipal Code contains Residential Growth Management Regulations (Chapter 17.88).
They were adopted in the late 1970's, and amended several times since, to implement the overall
population growth policy first contained in the 1977 General Plan update: maximum annual
growth averaging two percent in the 1980's and one percent after 1990. According to these
regulations, expansion areas that have their own phasing plans consistent with the General Plan
are exempt from the regulations' numerical limit on dwellings authorized by building permits.
These regulations will expire December 31, 1999, unless extended by Council action.
The Municipal Code also contains Water Allocation Regulations (Chapter 17.89), which
currently have the effect of relating the pace of construction to the process of obtaining water
offsets through retrofitting. Due to a provision in the Water Allocation Regulations, the
Residential Growth Management Regulations have been suspended, since the late 1980's, while
the Water Allocation Regulations have been in operation. Even if supplemental water supplies
eliminate that constraint and the Residential Growth Management Regulations become
technically active again, they will become largely irrelevant as development occurs mainly in
expansion areas with their own phasing provisions.
Program Considerations and Stakeholder Participation
Owners and developers of each expansion area generally prefer having the capability to start
sooner rather than later, and to use a larger rather than a smaller share of the allowed citywide
development. Also, they want flexibility to respond to relatively short-term conditions of
demand, financing, and additional water -service capacity. However, they also have emphasized
the need for certainty. Large projects typically involve multiyear commitments of resources by
developers and lenders, who may have size thresholds or criteria for income streams that favor
large increments of development. Developing one expansion area at a time makes it more likely
that each area will have enough development within a period to fund the costs of major facilities.
This is especially a concern when a large project starts. Sequential development of expansion
areas will also minimize the time that a neighborhood is disrupted by building activity. On the
other hand, there are concerns with fairness and lack of market competition if one project is the
only source of new housing in the city. The Edna -Islay Area and the South Street Area (a 1980's
infill specific plan) have shown that large projects can be developed with multiyear phasing and
increments of infrastructure, and that market conditions often result in development occurring
slower than allowed.
In discussions with staff and by testimony at Planning Commission meetings, representatives of
the large expansion areas have agreed on the following:
• It would be easier to develop the areas if the City did not have phasing requirements;
• Given that growth management is a basic part of the community's long-range plan, the
recommended phasing approach is workable;
• Certainty is important, so everyone can count on the availability of allocations in future years.
4-14
Council Agenda Report - Residential Growth Management
Page 5
• The City can anticipate that there will be requests for revisions in future years, maintaining
the overall framework but adjusting the distribution among annexation areas, and possibly the
projections for infill development and small annexations;
• The potential for adjustments is particularly important, so allocations that are not used as
originally scheduled can be used rather than lost during times when market conditions
encourage construction.
A representative of the Dalidio property has said that development of a residential complex for
seniors at that site would need to occur as a single phase, which would not be accommodated by
the recommended schedule. A representative of the Irish Hills South property has said that they
may want to develop sooner than shown in the recommended schedule.
Translating Policy into Numbers
Number of Dwellings Possible
Currently, a population growth rate of one percent per year means 189 dwellings per year, or
about 570 dwellings during a 36-month period (assuming no significant changes in the vacancy
rate or average household size, which have been very stable since 1980). Since the base
population amount increases with time, a one -percent continuous annual growth rate would mean
about 208 dwellings in the year 2009, and 215 in 2014.
Accommodating Infill
"Infill" typically refers to building on vacant sites or adding to partly developed sites, which are
essentially surrounded by existing development. General Plan evaluations have classified as infill
sites that were inside the city limits when the 1994 update was adopted. The General Plan
classifies the recently annexed DeVauI (Irish Hills North) site and the other sites listed in the
table above as expansion areas. The currently remaining infill capacity is about 1,000 dwellings.
The General Plan encourages infill development, by allowing it to proceed at a pace determined
only by developer initiatives, consumer demand, and availability of City services. The General
Plan says that residential expansion areas (annexation areas) will be phased, considering an
assumed likely rate of infill development. The actual rate of infill development would not be
limited by the recommended phasing schedule. A rate of infill development is shown only to
establish the likely remainder that is available for allocation among expansion areas. This means
it would be possible for citywide growth to exceed one percent yearly over a three-year interval.
However, that is highly improbable.
The pace of infill construction can be expected to decline as the larger remaining vacant sites are
developed. Construction of "custom" houses in approved subdivisions and the addition of
apartments to sites with existing houses tend to occur gradually. The recommended phasing
schedule projects that infill residential construction during the first three-year period will be a
little over half the rate of the previous three years, but about the same rate as during the last nine
4 -5
Council Agenda Report - Residential Growth. Management
Page 6
years. The next three-year period is expected to have a further decline. Also, some of the new
construction will be offset by demolition .and conversion of existing dwellings. Based on the last
nine years, these losses are expected to account for about 30 dwelling_ s in each three-year
interval.
The recommended annual evaluation of residential construction in relation to the phasing
schedule will help avoid unexpected changes in construction rates, by considering recent permit
activity as well as planning applications in review that would lead to permit activity.
Experiencing faster infill development than originally projected could, but would not necessarily,
lead to schedule revisions allowing less development -in annexation areas.
Accommodating Annexations
Over the citywide build -out period, about -two-thirds of the new dwellings will be in expansion
areas: Another intent of the General Plan is to permit development of those areas at a limited and
predictable pace, so builders will know the allowed number of dwellings well before putting in
streets and utilities and applying for building permits. In responding to the desire to complete one
neighborhood. before starting another, it 'is reasonable to interpret "neighborhood" as a
development plan or specific plan area, considering the Land Use Element policies on the desired
character of residential development. The section above titled "Program Considerations and
Stakeholder Participation." outlines some of the issues in deciding how to allocate development
among potential expansion areas.
