HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/05/1993, 2 - REVIEW OF THE REVISED DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT. 411uAlylll�lllllll��ll,^II � r MEETING DATE:
IIIIN I��u�l Cl o san tins oBispo to -r-93
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
0
FROM: Arnold Jona , ommunity Development Director; By: Jeff Hotosociate Planner
SUBJECT: Review of the revised Draft Housing Element.
CAO RECOMMENDATION: 1) Give direction to staff regarding changes or additions to the
Housing Element; and 2) By motion, refer the Draft Housing Element to the Planning
Commission and the State Department of Housing and Community Development for comment.
SITUATION
At its August 3rd hearing, councilmembers reviewed the draft housing element and considered
various alternatives for responding to State Department of Housing and Community Development
Department (HCD) comments on the draft (minutes attached). After taldng public testimony,
councilmembers directed staff to revise the draft housing element to respond to as many of
HCD's comments as possible while adhering to the City's one percent growth management
policy.
DISCUSSION
The Draft Housing Element has been revised to reflect Council's direction, and the changes are
shown in legislative draft. The changes update the draft element and provide the additional
information requested by HCD, but don't alter the City's basic land use and growth management
policies as described in the General Plan Land Use Element.
Attached is a letter for the Mayor's signature which is intended to serve as a foreword to the
"Response to HCD comments". This document summarizes HCD comments and the text
changes made. Staff has crafted this cover letter to reflect a positive tone, as the revised draft
appears to meet nearly all HCD requirements or comments. However, there are three areas
which have not been modified due to existing City policy, but which could pose a constraint to
final HCD approval. These areas are outlined below (HCD comments are shown verbatim in
italics). Staff suggests that these areas be the focus of Council review on October 5th.
Councilmembers may have ideas for how we might modify or present existing policy to enhance
our prospects for a favorable review.
1) C.1. The draft does not identi adequate sites to meet the RHNA (Regional Housing
Need Allocation) requirement of 2,153 low-income dwellings. Residential capacity is
based on certain assumptions about land use, density, utilities and public services. Those
assumptions yield an estimate of the number of dwellings that can be built within the
urban reserve during a specified period. Depending upon the community's goals, those
assumptions, particularly land use and density, can be modified to yield a different
residential capacity at buildout.
Current zoning and proposed changes in the draft Land Use Element (LUE) would allow
about 4,850 additional dwellings at buildout -- only 278 units fewer than the RHNA
09
���i�i�i�►►��IIIIIII�I�° ��Ulll city of San tins OBlspo
gj;% COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 2
requirement of 5,128 dwellings. However the number would be accommodated over 25
years instead of 6 1/2 years as required by the State. HCD looks for the amount of R-4
zoned land to determine whether low-income housing needs can be accommodated.
Based solely on the City's current supply of R-4 zoned land (plus vacant C-C and C-R
zoned land which also allow high density residential uses), the City does not appear to
have sufficient land zoned to meet the RHNA requirement of 2,153 low-income units.
Most of the new affordable units will be built in expansion areas. Proposed policy
1.22.3 provides that new housing shall provide affordable units for each household
income category in the same proportion those income groups are found in the City's
existing population. This policy would require that 49 percent (existing percentage of
very-low plus low-income persons living in the City) of 4,850 new units, or 2,376
dwellings, would be targeted for very-low and low income families -- more than enough
units to meet the RHNA requirement. Since very-low and low-income housing would,
under proposed policy 1.26.1, be exempt from residential growth management, it is
apparent that the City would, at least on paper, be able to accommodate the RHNA
requirement for very-low and tow income housing, provided that expansion areas were
annexed and that water and public services were available to serve the new development.
It would still not be possible to accommodate the RHNA needs for moderate and above
moderate income housing due to residential growth management limits.
Implementing this policy would probably require designating more of the expansion areas
for high-density residential use than anticipated. For example, the Margarita Area
Specific Plan calls for 21 percent of the units to be high-density, or R-4 zoning. One
possible strategy to meet RHNA requirements is to establish a minimum percentage of
high-density residential which must be provided in expansion areas, and to initiate
rezoning to higher residential densities in some infill areas to show that the City could
accommodate its assigned RHNA needs. This could ultimately result in a higher
population capacity for San Luis Obispo.
2) C.2. The City's Residential Growth Management Ordinance prevents the City from
meeting its assigned share of regional housing need. The proposed exemption of very-
low and low income housing from residential growth limits would allow the City meet
its share of lower income housing during the 25-year planning horizon of the LUE.
However the one percent growth limit on moderate and above moderate units would limit
market-rate housing construction to about 180 dwellings per year during the 1990s. To
meet the RHNA requirements, the City would need to build an average of 788 dwellings
per year for 6 1/2 years, and of these, about 458 units would need to be in the
"moderate" and "above moderate" income categories. This rate of housing construction
would not be feasible under the current Residential Growth Management Ordinance.
3) C.2. The proposed inclusionary housing requirement presents a potential government
J
A-
u►H�► �I�Illll���i��u►i����N city Of San LUIS OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 3
constraint to the development of large-scale residential projects and should be removed
or mitigated. The proposed inclusionary housing requirement would implement
Council's recommended policy 1.22.3 cited above. According to the City's 1991 study
of economic impacts of affordable housing requirements by Mundie and Associates, a
maximum of 10 percent low-income housing, plus 15 to 20 percent moderate income
housing was considered economically feasible to build into large residential developments
in expansion areas. This would result in about 25 to 30 percent of expansion area
housing being targeted for very-low, low-and moderate income households. In contrast,
the proposed inclusionary requirement would require 66 percent of new housing to be
targeted for these income groups. To the extent that the higher inclusionary requirement
reduces the economic feasibility of construction, it could act to discourage. large
residential development in expansion areas.
RELATED ISSUES
Certification of SLO County's Housing Element
Similar to the City's experience, the County received a lengthy list of comments from HCD on
its draft housing element. The comments focused mainly on: 1) effectiveness of the previous
element's programs; 2) housing needs and resources; 3) governmental constraints; and. 4) .
housing programs. The County's housing element was revised to include the requested
information, and HCD recently certified the County's housing element as complying with State
law. While there are fundamental policy differences between the City and County housing
elements, there are specific features of the County's element which helped secure HCD
approval:
1) The County demonstrated to HCD's satisfaction that it currently had sufficient land zoned
to accommodate its housing need for each income group as prescribed by the Regional
Housing Needs Plan, or a total of 7,716 new units. in the unincorporated County areas
between January 1, 1991 and July 1, 1997;
2) The County's growth management ordinance exempts all very-low, low, and moderate
income dwelling units from the 2.3 percent annual construction limit, thus reinforcing
the County's assertion that under normal conditions, growth management would not
prevent the County from meeting its regional housing needs; and
3) To address HCD concerns that in some instances growth management would prevent
affordable housing from being built, the County indicated that it would re-evaluate and
consider amendments to the growth management ordinance if the ordinance began to limit
construction of affordable housing.
�i°"�►�i��il�lllllp►►�u�►���III city of San tuis OBispo
nij% COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 4
Request That HCD Revise Regional Housing Needs
In response to Council's August 3rd direction, staff requested that HCD revise the City's
regional housing needs downward to reflect more realistic assumptions about job growth and
water supply. A letter containing HCD's response was received September 27th. HCD's
response is that they do not have the statutory authority to change regional housing need
numbers set by the local council of governments (COG). The City's earlier appeal to COG was
unsuccessful, in part, because COG's position was that it could not reduce the City's regional
housing need, it could only reallocate the need among the cities and unincorporated County. Not
surprisingly, none of the County's jurisdictions were willing or able to accept a portion of the
City of San Luis Obispo's housing need.
Council Review Strategy
At this stage, final direction on changes to housing policies and programs would be most helpful,
given the Council's desire to adopt the Housing Element this Fall. State law does not require
further HCD review of the draft housing element prior to adoption, although staff supports
sending the revised version to HCD to determine what, if any, further changes would be needed
to enable the State to certify the draft element as being in compliance. HCD review could be
accomplished concurrent with Planning Commission review. Staff anticipates bringing the draft
element back for Council adoption this Fall, following Planning Commission and HCD review.
Attachments:
-Response Letter to HCD Comments
-City Council Minutes
-Letter to HCD requesting a revision to RHNA
-HCD response to request City's request to revise RHNA
Enclosure:
-Council Hearing Draft Housing Element, October 1993
September 27, 1993 ®RAFT
Mr. Thomas B. Cook, Deputy Director
Department of Housing and Community Development
Division of Housing Policy Development
1800 Third Street, Room 430
Post Office Box 952053
Sacramento, CA 94252-2053
RE: City of San Luis Obispo response to HCD comments regarding
Draft Housing Element compliance with State housing law
Dear Mr. Cook:
Thank-you for your review of the City's Draft Housing Element (June 1993 version) and the
comments attached to your July 1, 1993 letter. The City has revised the June 1993 Draft
Housing Element in an effort to respond positively to your comments. A summary of the
City's revisions are attached to this letter and a copy of the revised Draft Housing Element
(October 1993 version) is also enclosed.