The line in the attached phasing table labeled "other annexations" accounts for the relatively
small mapped and potential annexations in areas such as Alrita Street, the Miossi Ranch near
Cuesta Park, the northwest end of Foothill Boulevard, and State-owned properties on the west
side of Highway 1. In approving development plans. for the other annexations, the City can
require individual phasing plans. Since none of the `other annexations" have proceeded. to
hearings at this time, for simplicity they are shown as a single category in the table.
Allocation. Periods
Construction activity has peaks and valleys_ , responding to changes in interest rates, consumer
confidence, and the short-term relationship of supply and demand, as shown in the "Residential
Construction History" (Attachment #3). Limiting construction activity over a short period can
keep the peak levels from being achieved, while other factors maintain valleys. The long-term
result can be supply falling farther behind demand, increasing housing costs and commuter
traffic, particularly when employment growth continues. For this reason, the General Plan refers
to residential growth being averaged over "a 36-month period." This implies a moving total, in
which the dwellings permitted 36 months ago are deleted as those permitted in the current month
are. added. However, it appears to be unnecessarily complicated to shift the interval forward one
month at a time, each month. The recommended approach, allocating the numbers of available
dwellings for each expansion area in three-year increments, appears to be the best way to address
these issues.. During a three-year interval, the dwellings could -be permitted whenever other City
requirements are met —all at the beginning, spread over the interval, or all at the end. This gives a
Council Agenda Report - Residential Growth Management
Page 7
high level of certainty for how many dwellings can be built in the three-year period and
flexibility to build at any time during a period.
Because the General Plan calls for a three-year averaging period, the slower building rate in the
early 1990's is not available to use in longer -term averaging. In the recent time frame, shifting
the starting year back does not significantly change the number of dwellings available in the
coming one to three years. The activity for 1997 through August 1999 was as follows:
Year Dwellings Permitted
Demolitions Permitted
Net Change
Annual Growth
1997 149
-4
145
0.78%
1998 195
-17
178
0.95%
Jan - Aug 1999 108
-11
97
0.77%
Distributing Allocations
Before deciding the current recommendation, staff, the Planning Commission, and landowner
representatives discussed several alternatives. To illustrate the range of options, tables were
prepared for phasing schedules called "strict sequence," "partially distributed," and "fully
distributed." With the strict sequence phasing, development potential was assigned so that one
annexation area essentially built out before another started. This would have required the early -
starters to use or lose their allocations, while not allowing other areas to start for several years.
With the fully distributed phasing, each area would have been under construction throughout the
roughly 20-year build -out period, though none could have built a large number of dwellings at
once. The recommended phasing, called "partially distributed" in the initial presentation to the
Planning Commission, sets a general sequence for the areas, but allows several to be building at
the same time. It most closely follows General Plan policies.
The recommended allocations are based on the following:
• each area providing affordable dwellings in proportion to its total capacity (based on the
recently adopted inclusionary housing requirement), with the Margarita Area providing the
largest absolute number because it has the highest capacity;
• Irish Hills North's providing a large proportion of site area as high quality open space, with
the other areas following closely in terms of the open space benefits;
• the relative readiness of each area to begin construction, as reflected by its stage in the
approval process.
The recommended phasing does not allocate dwellings among ownerships within each area. The
required specific plans and development plans will address that issue. The owners in each
expansion area are required to propose phasing for their area, based on their desires and the
practical considerations of extending roads and utilities.
4-7
Council Agenda Report- Residential Growth Management
Page 8
Unused Allocations
It may turn out that at the end of a three-year period, permits have not been obtained for -an area's
allowed number of dwellings. That area may want them carried forward. Other areas may want
them. Minimizing the loss of assigned but unused allocations helps meet the Housing Element's
goal_ s for housing production. The recommended approach allows administrative (staff) approval
for shifts among expansion areas when all affected landowners agree and there would be no
substantial difference in provision of affordable housing, necessary public facilities, or open
:space protection as a result. Other types of changes are more likely to involve citywide policy
issues, including consistency with the General Plan. The following would need Council -approval
following a public hearing:
• changes to the allowed citywide number of dwellings;
• changes to the division between assumed infill and allowed expansion development;
• shifting the three-year intervals;
• moving allocations among expansion areas when not all affected owners agree.
Regardless of the procedure for changing the framework, changes to the content of adopted
development plans or specific plans would need public hearings and City Council approval.
Developers desire a timely way to make available to large annexations any amount by which the
previously assumed number of infill and small -annexation dwellings exceeds those actually
permitted (and expected to be permitted based on current trends and project processing). In
response, the recommended regulations call for consideration of revising the Phasing Schedule to
make any unused infill potential available to expansion areas that are ready to use it (section
17.88.040.D).
Developers also said that if one annexation area does not use its allocation within an interval, that
area should have first claim on any additional allocation made available through a revision for
the- following interval. In response, the recommended regulations call for revising the schedule to
carry. that potential forward for the same area, so long as doing so is consistent with the
maximum citywide growth rate and does not require unacceptable reductions to. other areas'
scheduled allocations (section 17.88.040.E). The alternative of a more mechanical, rule -driven
process for reallocating unused potential was considered and rejected, since it would need to be
very complex to deal with all contingencies. Setting the initial rules would likely be as open to
competing requests as.simply setting a schedule based on three-year intervals and adjusting the
schedule every few years.
Environmental Review
Staff and the Planning Commission have determined that no additional environmental review is
required, because the phasing program follows policies that have been adequately evaluated by
the Environmental Impact Report for the 1994 Land Use Element Update. As the final decision -
making body, the City Council must make a final determination. The attached draft ordinance
and resolution affirm the staff and commission determinations. (Separate environmental
determinations will be required for each expansion project.)
14-q
Council Agenda Report - Residential Growth Management
Page 9
Exemption for Moderate -income Rousing
The Land Use Element (policy 1.11.2) and the Housing Element (program 6.3.1) exempt from
growth limits housing that is affordable to lower -income and very -low-income households.
These households earn up 80 percent of the countywide median income. "Affordable" means that
such households spend not more than 25 percent of their income for housing. In 1999 these
criteria translate into, as examples:
• maximum annual income for a household of three - $34,550
• maximum rent for a two -bedroom dwelling - $648/month
• maximum sales price for two -bedroom dwelling - $86,375
New housing at these costs typically has been provided by government agencies or non-profit
organizations with government support. Expansion areas are required to make five percent of
their dwellings affordable to low-income households, or to pay a fee that is used to support
affordable housing (Housing Element program 2.3.1). It is unlikely they would provide a higher
percentage of dwellings than required.
The Planning Commission has recommended considering an exemption for moderate -income
housing. Moderate income is defined as 81 to 120 percent of the countywide median income;
"affordable" means that such households spend not more than 30 percent of their income for
housing. In 1999, these criteria translate into, as examples:
• maximum annual income for a household of three - $51,850
• maximum rent for a two -bedroom dwelling - $1,386/month
• maximum sales price for two -bedroom dwelling - $155,550
New housing at these costs is typically apartments, manufactured dwellings, or modest
condominiums, provided by either non-profit or for -profit builders. Expansion areas are required
to make ten percent of their dwellings affordable to moderate -income households, or to pay a fee
that is used to support affordable housing (Housing Element program 2.3.1). Considering the
proportions of potential dwellings in the Margarita Area and Orcutt Area that would be small -lot,
manufactured, or multifamily housing, they could provide a higher than required percentage of
moderate -income dwellings.
The existing exemption for very -low and lower -income housing and the proposed exemption for
moderate -income housing do not, by themselves, increase the build -out capacity of the expansion
areas or the urban area. However, the exemption for very -low and lower -income housing can
cause the actual average yearly growth rate to be about 1.05 percent (five percent of one percent,
added to one percent). Exempting moderate -income housing could cause the actual growth rate
to be about 1.15 to 1.25 percent (10 to 20 percent of one percent, added to 1.05 percent). Over a
period of years, affordable housing is not likely to be built faster than housing generally, due to
practical phasing considerations such as utility extensions, as well as economic forces.
Because the affordability of dwellings must be assured for some time after initial occupancy,
builders are subject to additional procedural requirements, such as setting up deed restrictions or
special management provisions_ Also, it may be more economical simply to pay the fee. As a
q -q
Council Agenda Report - Residential Growth Management
Page 10
result, developers may pay the fee instead of building dwellings. However, when developers
construct affordable dwellings concurrent with their projects, a larger number of affordable
dwellings are expected to become available, in comparison with the City using developers' fees
to assist affordable projects. Exempting moderate -income housing from growth phasing would
remove one disincentive for builders to construct affordable dwellings in their projects: they
would no longer count toward the limited number of dwellings that could be built at a certain
time. The result would be more productive in terms of meeting the City's housing goals.
There is a precedent in the Municipal Code for giving incentives to moderate -income housing
similar to those for lower -income housing. For several years, the City has had rules that assure
developers a density bonus of at least 25 percent, when at least 20 percent of a project's
dwellings are affordable to low or moderate income households (Affordable Housing Incentives,
Municipal Code Chapter 17.90). This incentive has contributed to only a few affordable
dwellings being built. For -profit developers have not extensively used it. The results support the
view that making moderate -income dwellings exempt from growth limits will not significantly
increase build -out capacity or residential growth rates, but may result in the construction of more
dwellings that are affordable.
If the Council initiates the General Plan amendments, hearings on them and on any
corresponding change to the Residential Growth Management Regulations would be held early in
the year 2000.
CONCURRENCES
Planning Commission
The Planning Commission held a public forum July 28 and a hearing September 8. Following the
hearing, the Planning Commission voted four to one (two absent) to recommend the procedures
shown in the attached draft ordinance and a phasing schedule first presented at that hearing,
which used moving intervals. The dissenting commissioner supported implementation of the
General Plan's growth policy, but thought the phasing schedule should assume a higher rate of
infill development, partly to accommodate potential increases in infill capacity resulting from
General Plan amendments. (The infill development shown in the attached schedule reflects build -
out of the adopted General Plan.) On September. 22 the Commission, at staff s request,
reconsidered its recommendation for a phasing schedule and supported the attached fixed -
interval schedule, which was and is staffs recommendation.
Also on September 8 the Planning Commission voted three to two (two absent) to recommend
that the City Council initiate the process for considering an amendment to the General Plan, to
make dwellings affordable to moderate -income residents exempt from the growth limit. The
dissenting commissioners were concerned that expanding the exemptions would be contrary to
the overall growth policy.
If_1d
Council Agenda Report - Residential Growth Management
Page 11
ALTERNATIVES
Options for certain aspects of the program are noted under the Discussion section. If the City
Council wants to approve a phasing schedule substantially different from the one attached, staff
would recommend giving clear direction but postponing adoption until the next meeting, so staff
and all affected owners can make sure that all the implications have been considered.