The City Council believes the enclosed revised Draft Housing Element (October 1993
version) contains the additional information you requested. We have also attempted to
document more cogently the environmental and resource constraints which affect the City's
ability to produce the amount of housing units identified in the RHNA. The City's
quantified housing goals take these constraints into consideration.
Once again, the City supports the States goals to provide affordable housing for all segments
of the population. We plan an aggressive program of development incentives and
inclusionary requirements to meet the housing needs of our citizens in a manner that is
consistent with the overall policy framework of the General Plan, ensuring that the City's
commitment to maintaining adequate public services and protecting environmental quality
is not undermined.
1-�Yi¢
e
Thomas B. Cook Page 2
Department of Housing & Community Development
I hope you and your staff are able to give careful consideration to the conditions which
affect growth in the City of San Luis Obispo. City staff are available to discuss the revised
Draft Housing Element (Oct. 93 version) with you or your staff in more detail.
Sincerely,
Peg Pinard
Mayor
PP:JM:ss
c: City Council
g:housing/Itr
���►►��������ii►►� ►IIIIIIIIIIIII►�1°" '
city ofsAn lues oBispo
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
September 23, 1993
Response to HCD Comments on the Draft Housing Element
On July 1, 1993 the City received comments from the California Department of Housing
and Community Development (HCD) on the City's Draft Housing Element update.
Following is a summary of revisions made to the draft to respond to HCD's comments.
Responses are listed in the order of HCD's comments in its letter dated July 1, 1993.
1. Identify the City's projected regional housing needs for all income groups.
The City's projected regional housing needs, as determined by the San Luis
Obispo Area Coordinating Council, are listed in Table 9.
2. Clarify availability of land suitable for residential development.
Table 16 summarizes residential capacity in terms of the number of additional
dwellings that can be added, by zone, within the existing City limits. The
discussion of "recycling" (redevelopment of older or dilapidated uses with
residential) and intensification (adding dwellings to underdeveloped lots) has been
expanded (pp. 57 - 59.)
Table 18 summarizes the number of dwellings historically created through infill
and intensification, and the implications for future infill residential development
are discussed.
Table 14 summarizes the residential development potential in several categories,
including the expansion areas. Table 7 updates possible new water sources and
expected availability dates. In the most optimistic scenario, the earliest a new
water source could be brought on line has been pushed back two years to 1997 to
allow adequate time for resolving legal, environmental, and engineering issues.
3. Expand the analysis of City land use controls and government constraints.
The discussion of governmental constraints on housing has been expanded to
address permit fees and processing requirements, building codes and enforcement,
and processing timelines (p. 38-40). City permit and processing fees are compared
rOThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services. programs and activities.
v� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410. A
i
Response to HCD Comments
Page 2
with other cities of similar size in Appendix A.
Programs are already included targeted at reviewing and where possible, removing
unnecessary government constraints on housing and waiving fees which increase
the cost of housing (1.22.13; 1.22.14; 1.22.15;1.22.16)
4. Expand the analysis of availability of financing and the cost of construction as a
potential or actual nongovernmental constraint.
The discussion of construction costs, land costs, and availability and cost of
financing have been updated (p.44). Table S has been added summarizing the
component development costs of two local residential developments.
5. Expand the analysis of special housing needs of the homeless.
Additional analysis of the City's homeless population has been included, including
an assessment of the facilities available in the City to meet the needs of homeless
persons (p. 67).
6. Analyze and document household and housing characteristics, including
overpayment, housing stock conditions, and overcrowding.
Tables 20 and 21 have been added summarizing overpayment and overcrowding
information in San Luis Obispo. Discussion of these issues has been expanded (p.
70). Housing stock conditions are discussed on p. 59.
B. Quantified Objectives. Establish the maximum number of housing units that can
be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved by income category during the
planning period of the element.
Section 2.33, Quantified Objectives, has been expanded and Table 11 has been
added, summarizing the City's quantified housing objectives.
C. Programs.
1.. Identify adequate sites to accommodate housing needs for all income groups.
In 1993, the City is nearing completion of a six-year effort to update its General
Plan Land Use Element. According to the City's Land Use and Circulation
Elements EIR, the proposed land use policies and programs would accommodate
J-4
Response to HCD Comments
Page 3
up to an additional 5,023 new dwellings (differs from the Housing Element
estimate of 4,848 due to rezonings and development which has occurred since the
draft LUE was prepared). The City's estimated residential capacity is based on
resource, environmental, and fiscal constraints, as discussed in Revised Housing
Need under Section 2.31. The draft Housing Element would require that a
substantial percentage of the new housing units be targeted for low- and very-low
income households (Program 1.22.11). It is anticipated that these provisions
would, over the 25-year planning horizon of the General Plan Land Use Element,
meet or exceed the Council of Government's specified low-income housing need
of 2,153 low income dwelling units. Upon annexation of major expansion areas,
it is anticipated that the City will have sufficient land zoned to meet the housing
needs of moderate and above moderate income households.
2. Remove government constraints to housing.
These programs are proposed to reduce or mitigate government constraints to
housing: 1.21.4 (code enforcement and demolitions), 1.22.13 (review planning
and building regulations), 1.22.14 (expedited processing), 1.22.15 (reduced
construction cost), 1.22.16 (fee exemptions for affordable housing), 1.22.11
(remove regulatory obstacles to housing relocation/rehabilitation), 1.23.16
(evaluate and revise codes which discourage housing), 1.26.1 (growth management
exemption), and 1.26.10 (proportional low-income housing in expansion areas).
3. Provide speck timetables for program implementation.
Specific program timetables have been added in the "Summary Matrix: Housing
Element Programs", and are expected to be further refined during additional
Planning Commission and City Council review.
4. Include specific implementation actions and demonstrate a greater commitment
toward housing element programs.
Specific information on program implementation has been added in the Summary
Matrix.
5. Include additional programs to meet low- and moderate-income housing needs.
No new programs have been added. The draft Housing Element includes
numerous programs targeted at providing more housing opportunities for very-low
and low-income households. Policy 1.21.3 has been revised to acknowledge the
02'1
r
Response to HCD Comments
Page 4
City's educational role in informing the public about fair housing laws and
programs which allow equal housing opportunities for all persons.
D. Preservation of Subsidized Housing.
1, 2, 3, and 4. Expand the analysis of costs of preservation, financing
sources, and quantified objectives, and include programs for
preserving units at risk of conversion during the planning
period.
Section 2.50 on Preserving At-Risk Housing has been updated with the additional
information requested.
IJjh: hC&eTO
City Council Meeting Page 5
Tuesday, August 3, 1993- 7:00 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE (File No. 462)
Council held a public hearing to consider a status report on the Housing Element update, including
State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) comments, and a comparison of
goals,policies and programs in the April 1992 and June 1993 Housing Element drafts(continued from
7/20/93).
Arnold Jonas.Community Development Director,and John Mandeville,Advanced Planning Manager,
briefly reviewed the Draft Element and pending legislation in Sacramento.
Council discussed the response of the State Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD) and their consideration of the exemption for low and very-low income housing, and the
degradation to quality of life when defined at "adequate' levels.
John Mandeville, Advanced Planning Manager, stated that although the modification to page 11 was
submitted to HCD on July 7,the low/very-low income exemption was discussed in the draft on page
35 and 38, and had verified that the State was aware that the City was proposing to exempt low and
very-low Income housing units. The basis for performance based numbers were discussed,and cases
in Santa Barbara and Morro Bay. He reviewed three alternatives which included proceeding with the
current draft element,providing a limited response to HCD comments,or including the State numbers,
thereby modifying the growth management policies of the City.
Council discussed implications of the various alternatives.
Mayor Pinard declared the public hearing open.
Carla Sanders. San Luis Obispo, stated that the HCD was requiring a 5%growth rate, based upon the
State's population projections, which were based upon a growth rate determined by the State
Department of Finance in the 1980's, which was 5%. The State Department of Finance's latest
population rates showed the growth rate was currently less than 20/L She requested the Council not
endorse the higher numbers,which would lead to adequate service levels rather than the existing high
service levels and air quality.
Mayor Pinard declared the public hearing closed.
Council discussed strategies and implications.
8:45 P.M. Mayor Pinard declared a recess.
9:05 P.M. Council reconvened; Council Member Romero absent.