The Council may continue action. There is no mandated deadline. However, expansion -area
applicants are anxious to know how the adopted growth -management policies will affect their
areas. In the next several weeks and months, individual development plans and specific plans
needing to reflect growth phasing will come before the Council for hearings. Also, the current
Residential Growth Management Regulations expire on December 31, 1999.
FISCAL IMPACT
Adoption of the recommended rules will have no fiscal impact. Fiscal -impact studies for the
1994 Land Use Element update concluded that the City could maintain fiscal health with the
Proposed amounts and rates of growth.
Attachments
#1 Draft ordinance replacing Chapter 17.88 of the Municipal Code with new regulations
#2 Draft resolution adopting the recommended Phasing Schedule
#3 City of San Luis Obispo Residential Construction History graph
#4 List of owners, applicants, and representatives for large annexation areas
#5 Action update for Planning Commission meeting September 8, 1999 (draft minutes will be
placed in the Council Reading File if they are available before the meeting)
#6 Summary of recommended ordinance for publication
#7 Correspondence received
#8 Major annexation areas location map
resgrowkarOcO.doc
4 `1 i
Attachment #'i
ORDINANCE NO. (1999 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
REPLACING CHAPTER 17.88 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE,
RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS
(GPI 126-98)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on September 8, 1999,
and recommended approval of amendments to the City's Residential Growth Management
Regulations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on October 5, 1999, and has
considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and
action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed regulations are consistent with the
General Plan and other applicable City ordinances;
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds and determines that:
A. The potential environmental impacts of the proposed regulations have been adequately
addressed by the Environmental Impact Report for the Land Use Element & Circulation Element
Updates which the Council certified August 23, 1994, and by the Negative Declaration for the
Housing Element revision which the Council approved September 20, 1994.
B. Implementation of the Land Use Element and Housing Element policies through the
proposed regulations will have no adverse impacts and does not require environmental
mitigation.
C. This determination reflects the independent judgment of the City Council.
SECTION 2. Chapter 17.88 of the Municipal Code, Residential Growth Management
Regulations, is hereby repealed.
SECTION 3. New provisions to be codified as Chapter 17.88 of the Municipal Code,
Residential Growth Management Regulations, fully set forth in the attached Exhibit A, are
hereby adopted.
4-1 L
Ordinance No.
Page .2
SECTION 4. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council members
voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage; in the
Tribune; a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect at
the expiration of thirty (30) days after:its final passage.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by -the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo at its meeting held on the ..day of , 1999, on a motion of -
seconded by - - and on.the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor Allen K. Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk 'Lee Price, CMC
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Atoe IX
resgrow/ord.doc
if--13
Ordinance No. Exhibit A
Replace Municipal Code Chapter 17.88, Growth Management Regulations, with the following:
17.88.010 Purpose and justification.
A. The regulations codified in this chapter are intended to assure that the rate of population
growth will not exceed the City's ability to assimilate new residents and to provide municipal
services, consistent with the maximum growth rates established in the General Plan. Also,
these regulations are to assure that those projects which best meet the City's objectives for
affordable housing, infill development, open space protection, and provision of public
facilities will be allowed to proceed with minimum delay.
B. San Luis Obispo is a charter city, empowered to make and enforce all laws concerning
municipal affairs, subject only to the limitations of the City Charter and the Constitution and
laws of the State. Regulation of the rate of residential development is a reasonable extension
of municipal authority to plan overall development, in furtherance of the public health, safety
and general welfare.
C. According to the General Plan Land Use Element, the City should achieve a maximum annual
average population growth rate of one percent. The reserve of developable land within the city
and the capacity of proposed annexations could sustain growth rates which would exceed the
objectives of the General Plan.
D. General Plan policies and the annexation -area Phasing Schedule required by these regulations
reduce the likelihood that any property within the city might be deprived of reasonable
development entitlements through the operation of these regulations.
E. The growth rate policies of the General Plan reflect the City's responsibility to accommodate a
reasonable share of expected state and regional growth.
F. To avoid further imbalance between the availability of jobs and of housing within the city, the
General Plan also manages expansion of growth -inducing activities. The burdens of growth
management are not being placed solely on the residential sector, since it largely responds to
demands caused by other sectors.
G. Considering the likely levels of housing demand and construction throughout the housing
market area, nearly coinciding with San Luis Obispo County, these regulations are not
expected to affect the overall balance between housing supply and demand in the market area.
These regulations will not impede and may help meet the needs of low-income households.
,9 -14
17.88.020 Allocations.
A. The City Council shall, by resolution, adopt a Phasing Schedule that allocates potential
residential construction among annexation areas, consistent with the General Plan and with
these regulations.
B. The limitations on residential development established by these regulations apply to new
residential construction within certain areas that have been annexed to the City or that will be
annexed to the City. Development in such areas is subject to development plans or specific
plans, which shall contain provisions consistent with these regulations and with the Phasing
Schedule.
C. For locations which the Phasing Schedule shows as "allowed," allocations shall be
implemented by the timing of issuance of building permits.
D. These regulations shall not limit the issuance of building permits for locations which the
Phasing Schedule shows as having an "assumed" rate of construction.
E. Dwellings affordable to residents with very -low or low incomes, as defined in the City's
General Plan Housing Element, shall be exempt from these regulations.
F. It shall not be necessary to have dwellings allocated for a particular time interval or location to
process and approve applications for General Plan amendment, zone change or other zoning
approval, subdivision, or architectural review.
17.88.030 Adjustments to Allocations Requested by Property Owners.
Upon verified written request by each owner for whom the timing of property development
would be affected by a proposed change (either hastened or delayed), the Community
Development Director may adjust the allocation of dwellings among expansion areas shown in
the Phasing Schedule, so long as the total number of dwellings for all expansion areas within an
interval does not change. The Director shall approve such requests upon determining that there
would be no substantial difference in provision of affordable housing, necessary public facilities,
or open space protection as a result of the adjustment.
17.88.040 Periodic City Council Review and Consideration of Revisions.
A. The Community Development Department shall provide status updates to the City Council
concerning implementation of these regulations, coordinated with the Annual Report on the .
General Plan. The status update will describe actual construction levels and any adjustments
to allocations that have been approved by the Director, and may include recommendations for
revisions.
B. Following consideration of the annual report, or at such other times as it deems appropriate,
the City Council may revise the Phasing Schedule. Such revisions shall be consistent with the
General Plan. City Council approval shall be required to do any of the following:
1) Change the total number of dwellings that may be permitted within an interval;
2) Change the number of dwellings assumed for demolition or infill development or small
annexations, or allocated in total to expansion areas;
3) Reduce the number of dwellings previously allocated to a certain expansion area, when
there is not verified written approval by each affected owner;
4) Shift the years covered by intervals.
C. Before approving a revision, the City Council must conduct a public hearing. Notice of the
hearing shall be provided at least ten but not more than 30 days prior to the hearing, by
publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and by first-class mail to each
owner of property potentially affected by a delay in building permit issuance as compared
with the schedule in effect at that time. Owner information may be obtained from the County
property assessment role, or from other sources which the Community Development Director
determines will provide complete and current information. Failure of an owner or owners to
receive notice shall not invalidate any duly adopted revision.
D. For in -city development and for minor annexations, the annual report shall compare the actual
number of permitted dwellings with the assumed rate of permit issuance. When the previously
assumed number of in -city and small -annexation permitted dwellings exceeds those actually
permitted, and expected to be permitted based on current trends and project processing, the
City Council shall consider revising the Phasing Schedule to make the difference available to
the current phases of large annexations.
E. If an annexation area does not fully use its allocation within the previously indicated interval,
the City Council shall consider assigning the unused potential to that same area in future
intervals. It is the intent of this part to encourage completion of neighborhoods that have been
started, provided that doing so does not cause the allowed citywide growth rate to be exceeded
and further provided that the allocations previously assigned to other annexation areas will not
be reduced without the approval of the affected landowners.
resgrowlord_exhb.doc
41 -it,
Attachment #2
RESOLUTION NO. (1999 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
APPROVING A RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PHASING SCHEDULE
(GPI 125-99)
WHEREAS, the General Plan contains policies concerning a desirable maximum
population growth rate, based on an acceptable pace of change, the provision of adequate
public facilities and services, and mitigation of environmental impacts; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 17.88 of the Municipal Code, Residential Growth Management
Regulations, as amended by concurrent action of this Council, calls for establishment of a
Phasing Schedule for development in annexation areas; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on October 5, 1999, and has
considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and
action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff;
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds and determines that:
A. The potential' environmental impacts of the proposed Phasing Schedule have been
adequately addressed by the Environmental Impact Report for the Land Use Element &
Circulation Element Updates which the Council certified August 23, 1994, and by the Negative
Declaration for the Housing Element revision which the Council approved September 20, 1994.
B. Implementation of the Land Use Element and Housing Element policies through the
proposed Phasing Schedule will have no adverse impacts and does not require environmental
mitigation.
C. This determination reflects the independent judgment of the City Council.
SECTION 2. The Phasing Schedule 'that is fully set forth in the attached Exhibit A is
hereby adopted.
Resolution No.
Page.2
On motion of , seconded by , and
on the following roll call vote:
AYES: -
NOES:
.ABSENT:
the foregoing:resolution was adopted thus _ _. day of , 1999
Mayor Allen K.. Settle
ATTEST: -
City Clerk Lee Price, CMC
" • • • • / • •
resgrow/ccres.doc
4w
c
d
0
Cc
C �
O $
ca
W O Im
C
C7 .
!0 co
a
d
O
Z
C
0
0
co
a)
w
CD
P-
LoNtON
NN
O w
1-
O
N O r
N
r
co
N C4
'r
O
N
r
C7
O
O
O
r
O
CD
a
C)o
r
N
N a
r
N
'
O
O
O
c c
(V
= 0 vi
000000CD
0LO
0
a) 7
3 () a Z
0)
N C)
r
C
0 0 0 0
a)
cc c
r
o M (r-, E
O
N
E c O
o a)
ns
000000a
Oti
It
M
>
CL EC dT
0 O
co
[h O
10
O
N
E rn o.
r
r
r
O
X c O c
�_
E
Eo
o 75 w
i.
N
m o
c a rn 0
dchmO
0 0 0
CO!
0
0
o
0
o
0
r
0
M
o
I
r
O
4)
0 o _ m
N
r
r
N
N
(D
r
m% 3 2 a)
O
C
O O N
W - NM+CO
r
O
N
O C- A C
c E o m 0
3
N a
a
0
N
0 N 0 E
'~
O
CCr?