After discussion, moved by Roalman/Raopl to direct staff to initiate a response to the State
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to comment on the Housing Element
primarily focused on page 3-15 (total regional housing needs of 5,128); acknowledge the regional
housing numbers allocation as inaccurate and antiquated, cite the May 1993 Department of Finance
numbers as the most accurate;subsequently base a projected need for the City; maintain the current
housing targets in the current Housing Element (1,100 homes); attempt to justify the targets with
constraints and as possible,address the other issues within parameters; motion tied (2-2-1, Council
Member Settle and Mayor Pinard voting no, Council Member Romero absent).
�-9
T
City Council Meeting Page 6
Tuesday, August 3, 1993 - 7:00 P.M.
Moved by Pinard/Settle to receive the projected regional need of 5,128 homes, state they are
Inaccurate and antiquated based upon the reason that our community need is 1,100 (1%)justified by
constraints; address other issues In HCD comments; motion carried (3-1-1, Council Member Rappa
voting no and Council Member Romero absent).
After brief discussion pertaining the State legislation,Council directed staff and Council Subcommittee
Liaisons to aggressively respond to AB51 and AB1499 (general consent).
BUSINESS ITEMS
2. ORCUTT ROAD WIDENING (File No. 537)
Council considered determining setback line and access control on Orcutt Road from Broad Street
to Laurel Lane (continued from 6/15/93 and 7/20/93).
Mike McCluskey. Public Works Director, reviewed the project and previous Council direction.
Council discussed bikeway and landscaping alternatives and costs of the three options outlined in
the staff report: Alternative #3 was projected to cost $600,000, Alternative #4 was projected at
$526,000, and Option #3 was projected at $4509000.
Norman Becko, Shell Beach, asked for a determination of the extension of Sacramento Street.
Steve Barrish. 225 Prado Road,also requested input from Council regarding Sacramento as it related
to internal circulation in the proposed Orcutt II development.
Jeff Jorgensen, City Attorney, stated that item was not agendized and would be considered as part
of the application process for Orcult 11.
Moved by Roaiman/Settle to 1)direct staff to prepare an ordinance establishing setback line for Orcutt
Road based upon Alternative #4; and 2) direct staff to prepare an ordinance establishing access
limited to two points on the south side of Orcutt Road between Broad Street and the.Southem Pacific
Railroad; motion carried (4-0-1, Council Member Romero absent).
Moved by RaDna/Roaiman to direct staff in Incorporate appropriate setback line on property
commonly referred to as the Henderson property for landscaping and access; motion carried (4-0-1,
Council Member Romero absent).
3. PROPOSED CDBG FUNDING ALLOCATIONS (File No. 427)
Council considered candidate projects for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding
under the First Year Plan of the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS).
Moved by Settle/Pinard to continue this item to Tuesday, August 17, 1993 (4-0-1, Council Member
Romero absent).
4. RATIFICATION TO SLOCOG JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT (File No. 1151)
Council considered the Joint Powers Agreement of the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments
(SLOCOG) for the Fiscal Year 1993/94.
7��
��'IIIR �jl 'III ujjjgl!jpi, �uir j�lii lljijll;a
�il�uji V�����IIIIIIIIIi►j!!!I�'���I!I�'ir�dlljji� ��I�I
IYOfSAn W1S OBISP
=— 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
August 27, 1993
Department of Housing and Community Development
Division of Housing Policy Development
1800 Third Street, Room 430
P.O. Box 952053
Sacramento, CA 94252-2053
Attn: Thomas B. Cook, Deputy Director
Subject: Adjustment of Regional Housing Need numbers for the City of San Luis
Obispo.
Dear Mr. Cook:
The City has received HCD comments on its Draft Housing Element, and is revising the
document in a good faith effort to respond. Once the revisions are complete and the City
Council has approved the changes, the draft will be forwarded for your review, and hopefully,
will be found consistent with State Housing law. It should be emphasized here that it is, and
always has been the City's desire to adopt an updated housing element which complies with State
requirements. However as you know, we share the concerns of a growing number of cities and
counties about the determination of regional housing need, and the means by which the State is
enforcing this requirement.
To enable us to meet the intent of State law in the spirit of cooperation and mutual support, the
City of San Luis Obispo respectfully requests that HCD reevaluate the City's regional housing
need .allocation, with consideration given to the factors outlined below. The City readily
acknowledges its responsibility to provide a fair share of the region's housing. At the same time
we must protest a Regional Housing Needs Plan which is based on invalid assumptions and fails
to take into account local public service and environmental constraints.
A previous appeal to the San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council (COG) to adjust the
regional housing need number was denied, based largely on on the COG's concern that the
overall County need allocation was high, and that no other jurisdiction would be able or willing
to accept that portion of the City of San Luis Obispo's need allocation which exceeded the City's
capacity to accomodate within the specified time frame. The City's Regional Housing Need
Allocation (RHNA) was set by the COG at 5,128 dwelling units between January 1991 and July
1997. RHNA requirements were developed in 1991, based on State guidelines and on certain
assumptions about job growth, availability of public services, and on 1980 Census information.
/& The City of San Luis Obispo s committed to include the disabled in all of Its services. programs and activities.
v Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410.
02
0
Regional Housing Needs
Page 2
It has since become clear that those assumptions were not reliable indicators on which to base
housing needs. Specifically:
1. Job Growth: Basing job growth projections on the relatively rapid economic growth during
the mid- to late 1980s, COG estimated that 1,037 would be added annually between January
1991 and July 1997. Instead, San Luis Obispo has experienced a period of record
unemployment, deep staff cuts at some of the City's largest employers (Cal Poly, County of San
Luis Obispo, City of San Luis Obispo), and an overall belt tightening which resulted in a
consecutive six-quarter drop in sales tax revenues in San Luis Obispo.
According to State Employment Development Department figures, the County's employment
outlook continues to show slow growth and relatively high unemployment for this area. City
Staff's most optimistic estimates of local job growth call for an annual average increase of 1 1/2
percent through July 1997 as the economy rebounds, adding at the most about 3,000 new jobs.
Using COG's factor of 1.14 new households per job created, that would mean a housing need
of 3,000 X 1.14 = 3,420 dwellings during this period.
2. Public Services: In 1992, the citizen's of San Luis Obispo voted not to participate in the
State Water Project due primarily to concerns with water delivery cost and reliability. The City
is pursuing other sources of additional water, including increasing the capacity of our largest
reservoir --the Salinas Reservoir; and securing an entitlement from Lake Nacimiento in northern
San Luis Obispo County. Although located in San Luis Obispo, the Nacimiento reservoir and
facilities were developed and are owned by Monterey County.
Due to the extensive legal, engineering and environmental studies required for these large public
works projects, estimates of when these new water sources would come "on line" have had to
be revised several times. Earlier estimates of 1994 for completion of the Salinas Reservoir
Expansion have been pushed back to 1996 at the earliest, and optimistically, the year 2000 for
Nacimiento water. Consequently, the City's ability to accomodate regional housing need is
significantly less than COG estimated. Based on water savings from the City's on-going retrofit
program and the Salinas Reservoir Expansion, the maximum number of new housing units which
the City could serve is about 2,980 new dwellings during the period.
3. Population Trends: In 1990, the State Department of Housing and Community
Development estimated (based on Department of Finance 1986 baseline population projections)
that the SLO County population would grow annually an average of 3.6 percent from January
1, 1990 to July 1, 1997. Recently the State Department of Finance issued new population
projections for California's Counties ("Projected Total Population of California Counties," State
of California Demographic Research, May 1993), projecting an annual average population
increase of 1.9 percent through the 1990s in San Luis Obispo County -- roughly one-half of
previous State growth estimates. The reduced population growth estimates underscore the need
A /�l
4
Regional Housing Needs
Page 3
to reevaluate and update the regional housing need allocations not only for the City, but on a
countywide basis.
In summary, the City of San Luis Obispo supports the State goals to provide affordable housing
for all segments of the population. We plan an agressive program of development incentives
and inclusionary requirements to meet the housing needs of our citizens. Moreover, it is the
City's obligation to meet this need within the overall policy framework of the General Plan,
ensuring that the City's committment to maintaining adequate public services and protecting
environmental quality is not undermined.
City staff would welcome the opportunity to discuss an update to its RHNA, and to determine
a more accurate, realistic approach to allocating a regional housing need that meets the intent
of State law.
Sincerely,
Arnold Jonas, Director
Community Development
tJjh: RHNAI.iet
�/3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS,TRAN: 'ATION AND HOUSING AGENCY PETE WILSON,Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
1300 THIRD STREET,Room 430
P.O BOX 952053
SACRAMENTO,CA 94252.2053
(916)323-3176 FAX (916) 323-6625
September 23 , 1993 JE I
SEP Sys
C[T OFm'neV'S OHPS.