I
LLD
CV
N
(D
O
= o c=i � a3
O
r
r
r
W rn t ? E
a�a
CO
y
m 3
"E
EN
C N N C X
C)a 0
Z
0000000
00
00
rn� E
O
T�
c� N CDLo
r r
O
r
M
N
co
IVO
,� .E 0) ,�
a) = c E
r
v 0--- a) a) .r
O N
0
N
L N ?+ y
y .r 0 c a)
0
E a0) `� E
Q
M �
coa�
cp
N
co
to
O
C0.7 � X N= =3
N
r
C C 5 tC
0
O
3 m W o
C)
O C = a) .� O
as w H
N
O
CD
" r
0 0 o w O X
r
cOr) 0 0
N
O
N
N
O
?� E a) N v
to
O
r
r
La
r
0 •o r
Cc a
Q C
N d
>
Cc
N
N C C a) a) o
3
co
C.)Z
O
O
N
x
rn
U) f0 a c
��
C
Cl)
N L_
�c
N
p U
__
Ot
Z
O
N O Of 0ams
muow:7E
'-
N
Aum
O
3
l4[�%
�
a•c
E
co
w cc N
(ti fA .r 5 a1
a) a) 'O
'O
'0
V
'o
a)
N a U c
E E m
w
m
m
m
E
(D U) =v 2-a)
�� 3
0
3
0
3
0
3
0
3
0
3t �_
o� cWr
Q
N U)
(6 c� ip
i4
etf
m
ca
(a
to
4-1 y
Im
m
m
0
m
m
m
E
rn
rn
C
c
R
IL
m
n,
c
c
J
U
Attachment #3
0
C7 N r
L66L
966L i
I
C661
L66L
696L
L96L
996 L
£96L
LB6i
6L6L
LL6L R
9L6L
£L6L
LL6L
696L
L96L
995L
£96L
L96L
696L
L96L
996L
0 1
r
n
a)
c
a�
Q.
0
aD
a�
c
E
0
U
d
J
N
0
U
y J.D
Attachment#4
Owners and Representatives of Major Residential Expansion Areas
Affected by Residential Growth Management
(This list has been compiled from information provided by the County Assessor, project
application files, and meeting attendance notes; it may not be complete.)
Location
Owners
Applicants & Representatives
Dalidio Area
: Thelma F. Peroui, trustee
; Cannon Associates (Andrew Merriam)
c/o Ernie Dalidio
Irish Hills North
: Bank of America, trustee
; DeVaul Ranch LLC (Hamish Marshall)
John Wallace & Associates
Investec (John Schuck and others)
Carol Florence
Roger Lyon
Irish Hills South
; Margaret R. DeVaul, trustee
; Richard J. Komorowski
Margarita Area
: Eileen Damon, trustee
; Craig Cowan
c/o Dolly Garcia
John French
Siena Gardens of S.L.O. (Richard
; William R. Dyer
DeBlauw)
: David Watson
Kitman 1 (Bob Kitamura)
: Westland Engineering
John King
Serafino J. Martinelli, trustee
Orcutt Area
Jeanne A. Anderson
Cannon Associates (Andrew Merriam)
Central Coast Mortgage Company
Righetti-Parsons Family
(Michael Blaser)
i Dr. Ernest Jones
Leo M. & Margaret Evans
Chuck Pratt
i Paul E. Fiala
Paul & Felicitas N. Garay
Gamey & Vicki Hall
Jeanne Helphenstein
=
Phyllis Imel
Don & Beverly Johnson
Dr. Emest Jones
Josephine E. Maddalena, trustee
i Nicholas Muick
i Barbara Parsons
'
Sandpiper Investments (Chuck &
Marrion Pratt)
gmattesolresg rowlparties.doc
Attachment #5
MEETING UPDATE
SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
Council Chamber of City Hall
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo
September 8, 1999 Wednesday 5:30 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Commissioners David Jeffrey, , Mary Whittlesey, Allan Cooper, Alice
Loh, Stephen Peterson, Charles Senn and Chairman Paul Ready
Commr. Cooper was absent.
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as written.
MINUTES: Minutes of July 28, 1999 were approved as amended.
PUBLIC COMMENT: No member of the public addressed items not on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 1720 Johnson Avenue: ER and TR 4-99. Request for tentative map approval
creating 10 lots for a condominium project, and environmental review; R-2 zone;
Steve Sicanoff, applicant. (Continued from August 25, 1999)
On a 3 2 vote (Commr. Cooper was absent and Commr. Jeffrey abstained due to a
potential conflict of interest because he owns property in the area), the Commission
recommended Council approval of the tentative map and mitigated negative declaration
as recommended by staff in the supplemental staff report with the condition that a
motorized gate be located at the Fixlini driveway (for use by residents and emergency
vehicles) subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. Discussion
focused on the outcome. of the project if the easement through the school district
property is not obtained and how this property could be redesigned to allow emergency
access off of Johnson Avenue. Three neighbors spoke against the project citing traffic,
access and parking impacts.
r-1\ 2. City -Wide. GPI 126-99; Residential Growth Management Program - Phasing
Expansion Areas; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant.
Commissioners voted four to one (Commr. Cooper absent and Commr. Ready stepping
down due to a potential conflict of interest) to recommend the procedures
recommended by staff and a phasing schedule presented at the hearing, which would
use a moving interval. Dissenting Commissioner Peterson supported implementation of
the General Plan's growth policy, but thought the phasing schedule should as*QI2
Planning Commission Update
Page 2
higher rate of infill development, to avoid possibly exceeding the target growth rate..
Also, the Commission voted three to two to recommend that the City Council initiate the
process for considering an amendment to the General Plan, to make dwellings that are
affordable to moderate -Income residents exempt from the growth limit. Dissenting
Commissioners Loh and Peterson were concemed that expanding the exemptions
would be contrary to the overall growth policy.
Testimony was given by representatives of the:
Margarita Area - Saw the procedure as workable, but wanted more time to consider
the moving -interval schedule; the potential for adjustments is particularly important,
so allocations that are not used as originally scheduled can be used rather than lost
during times when market conditions encourage construction; the City can anticipate
that there will be requests for revisions in future years, maintaining the overall
framework but adjusting the distribution among annexation areas, and possibly the
projections for infill development and small annexations;
Irish Hills !North (current DeVaul Ranch application) - saw the procedure as workable
and supported the moving -interval schedule;
Irish Hills South Area - the owners may want to develop sooner than shown in the
recommended schedule.
3. 11855 Los Osos Valley Road. TR and PD 102-96; Request to subdivide a 222
acre DeVaul Ranch site to allow for the development of 146 single-family and 122
multi -family dwellings, and a 3 acre park; and request for a planned development
zoning for flexible development standards in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 zones; DeVaul
Ranch, LLC, applicant.
On a 6-0 vote (Commr. Cooper was absent), the Commission recommended City
Council approval of the requested PD rezoning and vesting tentative tract map. The
Commission generally liked the project and supported the applicant requested
variations to normal development standards given the many project benefits (including
the 184 acres dedicated to the City as open space). Discussion focused on the twenty
some issue areas identified by staff in the staff report. The Commission discussed
each of these items and provided staff with a recommendation. . Finally, the
Commission acknowledged that had this been the beginning of the project design
process, the Commission may have recommended more significant changes to the
overall project design.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
Given the lateness of the hour, an agenda forecast was not provided and Commission
discussion did not take place. /4-23
Attachment #6
[DRAFT SUMMARY]
ORDINANCE NO. [ . ] (1999 SERIES)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ADOPTING
NEW RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS
On October 5, 1999, the San Luis Obispo City Council voted [ to ] to introduce
Ordinance No. [ ], which will replace the current Residential Growth Management
Regulations that expire at the end of the year with new regulations, to implement the adopted
General Plan. Basic features of the new regulations are as follows:
The pace of residential construction 'inside the 1994 city limits and certain minor
annexations would not be affected by the regulations. In large annexation areas, the pace of
residential construction would be limited, so that citywide housing growth would not exceed an
average of one percent per year, considering projected construction in the unrestricted
locations. Housing affordable to low-income households in any location would be exempt from
the limits. Assignment of allowed construction to particular large annexation areas would be
accomplished by a phasing schedule, approved by a separate resolution. The ordinance would
enable staff to approve certain adjustments to the phasing schedule's allocation of dwellings
among the large annexation areas. Other revisions to the phasing schedule would require
Council approval following public hearings.
The Council must vote again to approve this ordinance before it can take effect. That
action is tentatively scheduled for October 19, 1999, at a regular City Council meeting to begin
at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 990 Palm Street.
Copies of the complete ordinance and the companion resolution are available in the City
Cleric's Office, Room No. 1 of City Hall. For more information, contact the Community
Development Department at 781-7172.
Lee Price, City Clerk
-aq
} Richard J. Komorowski AttaChment #7
Land Development
484 Mobil Avenue, Suite 19 . Camarillo, CA 93010 • Tel: (805) 585-3377 • Fax: (805) 987-5068
September 21, 1999
Glen Matteson
Community Development Department
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
RE: Irish Hills South
Dear Mr. Matteson:
As I stated at the September 8th Planning Commission Meeting, we intend to submit
applications for annexation and a tract map for the remaining 13 acres of the DuVaul
Ranch by year end.
Assuming an 8-12 month time line, we expect to build the first phase in the spring of
2001 and would therefore request a distribution of allocations that would allow 50 units
in the 1999-01 period and 100 in the 2002-04 period. On a worse case critical path, we
would start construction in the spring of 2002 and would then request 150 units the 2002-
04 period.
Obviously this timing puts us well ahead of the phasing schedule indicated in the
Residential Growth Management Plan. Since the General Plan shows all of Irish Hills as
a single expansion area, I don't understand why the Irish Hills North Project got a full
distribution of allocations in the current two phasing periods and Irish Hills South gets
nothing until 2005 and then only one-third of its allowed units. I request that allocations
for our project be distributed in the same periods as Irish Hills North. Perhaps some of
their allocations and /or allocations from the Margarita Area can be redistributed. Thank
you for your consideration.
Please include this letter in the City Council packet when they meet to discuss this item.
Thank you.
Yours y,
Richard J. Komorowski
RECEIVED
SEP 2 � 1999
IC�ITY OF SAN LUIS OBISpo if
,,... 15
Attachment #8
Dalidio
Irish Hills
Orcutt
/1%/Urban Reserve Line
city of san luis obispo OResidential
community development department Commercial & Industrial
Use 7o Be Determined N
q-a4
MrrTING AGENDA-wL,*uU waI
60. a 11-`5- y ITEM #
•
communication item
September 30, 1999
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
City Council
Jan Howell Marx
Scenic Highway Dedication
09OUNCIL
ErCDD DIR
00
❑ FIN DIR
Fly CHIEF
G®'AC❑
RNEY
W DIR
KlORIO
❑ POLICE CHF
❑ EMT
❑ REC DIR
❑ UTIL DIR
p
❑ PEAS DIR
On September 29, 1999, Caltrans dedicated Highway One as a Scenic Highway from the City of
San Luis Obispo city limits to the Monterey County Line. This section was designated as a
potential candidate in the 1960s, but only now has become a reality. I was honored to accept the
designation on behalf of the City at the dedication ceremony and to help unveil the first Golden
Poppy sign. Also attending were Roger Anderson, Mayor of Morro Bay, State Senator Jack
O'Connell, State Assemblyman Abel Maldonado, former Supervisor Bud Laurent and a number
of high level Caltrans officials.