Mr. Arnold Jonas
Community Development Director
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93403
Dear Mr. Jonas:
RE: Request for Modification of Regional Share Allocation
I am writing in response to your letter of August 27, 1993
in which you requested the Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) to re-examine and reduce the City' s regional
housing need allocation.
While we appreciate the concerns you expressed about the ,
regional housing needs process, HCD does not have the statutory
authority to reduce or alter the City' s assigned regional housing
need allocation at this time. Once a regional housing needs plan
has been adopted, neither HCD nor the local Council of
Governments (COG) has the authority to make adjustments to the
overall growth projection for a region or the individual
allocations to Cities within a region. The law does allow
Counties (with COG approval) to reduce their share of the
regional housing need if one or more Cities within the County
agrees to increase their share by an equivalent amount, however,
no other provisions for reductions or transfers are currently
provided by statute (see Section 65584 (c) (5) of the Government
Code) .
Poor economic conditions may slow the projected rate of
regional growth. However, this does not prevent the City from
planning for projected growth levels, even if the actual pace of
development occurs more slowly than anticipated. Water
availability or other infrastructure limitations may also prove
to limit growth. However, the City remains responsible for
providing site opportunities for the needed levels of housing
while seeking to overcome water supply or other infrastructure
problems. Even if these problems cannot be fully solved,
inadequate land use planning should not create an added
constraint to development .
t
Mr. Arnold Jonas
Page 2
We appreciate the- City' s desire to maintain adequate public
service standards and protect environmental quality. However,
only by adequately planning for projected growth can the City
ensure that public services and facilities are maintained at
current service levels and that future growth is accommodated
within areas most suited to urban development.
We remain committed to working with the City to assist you
develop a housing element that complies with State law and that
recognizes and addresses local needs and conditions. . If you have
any questions concerning the above, or would like additional
assistance in the revision of your housing element, please
contact Gary Collord, of our staff, at (916) 327-2644 .
Sincere ,
Thomas B. Cook
Deputy Director
CTCV ,, �san LUIS OBispo
HOUSING
miiilll►IIIIIIII���IIIIIII .��"/�`
ELEMENT
October 1993
gni%•//l%/
COUNCIL
2i/
NEARING �;/
v, j
DRAFT /
e _
n
//
s i/
%i�i
/
Y�/.
/F
v
E�
IN
Zj
0992
-�y
City Council Hearing Draft
October 1993
GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT
This element was adopted on ,
San Luis Obispo City Council Resolution No. (1993 Series).
SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
Peg Pinard, Mayor
Penny Rappa
Bill Roalman
Dave Romero
Allen Settle
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION
(*former commissioner)
Gil Hoffman, Chairman
Brett Cross
T. Keith Gurnee*
Barry Karleskint
Fred Peterson*
Allan Settle*
Dodie Williams
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Arnold Jonas, Director
John Mandeville, Long-Range Planning Manager
Jeff Hook, Project Planner
Judy Lautner, Associate Planner
Whitney McIlvaine, Assistant Planner
Pam Ricci, Associate Planner
Roger Newton, Planning Intern
�IIIIIIiII�lli �ill`�lill�ll Clty Of
San tuts OBISp0
Community Development Department
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
P.O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 - 8100
Revised 9/93
6
San Luis Obispo General Plan
Housing Element
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cha tomer PaEe
■ Foreword
■ Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
I. GOALS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
1.00 Executive summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.10 Summary of housing goals, policies and programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.20 Description of housing goals, policies and programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Summary Matrix: Housing Element Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.30 Housing goals, policies and programs, continued . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
1.40 Public participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
H. BACKGROUNDMOUSING REQUIREMENTS
2.00 Population and Housing Need . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.10 Relationship of the General Plan to Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.20 Housing Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.30 Housing Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Governmental Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Land use policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Lotsize . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Residential growth management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Land use and development standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Site improvement requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Non-conforming uses and structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Length of development review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Development fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Availability of utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Availability of public services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
.Z�i 7
Chapter Page
Non-Governmental Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Economic conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Construction costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Land cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Availability and cost of financing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Design expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Investment expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
2.30 Regional Housing Needs Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
.2.31 Revised Housing Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
2.32 Residential Growth Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
2.33 Quantified Housing Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
2.34 Sites Available for New Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Vacant residential land in the City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Expansion areas outside the City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Redevelopment, infill, intensification and mixed use . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Accessory apartments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Commercial sites suitable for residential uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
City-owned parcels suitable for housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Sites for manufactured housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
2.40 Special Housing Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Disabled persons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Elderly persons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Large households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Farmworkers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Single parent families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Homeless persons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Fraternities and sororities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Shared households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Overpayment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Overcrowding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 71
2.50 Preserving At-Risk Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
2.60 Evaluation of previous housing element policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
2.70 Evaluation of previous housing element programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
v?-Ar
TABLES Page
1. Affordable housing requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2. Housing types within Urban Reserve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3. Comparison of housing tenure, City, County, and State . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4. Projected number of households by income group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5. Comparison of median household income and housing cost . . . . . . . . . 32
6. Allowed residential density by zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
7. Possible new water sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
8. Residential development costs as a percentage of new housing cost . . . . 44
9. Regional housing need as determined by COG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
10. Projected housing construction by income group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
11. Quantified housing objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
12. Projected housing construction by source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
13. State Income Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
14. Residential capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
15. Residential capacity, rezoned sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
16. Residential capacity, residential zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
17: Residential capacity, expansion areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
18. Dwellings added through infill, intensification, and mixed-use . . . . . . . 58
19. Land use statistics by zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
20. Housing cost as a percentage of gross monthly income . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
21. Residential overcrowding in City, County, and State . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
FIGURES
1. Large vacant residential parcels inside 1992 City Limits . . . . . . . . . . . 82
2. Possible commercial sites for residential development . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
3. City-owned sites with residential development potential . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
4. Potential residential areas outside 1992 City Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
APPENDIX
A. Planning, Building and Engineering development fee schedule.
��9
FOREWARD
This revised Draft Housing Element has been prepared to respond to comments from the State
Department of Housing and Community Development Department and to comply with State law.
This is the most current version of the draft housing element, and supercedes the draft housing
elements distributed for public review in April 1992, May 1993, and June 1993. Changes from
the June 1993 draft are in legislative draft. For example, modified or added text is shown in
9W e, and deleted text is indicated by Strikeetft. Highlighted or key text are shown in Italics.
The Housing Element is one of five General Plan Elements being updated. The other elements
are Land Use, Circulation, Open Space, and Noise. The Planning Commission and City Council
will hold public hearings to consider the revised draft and any public comments. Final adoption
of the housing element is targeted for Fall 1993..
For Additional copies of this draft element, contact the Community Development Department,
City of San Luis Obispo, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100, (213) 781-7171.
INTRODUCTION
State law requires each city and county to adopt a general plan to guide;tle;pfiysical:development
of the com,nunity and to guide the conservation and use de�telegtnertt of certain resources The
housing element is one of seven State-mandated sections of the City's general plan, and of the
seven elements, is the most precisely defined by state law. It must be consistent with the other
general plan elements, and must evaluate past housing programs, quantify current housing
conditions and future needs, identify constraints on housing production, and describe policies
and programs to meet housing needs. Significant changes to the Housing Element Law took
effect on January- 1, 1990, expanding the required scope of housing elements. To address these
changes, the following sections were included in this update:
■ Homelessness
■ Preservation of assisted housing
■ Regional housing needs
■ Constraints to housing production
The City has prepared this document to meet State law and to help its citizens secure adequate
housing. Two other general plan sections -- the Land Use Element and Circulation elements --
set the City's official policy for land use and transportation improvements, and also include
information, policies and programs which affect how, when and where the City's housing needs
can be met.
.........................
This Housing Element update has the following basic ob�'eetives pews:
■ Increase public understanding of the City's housing needs and goals, and encourage public
participation in addressing housing problems;
■ Provide a comprehensive document which includes the goals, policies, and programs which
will help guide land use and housin;-related decisions, and help meet the City's housing
needs for the next five-year planning period.
■ Document the effectiveness of City programs in meeting housing needs, and evaluate
opportunities to improve those programs.
■ Evaluate and quantify housing needs, including regional housing needs.
This five-year element will be updated by December 1998. Citizens or the City itself may
propose changes to the element at any time, and the changes can be adopted by the City Council
after holding public hearings. For more up-to-date or more detailed information concerning
population, housing, land use and development review in San Luis Obispo, contact the
Community Development Department at City Hall, 990 Palm Street (P.O. Box 8100), San Luis
Obispo, CA 93403-8100, or phone (805) 781-7171.