The week of October 4, 1999, a large designation sign will be placed near the intersection of
Highland and Highway one indicating that our city is where the scenic highway begins! Soon
the Golden Poppy signs will be going up. Caltrans officials indicated that they and SLOCOG
will apply for the highway to have National Scenic Highway status soon.
Attached you will find a booklet explaining benefits of the Scenic Highway program in greater
detail. The scenic highway designation opens up special grant and funding opportunities. I hope
that the City will take full advantage of the benefits the program offers as we continue our effort
to preserve open space around the City.
JHM:ss 01 p-, U— "
Attachment A4 U
c: Public Works
Community Development
Administration
RECEIVED
0 C T _. 1 1999
SLO CITY CLERK
Ml .NG AGENDA
DATE /o -5 " 9 ITEM! #
communication -item
September 28, 1999
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
C cil Colleagues
Jan Howell Marx
❑ CDD DIR
0 FIN DIR
❑ FIRE CHIEF
[FS�CAO
❑ PW DIR
ERWORIG
❑ POLICE CHF
GMT TEAM
r
0 REC DIR
�_,
0 UTIL DIR
O PEAS DIR
❑
Communication Item: Trip to Washington, D.C.
As you may know, Congresswoman Lois Capps is hosting a "San Luis Obispo County Day in
Washington, D.C." on Tuesday, October 26, 1999. This event provides an opportunity to meet
with top policy makers on such critical issues as business, education, technology, and agriculture.
There will also be a chance to share information about San Luis Obispo and the issues we are
facing, such as Internet sales tax.
I would like to attend these meetings in Washington and offer to serve as the representative of
San Luis Obispo. Council Policies & Procedures (Section 2.5 - Special Expenses) states the
following:
For occasions when the Mayor and./or a Council Member is designated by the City
Council to represent the City at special meetings, reimbursement shall be made from an
unallocated Travel Expense Account. (Res. 8776)
Acting in this capacity would eliminate the necessity of using my individual council member
budget —which could preclude my participation in upcoming conferences and professional
development for the remainder of this year. Airfare and hotel (two nights) expense would be
approximately $1,200.
I believe this is an important opportunity for our city and hope you will grant this request. With
your concurrence, formal Council support can be given on the October 19, 1999 consent agenda.
Thank you for your consideration.
As
RECEIVED
SEP 2 8 1999
SLO CITY CLERK
a ][M,n
0ASSOCIATES
646 I Nt E-R,S
PLANNERS'
SURVEYORS.
,364'PACIFIC STREET
SAN Luis biaisPo,'CA
'93401
:805-:544-7407
FW805'_-544,3863
eF
MIC.HAE.L F. CA:.Nmorq, PE
ANDREw G. WRRIAM, AIA7 AICP
DANJEL S. iHUTCH.INSON, LS
Oct6ber;5 11999
City Council Members
c/o,01eh Matteson,, Associate Planner
Planning Department
City, of San Luis Obispo
RE:: Growth Man:tgemeirit46t..,M4j6r Residentialt Annexations:
Dear Council' Members:
I. have;participatedkat,several m eetifigand 9
hearih s.,g.thie planning commission on
..
thi$:sti6jectas,thd;ighn-0ioAlplAiiiibe�for:th6OrcuttExpansion, Area and,theDiLffii6,
Annexation.
-Given the confines 6fthe grpwffi, limitations, -.of the: General.Plan andtherelative-'
-, fl! presented in the -staff revori.
status:of the-various.-majonannexationsI fdi
dated' October 1994.1is til-ik eop.irfiuffi.that:dan-ibe-ddvdldbdd-"Mthddkddfn§tM6eg,
1t*.qVid.evthe City"z!1way ofrr�eetjtg,'theon- 6 percentannualgtd—Wth file while
.givi�k lan(towners'and d6vel61riiers a reasonable., level of certainty �f
... � . .,-:n - - developers I . . ___. level . y financing and
construction. 'Th�d,,61!e�-m-"'dnt�df-flCxibilitVd6s'cr-ibe;'d"m.-the.:!staff-.report :;is, _very
:desirable sijac'e�construct.i6ni's"cift,tii�giibj&dt.t6l'ggetee6iioffiictrdn6--
Lsup e.. port the effort to.amend, th' General Plan -to exempt modefdib ffiddin-d
,housing. Given th6generaLshortage of housing -,m,-t'eh' Cit., we are findiiig that;.
even .modest housing 1s gqt4g.4 ta,rel'atiVeIv-11i &h;sdles.vEilue. TheJow and low-
m6&rate-affordablehbusing requir.emenfs'still.li'eaVeg,,g4p�,aii,theemoderate level
in; the housing product that-Ifie'City'should be providmif
g,
:gendr-al-,,'Pl'a'h'<amendment:cbWd' address ;this issue without encourage. sprawl of
extension ofour city b.oufid.ane.s., since in would onlyapply toihe,ateas:already
designated for housing.
Sincerely,
Andrew,G Merriam, AICP
Principal; Director of Plannimg
9"319/Agemicy/growth iingint
9E Q, E 1. V E Q
5 1999
LO'CITY CLERK
V
PROVIDING SERVICi-SINCE, 10,