J-.21
I. HOUSING GOALS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
1.00 Executive Summary
The State's economic recession is making it more difficult for many households to meet their
housing needs today than it was in the mid-1980s. Consequently, San Luis Obispo's housing
strategy has expanded to meet those needs by:
■ Permit streamlining and exempting new fiousmg;which is affordable to very low and low=
income households from residential growth controls
■ establishing a program that requires the construction of affordable housing or payment
of in-lieu fees as a condition of most new development.
■ accommodating up to about 1,100 new dwellings between September 1993 and September
1998, a net increase of about 200 dwellings per year and about 2,400 persons, an annual
average population growth rate of 1.1 percent;
■ setting up a housing trust fund to provide first-time homebuyer assistance, housing
rehabilitation assistance, and development incentives for affordable housing;
■ waiving or deferring certain fees for affordable housing projects.
■ planning for the annexation of land within San Luis Obispo's urban reserve to
accommodate the needed housing as resources are available to serve new residents; and
This strategy combines requirements and incentives to increase production of both affordable and
market-rate housing in the next five years. For the first time, a portion of new residential
projects must be affordable to very low- and low-income households. Most new commercial
development, since it contributes to housing demand, would be required to include affordable
housing or pay an in-lieu fee toward the development of affordable housing citywide.
Like many small cities with only limited public funds for housing, the City has relied upon the
private sector to meet a portion of its affordable housing needs. Increasingly, local governments
are finding it necessary to assist developers if adequate housing is to be built at prices that
citizens can afford. Across the U.S., it has become apparent that the most effective programs
involve cooperative public/private efforts to produce affordable housing. This requires that the
City take a more active role in planning, funding, and promoting affordable housing than it
traditionally has taken. This Housing Element update is designed to assist the City fulfill a
larger role in promoting affordable housing. In January 1993, San Luis Obispo was designated
as a "Metropolitan Area," and will be eligible for Federal housing block grant funding as an
entitlement City, beginning in 1994. Federal officials estimate that the City will be eligible to
receive about $800,000 annually for affordable housing. programs benefitting very-low, low-,
and moderate-income households.
2
.2 Wor-
1.10 Summary of Housing Goals, Policies and Programs
The City's overriding housing Goal is to provide safe shelter for all residents. In addition, the
City has a number of more specific housing goals:
1. Encourage the production of affordable housing which fits the income profile of the
City's population.
2. Conserve existing housing and cause the least possible displacement of current
occupants.
3. Encourage the development of mixed-income neighborhoods and housing rather than
housing that is segregated by economic status.
4. Provide variety in the location, type, size, tenure, cost, style, and age of dwellings
to accommodate the wide range of households desiring to live within the City.
5. Construct new housing to fulfill the needs of, first, City residents, and second, those
who work in the City and who would like to live where they work.
6. Preserve the quality of existing neighborhoods, and develop new areas in a manner
that creates neighborhoods of high quality.
7. Encourage the creation and maintenance of housing for those with special housing
needs.
8. Produce housing that is economical to occupy because it incorporates energy-saving
and water-saving features.
9. Moderate the growth of external housing demand to maximize housing opportunities
for present City residents and for those who work here.
10. Develop and retain housing on sites that are suitable for the purpose.
: r:a na:..tiv.::e.: se lists the City's housing goals,
policies and1od rThe llowin '"<
::::::::.::
programs, which
together form the City's blueprint for housing policy during the five-year period
covered by this element. Goals, policies, and programs are listed in top-to-bottom order, with
goals at the top and being the most general statements, working down to programs, the most
specific statements of intent. Here is how the three levels of policy dif}er.
■ Goals are desirable conditions which the City will attempt to reach over the long term.
Although it may be impossible to attain all ,;oals during this element's planning period,
thev will nonetheless he the hasis fr)r City actions doting this period.
3
Jz23
■ Policies are statements of Ciry intent. Most policies have a time frame that fits within
this element's planning period. Policies are directives to those involved in the review of
projects to do certain things. Some stand alone as directives, but others require that
additional actions be taken. These additional actions are listed under "programs" below.
■ Programs are actions the City intends to carry out, or which the City is cooperating with
other agencies to carry out. Programs translate goals and policies into action.
4
aF�T
0
u
D
u
e 0
. a d t 7 c c g � e C.° $•� c v E
to C 7
O _'= •� C _� a e v n 'E
C6 •-
G
u V $ m o
0 e4
• u�
cu
e;
9V C.
a V! ` a ` a a a a Q•
V
AL1
'� a m e..•.. [L O V V O U. O
O [i
F-
-da
'�L - •.
2:.e u 3 au u' u o a — as < 3 y0 Ci
a
in 0 Cie
C2 u
LQ Qa e.' 1D....,. U U U U < U � a
Y ;OL.. < U u
•� m �... V K .�. G
mi.� Cu i O.•� N 00 O 7 C G y
! 20 y ay � .� O Y � a G •CL y Y `
ms
O Y 4 6 O C C C O y 0 m ap O
>�1KKu u:::.: ECL mom ' ? > o `m � 'o d Bw E d
1py..V h E •Op• .5 i o Q 3 'y° m oo m °' c e 5
O
o
o
Bq [� CLw V V C
U m 0
g YnME
LU
w < 3
a m C
••��tl77 e m ° E
D = 'C 4 00 2 y - .0 U O O O
0 ba
G� y N.' w c O � O a !ice Y] 0 0 .
u g ..... o `� LL. V
V
a a
N N N
5
9 w
O C •� �
• C 1+ u _
C O
OC $ O O UC V upC u V ' w y C
Y L C q�q j C C G
C CC O O O O
E v $ c m
u ov O2
U > H
Ov
Y
V o
m
e �
' •pp � 000 T ` Com`. Oh`. T P P a
mY C t� m Y ? ? e•'t
O
LL
LL y
N fi. LL LL LL U. LL LL
LL: u. H F 0 V V V V V
it v1 O 2 2
a Elou u'o• a ° VaoVeVaiV OU Cu oa CO G o D Ga O D
V V U CJ w U V V U V U
s N m N 00
•� E
O N 9 O N U ••Jm m V C O O .w. O •�S
O o 7 �{ O � .S � m q _ •.. n
.. O L u p L
p N N Y L ba G 2 N .E a O
N $ L E v� � • C yE d =Qg m o
C Y E o a O O C 'NN m 8 L m E •w n o n O V
-4 cpr � `c E - � � 3 C�9 e a 0 .0 - C �' '- H
> u O •O
o
w = c
m a ° a •m w °
� < a o � •a u '- a -° " ''^ o ' u � ,e
O ` O O YO C m C •n O T N m C
qac ow
_ t � •� a
9 C r g a � 00 0 l3 € > '3 n 8f
o •v
eo m m o _°o e $ u p o Z. >o c0
e
C •u N •N 3 e N O .0 o ._ qq m i h •m
o.: � 'v m E o Z o = S Y e > > E N Y .' u
H a �$
U. Q20 S ` =O � ',', N p° 2U o: � 0 E u u'i
0 0 u
o:
pi N
} — Ci — — N f^•! — —
G. 3 N N N N N N N
z
6
12 d2G
C q
_ C
2 w
Q'i 7
x .
.. a
O G O
7 C3 '� V
p C w e U n
� U e
° c
N H L
E �
EV
o >,
60
c
7 0
cn
a =
U
o
c FLL„ V V V V V V V V c
� r
VV u u u
V V U V V U q E
0
a u. V i i a
ep V G uLil
u d u
1D< V C C C C D G G U a d
c L6
cz
G
r Y s C G Y ` G � •N C O O N ° r y u = N
@ s q S m c y •� Y r u > c u E .c o m y 5@ A
G p 69 m E E 8S q d O y0 r. w t73
w
o _
d >� e u o o Y u e = : r t:; "u w
e 9 0 3 0 o Q� � � y� o c
= o E c y e $ 7 E " S n •� a '^E
s 3 Eeo = ow c =
yt x
e 75
. " � `o $ � � r v o � .E•Y muce
ri a Ll q U.
p U ?Cc, _
8p � C L. U L 7
LL
= u mai O @
h •'E Y � S o � F •'_' .mE o9 '� ;{ roC e v
uj
N Z GC i ce E o = LL
d n �e 10 r m o. o — E .= •�
o =
3
c 0°
cciV :A 7
V v
� A
s 'o Yu m °
a� r `
.� a
Ca O U9 o v a 9 � Qq •� 9 v O V ..
v o o a m o f
E v a w E
= v
U r
..� m m m m
V C C C G C C
ppm
C v O O a A2
a O
w
7 J
e e e e c c
C W e00
r - O
O c O O -9C
< -�
Oy
< C
V. L! a y u. U. u. U. u.
'•C V V V ll. V V y V V C
O
O
_ U ` a
..� • 3u 3u 3U
2 c p- u au au o- U
Y d u 3u
'. g6 Cd CL
Oa Gi OAU. U6 O U Q p V U u.
C C w O C O
e E C3
s 16 v m m
Jr a w v V ggg V Y H
9 C v u a ;° •E S a � � � n � � a � Y c m
m $ q
.v v e o ° E Y N c u U w
9 Y m w O C •N i E E U
So
w E
. a _ wo r. .5 eeao 3 E
N y G .5 MU
y yy rO, V O
V oC 0 O: C w V o U.
U � _
'2qS 'ipS � u
°•� o -E .5 'Et �
Ui
.m a .m a .m H .m
�r 0' E a
° V yJ
IA L 7.. z Z Z.
6
N M N MN N ao m N j L7 h
Z — n O a O
vii n c
v
lg
A 9Q
O 9
OG, �
= m
aYc_ � 8 Wo 8 � � � E 0
F Y r A ° y 7 N 7 Yp V p 9 r V
wC4 O O u ao UH
u = — m — m V
O a u u •� E
E o
U
° y
mm u e
U
a
C �
m m
as m a n h
7 �
U .
a J
Q' h
a
C M q
W w .
7'
❑ a !L
T
y a. g, a. au. U U U U U V
_o .r u U U U U U u u > U N
ym GU c; DU a: ❑ a _ rL
. � t ❑ u ❑ u C 6 D U a
3
9 Y d 6'C m ,a (.) 1u w
Lu
°5 0. c o e S�° '5 c 9 c e C O e
t B •r �, Y u C 7 y u O O 1: w n G up E u N N N
a U
S O
S _' c •° ye c mu mm qS E ° i u',.
O Y Y E ° t
_q •� V F'
u m 7 a O O m
a0 d
VO Cog
6 ° E
LL. do 6 a a ❑ — u.
U °
.'. >. c a
e a o0 _ t
m E _ `n Z u S 8 u y Z_ <_ E r E E < d u.
h W h2 ren VE yN. iuUw o ty of od ys 3: ea9 V
N 1 U N N
E e 3 u.
r U
E� est u'1 b 1� 00 o a 'C O
E a
N N N N C°I N N N L V A VI
v n Y C
Y � �
9
.T. A
u •E
� 3
.. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Iz
=U
e Yr d c' o
UU
V7
.e a •yp 'o U e
v
E
U V U U U U U •� E
•� o
cU
V
6: o
pOp ppp L K m m OQ
E
O O a
60
_ J
is C
C, Ch
E U
< J
Ov7
Q cc
u 3
N �
_ N n
y..:. U U V V U Y d
V U V U V U o n c
u U ( a j U U o: U U U
y C U G V va 6uc
m D
n a ] °o U o
Ainv u °c° a o u L.
a . v,
pp 3 'E e
00
� •C 7 O � O 3 v q C •e gC L U L
4 C . C 6 dd00 m O Cp Y C .0 m Y m•9 L 1 .2 Vl
Ic
� • �' E -E' a .. �. c Q 3 "' � o g. e t w e � s E 9 E y
u '� e 0 �c N Y3 € n p s c
m 0 W �R 6 O •� O ._ U. U C
m E c
: ` o..
•�
=r O L .9 C O m LCC O •9 = t ` d U N
y .. 9 S •� � Y �•3 .!2s p y 3 C O t m L
w
y v > y 3 c o u . LE
.0 N w
z
3u O O m •p p F-
wa g9 m 7 V 2 0 @ v� V e E U m
'S m S Ca @ V d y �! � y p (C •,n •v! 'J_ '3 G
U
u EE 3ocd
vl. U u � Ly a � 20 ap, tu0
6. 2 V '
-
q�p E N n n C5
662 y
L y
10
2
u E
a 2
O N G
3'Me n y O L
. C L C6
d °J ii-2 o rU
U
a =o_ o Y u yr
E 0w U °
a a =
E
N. N Y
C p
C (7
O T
d U C
d C O
C6: a a e Upp
CJ �
a �
N
C �
O �
R
7 �
a H
0 ..
a =
U :
CIO., H r
_' I& Y N
J _ n
Lk.
a LE
� T
m
`o E
U a 3a
Cd
< G O U
U U i v
3 -
a E �
9 o
LL �
Cd
YY O d i t u1
o e e a LL o N
U. U o y
p`
•6. o ` Y u ,�'L
;.r V
S ti O9 dLL E U N
79
N N p N 'NE r
T U
dei �.'.
� n y
> c a 9 V
m E c u.
v
e
;& 3 n n LU h
S Z j C 6 C
y A _
11
1.20 Description of San Luis Obispo's Housing Goals, Policies and Programs
Goal 1.21: Safety. Provide safe shelter for all residents.
Policies
1.21.1 Assist those citizens unable to obtain safe shelter on their own.
1.21.2 Maintain a level of housing code enforcement sufficient to abate unsafe conditions and
maintain safe housing.
1.21.3 Su rt andf)tuat `uIcaiout fair housinglaws and programs which allow equal
housing access for all City residents.
Program
1.21.4 As staffing and funding levels allow, code enforcement will be expanded from dealing
with emergencies to resolving chronic building safety problems and to prevent demolition
through neglect.
Goal 1.22: Affordability. Encourage housing production whose affordability fits the
income profile of the City's present population.
Definition: What is "affordable housing?" For Purposes of this Housing Element,
affordable housing is housing that is affordable both initially and in the long term to a
household with a particular income level. Income levels are defined as follows:
Very low. 50% or less of median household income.
Low: 51% to 80% of median household income.
Moderate: 81% to 120% of median household income.
Above moderate: 121% or more of median household income.
The index of affordability shall be whether the monthly cost
of housing fits within the following limits:
■ For very low and low income households, not more than 25% of monthly income.
■ For moderate income households, not more than 30% of monthly income.
■ For above moderate income households, no index.
These indices may be modified or expanded if the State of California modifies or expands its
definition of affordability for these income groups.
For a project to qualms as "affordable housing" under the provisions of this Element,
12
guarantees must be presented that the housing units will remain affordable for as long a
period as is legally permissible, but in no case fi)r less than 50 years. For affordable
housing projects that use any municipally-granted financial benefit or special privilege (i.e.,
subsidies, below market interest mortgage bonds, reduced-cost land,fee waivers, development
standard waivers, density bonuses; or other measures with financial benefit to the project's
developer not available to all other housing developers), the affordability guarantees must
be structured to keep the units permanently affordable at below market rental or purchase
cost.
Policies
1.22.1 The City will adopt measures to encourage creating housing that's affordable to all
its citizens, and to prevent loss of existing affordable housing.
1.22.2 Preserve and expand the City's supply of affordable rental housing.
1.22.3 Housing production City-wide should provide housing affordable to all financial
strata of the City's population in the same proportion as those strata are found in the
City's population. For the planning period of the Element, the proportions shall be
those of the 1990 census: very low income, 31%; low-income, 18%; moderate
income, 17%; above moderate income, 34%.
1.22.4 Housing projects of 50 or more units, whether built at one time or phased according
to a master plan, shall accommodate at least the City-wide percentages of low and
moderate income units, and one-half the City-wide percentage of very low income
units; however, projects that are exclusively for population groups with special
housing needs (See Goal 1.28: Special Housing Needs), or provide all their units at
levels affordable to moderate or lower income households, are exempt from this
requirement.
1.22.5 In major annexation areas, where the bulk of new housing production will take place,
housing production must include provisions to accommodate the City-wide .
percentages of very low, low, and moderate income units, except that up to one-half
the required number of very low income units may be transferred into low and
moderate income categories.
1.22.6 In major annexation areas, a right of first refusal shall be extended to the City or its
Housing Authority to purchase, at market value, land adequate to construct at least
five percent of the number of dwellings allowed within the major annexation area,
prior to development.
1.22.7 The City should take steps that encourage households or living groups of modest
13
�_a 2
means to create their own living environments in an affordable manner.
1.22.8 The City shall discourage the 'replacem66t of existing lower cost housing by new
higher cost housing, unless, (1) the lower cost units at risk can either be conserved,
or (2) an equivalent number of new units comparable in affordability and amenities
to those being replaced are created as part of the new project.
1.22.9 The.City shall discourage conversion of affordable rental housing to condominiums
or to other forms of tenure and occupancy.
1.22.10 The City shall avoid governmental actions which remove affordable housing units.
Programs
1.22.11 The City will amend its regulations to require that new development projects include
affordable housing units, with guarantees that they remain permanently affordable,
or pay an in-lieu fee to assist in the development of affordable housing Citywide, as
described in Table 1, below:
Table 1
Affordable Housing Requirements
..Method`of meeting Residential Project
affordable housing Non-residential.Project
requirement'`: I-ess than 50, 50dwelling
dweft. P119 units;: units or more
Build 5% low Build ADUs in
No of new: or moderate project at same
affordable cost ADUsZ, relative Build 1 ADU per acre, but not
Dwelling Units ;:::. but not less percentages as less than 1 ADU per project.
X.
{ADUs) than 1 ADU exist Citywide.
'ect.
Per P roj
In41eu fees:: Pay in-lieu housing fee equal to Pay housing in-lieu fee equal
5% of building value.' to 5% of building value.
14
Notes:
`Developer may choose to develop affordable housing in the required amounts, or to pay
an in-lieu housing fee based on the above formula.
'Affordable Dwelling Units must meet City affordability criteria listed in Goal 1.22.
3"Building Value" shall mean the total value of all construction work for which a permit
would be issued, as determined by the Chief Building Official using the
Uniform Building Code.
1.22.12 The City will establish a housing trust fund to be used to develop affordable housing
units and acquire land for affordable housing projects. To qualify for such public
assistance, housing must include guarantees that it will remain affordable as long as
legally permissible. Affordable housing in-lieu fees will be placed in this fund.
1.22.13 The City will periodically review its building and planning regulations to see if there
are changes that could assist the production of affordable housing while not
conflicting with other General Plan policies. Such periodic review will aim to
remove regulations that are no longer needed.
1.22.14 The City will adopt procedures to speed the processing of applications and
construction permits for affordable housing projects that do not involve significant
planning issues or entitlements such as rezoning. City staff and commissions should
be directed to give such projects priority in allocating work assignments, scheduling,
conferences and hearings, and in preparing and issuing reports.
1.22.15 The City will review its building and planning regulations to find ways to allow
construction by owner-builders of personalized, unconventional housing types that
reduce cost and/or energy and materials consumption, provided that residential
quality and safety can be maintained.
1.22.16 The City will amend its regulations to exempt certain affordable housing projects
from payment of development review, construction permit, sewer and water hookup
fees. Affordable housing units which are to be administered through the City's
Housing Authority, not-for-profit housing organizations, the County of San Luis
Obispo or other government agencies, and which guarantee permanent affordability
for low-and moderate income households, should be eligible to seek exemption from
such fees.
1.22.17 The City will revise its condominium conversion regulations to discourage or prevent
the conversion of affordable rental units to condominiums unless permanent
affordability guarantees are incorporated into the conversion, such as deed
restrictions.
15
A 9/
6
1.22.18 The City will help coordinate public 'sector and private sector actions to encourage
the development of housing affordable to low and moderate income households.
1.22.19 The City will enable issuance of mortgage revenue bonds for (1) below market
financing for assisted rental units and (2) subsidized mortgages for low-income and
middle-income, first-time home buyers.
1.22.20 The City will avoid permit approvals, municipal actions or public projects which
remove or adversely affect existing affordable housing. The City will develop
affordable housing conservation standards that should include the following
provisions to come into effect if affordable housing is removed: (1) When the City
finds affordable unit removal is necessary for public health and welfare, or in
connection with a municipal project, it shall assist displaced residents with relocation
costs and provide affordable replacement housing. (2) When the City permits private
development projects that displace affordable housing, it will require the developer
to assist displaced residents with relocation costs and provide affordable replacement
housing.
Goal 1.23: Housina Conservation. Conserve existing housing supply and prevent
displacement of current occupants.
Policies
1.23.1 The City shall discourage the demolition of sound or rehabilitable existing housing.
1.23.2 The City shall discourage the conversion or elimination of existing housing in office,
commercial and industrial areas.
1.23.3 Since older dwellings can often be relocated and refurbished for considerably less
cost than a comparable new dwelling can be constructed, and since older dwellings
may offer spatial and material amenities unavailable in new dwellings, the City, in
the interest of both economy and housing variety, will encourage recycling such
dwellings rather than their demolition.
1.23.4 The City shall encourage seismic upgrades of older dwellings to reduce the risk of
bodily harm and the loss of housing in an earthquake.
1.23.5 The City shall encourage the preservation, rehabilitation and expansion of residential
hotels and other types of single-room occupancy dwellings.
1.23.6 The City shall preserve landmark and historic residential buildings.
(See also Goal 1.31: Suitability]
16
1.23.15 To encourage the preservation and rehabilitation of older housing, the City will
consider amending existing regulations that make housing a non-conforming use in
certain zones.
1.23.16 Evaluate, and where necessary, revise building, zoning and fire code requirements
which discourage housing and encourage conversion to other uses.
Goal 1.24: Mixed-Income Housing. Encourage the development of mixed-income
neighborhoods and housing rather than housing that is segregated by economic status.
Policies
1.24.1 Within newly developed neighborhoods, housing affordable to various economic
strata should be intermixed rather than segregated into separate enclaves.
1.24.2 Within apartment or condominium projects incorporating both market-rate and
affordable units, the types of units should be intermixed and the affordable units
should not stand out as being special or inferior.
1.24.3 For subsidized very low income housing projects, such as those developed by the
City Housing Authority or non-profit groups, projects should be scattered throughout
the City rather than concentrated in one district. In general, 20 units should be the
maximum number of subsidized very low income units developed on any one site.
Program
1.24.4 Review City regulations and revise as needed to implement the mixed-income policies.
Goal 1.25: Mixed Housing Variety and Tenure. Provide variety in the location,
type, size, tenure, cost, style and age of dwellings to accommodate the wide range of
households desiring to live within the City.
Policies
1.25.1 The City will encourage the integration of appropriately-scaled special user housing
into developments or neighborhoods of conventional housing.
1.25.2 Where housing can be compatible with offices or other businesses, mixed-use
projects should be encouraged.
1.25.3 To provide housing opportunities close to activity centers and to make better,use of
its land, the City will encourage infill housing above lower level retail uses in
18
' . . .I .. 1 ITS
��eQ►s'� /nsei , MER-:.�� AGENDA
DATE! ITEM#
Programs _ ... .
1.23.7 Using State and Federal funds, such as Community Development Block Grants, the
City will establish a housing rehabilitation program offering low-cost loans or other
rehabilitation assistance to those who cannot afford or obtain conventional financing.
Many of the City's older housing units in the R-1 and R-2 zones provide housing for
those on fixed-incomes, and provide rental housing for those who cannot afford to
purchase a house. By providing a limited number of low interest loans according to
need and affordability criteria, the City will help preserve safe, adequate housing for
these citizens.
1.23.8 To maintain housing in residential/office portions of downtown,' the City will
consider adopting a "no loss of housing" policy, requiring that housing units either
be maintained, or, in the case of office conversion of existing housing, be replaced
on site or nearby. '[Definition: As in the Land Use Element, "downtown" in this
Element means the area bounded by Highway 101, the railroad, and High Street]
1.23.9 Revise office zoning regulations in the "downtown ring" office district to provide
more support for maintenance of residential uses. Consider rezoning predominantly
residential portions of the office zone to residential use, and mixed office/residential
portions to a mixed-use designation that permits offices but discourages further
residential displacement.
1.23.10 The City will adopt a "no net loss" policy for existing housing units in the Central
Business District by revising the downtown housing conversion permit process.
1.23.11 The City will remove regulatory obstacles to the relocation and rehabilitation of
dwellings that would otherwise be demolished because of redevelopment of their
sites.
1.23.12 In the past, subdivision CC&Rs and seller restrictions have blocked the relocation
and rehabilitation of dwellings by denying access to new sites. The City will adopt
regulations to prohibit such discrimination against relocated dwellings.
1.23.13 The City will create an educational campaign for owners of older residences
informing them of ways to reduce the seismic hazards commonly found in such
structures, and encouraging them to undertake seismic upgrades.
1.23.14 To assist lower income households undertake seismic upgrades to protect their
dwellings from loss in an earthquake, the City will create a financial assistance
program.
17
c7i-324
neighborhood shopping districts and in the downtown core.
1.25.4 Large housing developments should provide a variety of dwelling types, sizes and
forms of tenure.
1.25.5 In City expansion areas, specific plans shall incorporate opportunities for individuals
or small groups, other than the specific plan developer, to build homes or create
personalized living environments suited to individuals, families, small groups or to
accommodate those with special needs.
[See also Goals 1.23: Housing Conservation and 1.26: Housing Production].
Program
1.25.6 Review City regulations and revise as needed to implement mixed-variety and tenure
policies.
Goal 1.26: Housing Production. Construct new housing to fulfill the needs of, first,
City residents, and second, those who work in the City and who would like to live there.
Policies
1.26.1 Consistent with the growth management portion of its Land Use Element and the
availability of adequate resources, the City will plan toaCCprtzrpndate a4d up to 1,091
.. .... ... ..:,..:.;:
asdtona? dwelling units le ►g-sadly between 1993 and 1998, and to amend
thi'Res dential Growth Management Regulations to exempt the production of new
dwellings affordable to very-low and low income households.
1.26.2 To add to the City's residential land base, the City will encourage the production of
infill housing above compatible street-level commercial uses in various commercial
zones.
1.26.3 New downtown commercial projects should include housing.
1.26.4 Encourage new and creative uses of existing structures for residential purposes.
1.26.5 If City service capacity must be rationed to new development, residential projects
will be given priority over nonresidential projects.
1.26.6 The costs to the City of housing development will be minimized and equitably
distributed. The City will not make new housing more affordable by shifting costs
to existing housing. [See also Goal 1.22: Affordability)
19
A _1�
Programs
1.26.7 The City will amend its regulations to encourage mixed residential and commercial
uses on commercial properties, subject to use permit review by the Planning
Commission.
1.26.8 The City will consider applying the mixed-use zone Citywide to the C-N
(Neighborhood Commercial) Zone to require residential development above street
level as new neighborhood commercial facilities are developed. Allowed uses in the
zone should be reviewed to preclude commercial uses incompatible with housing.
1.26.9 The City will amend its regulations to require that at least one floor of new multi-
story commercial buildings in the downtown core shall be for residential use.
Parking regulations may be modified, if necessary to make this use feasible. The
housing use should require no separate level of review beyond that required for the
project of which it is a part.
1.26.10 For major residential expansion areas, the City will adopt specific plans. These
plans will include sites suitable for subsidized rental housing and affordable rental
and owner-occupied housing. Such sites shall be integrated within neighborhoods
of market rate housing and shall be architecturally compatible with the neighborhood.
The specific plans will designate sufficient areas at appropriate densities to
accommodate the types of dwellings which would be affordable, in the proportions
called for by the affordable housing policies of this Element. Also, the specific plans
will include programs to assure that the affordable dwellings will actually be
produced. As the capacities. of City services become sufficient to support
development of one or more of the major residential expansion areas named in the
Land Use Element, the expansion area proposing the highest proportion of dwellings
affordable to low-income households, together with the best public amenity package,
will be considered first for actual development.
1.26.11 The Edna-Islay Specific Plan guides development of 446 acres in the southern
portion or the City. Adopted in 1983, the plan includes only low-and medium -
density housing. About two-thirds of the area has been developed. By amending the
specific plan to include a mix of residential zoning that approximates the mix of
residential densities citywide, additional housing units are possible in the Edna-Islay
specific planning area. The City should initiate amendments to designate a portion
of the specific planning area for medium-high density housing.
1.26.12 The City will adopt and adhere to policies to provide that if public services,
including water and sewage capacity, must be rationed to new development,
residential projects will be given priority over nonresidential projects, and affordable
20
A-�Q
projects will be given priority over market-rate projects.
Goal 1.27: Neighborhood Quality. Preserve the quality of existing
neighborhoods and areas in a manner that creates neighborhoods of high quality.
Policies
1.27.1 Within established neighborhoods, new residential development must be of a
character, size, density, and stability that preserves the City's neighborhoods and
maintains the quality of life for existing and future residents.
1.27.2 Within established neighborhoods, infill housing should be located on appropriate
sites, but not on sites designated for parks, open space, or similar uses of
neighborhood importance.
1.27.3 Within City expansion areas, new residential development should be planned so that
it either becomes an integral part of an existing neighborhood, or else establishes a
new neighborhood.
1.27.4 The creation of walled-off residential enclaves, or of separate, unconnected tracts,
is prohibited since physical separations prevent formation of functioning
neighborhoods.
1.27.5 Housing shall be designed to enhance safety along neighborhood streets and in other
public areas.
1.27.6 Encourage residents to play a larger role in supporting and improving neighborhoods
and in addressing housing issues.
Programs
1.27.7 The City will establish procedures to encourage neighborhood involvement in the
planning and development review processes.
1.27.8 Where necessary, the City will identify specific neighborhood needs, problems,
trends, and opportunities for improvement. City departments will designate staff to
work directly with neighborhood groups and individuals.
1.27.9 The City will help fund neighborhood improvements.
1.27.10 Revise planning standards to require that all housing in new neighborhoods and infill
projects in existing neighborhoods provide visibility of streets and public areas.
21
A_ttw
1.27.11 Review City regulations and revise as needed to implement neighborhood quality
policies.
Goal 1.28: Special Housing Needs. Encourage the creation and maintenance of housing
for those with special housing needs.
Policies
1.28.1 Provide housing that meets the special needs of families with children, single
parents, disabled persons, the infirm of body or mind, those desiring congregate or
co-housing lifestyles, the elderly, students, and the homeless.
1.28.2 Support maintenance of existing mobile home parks and support changes in form of
tenure only if they provide mobile home residents with greater long-term security.
Seek sites in City expansion areas for new mobile home parks.
1.28.3 Encourage development and strengthening of housing programs for Cal Poly and
Cuesta students and faculty to lessen pressure on City housing supply and
transportation systems, consistent with the Cal Poly Student Housing Needs Study
recommendations.
1.28.4 Fraternities and sororities should be located on the Cal Poly campus. Until that is
possible, they should be concentrated in high-density residential zones adjacent to the
campus rather than dispersed throughout the City.
1.28.5 Special needs living facilities should be scattered throughout the City rather than
concentrated in one district.
Programs
1.28.6 The City will support local and regional solutions to meeting needs of homeless
persons, and will continue to support, jointly with other agencies, shelters for the
homeless and for displaced women and children.
1.28.7 The City will continue its mobile home rent control program to moderate mobile
home rent increases.
1.28.8 The City will identify sites in expansion areas' specific plans for tenant-owned
mobile-home parks, cooperative housing, manufactured housing or other types of
housing that meet special needs.
1.28.9 Advocate development of non-dormitory housing on campus and refurbishing existing
22
campus housing and its associated programs to make campus living more attractive.
1.28.10 Work with Cal Poly towards designation of on-campus fraternity/sorority living
groups. In the shorter run, City policy on in-City locations suitable for fraternities
and sororities needs refining. Zoning regulations will be revised to restrict the
locations of new fraternities and sororities to high density residential zones adjacent
to campus, and to discourage their expansion in other neighborhoods.
1.28.11 The City will jointly develop and adopt a student housing plan and "good neighbor
program" with Cal Poly. Purposes of the program are to improve communication
and cooperation between the City and Cal Poly, set student housing objectives, and
to establish clear, effective standards for student housing in residential
neighborhoods.
Goal 1.29: Energy and Water Conservation. Produce housing that is economical
to occupy because it incorporates energy-saving and water-saving features.
Policies
1.29.1 In order to promote energy conservation and a clean environment, the City will
encourage development of dwellings with energy efficient design, utilizing passive
and active solar features, and employing energy saving techniques that exceed the
minimums prescribed by Title 24 compliance.
1.29.2 In order to lessen the need for capital intensive water source development, which
will-considerably raise the cost of occupying housing within the City, the City will
vigorously promote conservation as an alternative.
Programs
1.29.3 Educate planning and building staff and citizen review bodies in energy conservation
issues, including, the City's Energy Conservation Element, and direct that they work
with applicants to achieve the City's energy conserving housing goal.
1.29.4 Expand the current solar hot water requirements to cover new apartments and houses
as well as condominiums.
1.29.5 Assemble a blue ribbon committee of energy experts to advise the City on cost-
effective approaches to increasing residential energy conservation for both new and
existing housing units. Disseminate this information to the public, and incorporate
its key features into City energy conservation policy.
23
1.29.6 Evaluate present solar siting and access regulations to ascertain if they provide
assurance of long-term solar access, and revise if they are found inadequate.
1.29.7 Continue, and expand, the City's subsidized plumbing retrofit program until all
existing dwellings have been retrofitted.
1.29.8 Make plumbing retrofits available free of charge to owner-occupied, low income
households.
1.29.9 Make water conserving landscape education and retrofit a priority coequal with
plumbing retrofits.
1.30 Housing Goals, Policies and Programs, continued.
Goal 1.30: Demand Management. Moderate the growth of external housing demand
to maximize housing opportunities for present City residents, and for those who work here.
Policies
1.30.1 The City will discourage activities which aggravate the imbalance between residential
and employment opportunities among the communities in the housing market area.
1.30.2 The City will minimize expansion of housing demand caused by commercial and
industrial development.
1.30.3 The City will seek to minimize expansion of housing demand and escalation of
housing costs due to persons being enticed to move from other areas.
1.30.4 The City will seek to minimize growth of housing demand from campus expansion,
and from other governmental institution expansion.
Programs
1.30.5 The City will require and consider an assessment of proposals to designate additional
City land for commercial or industrial use, to identify impacts on housing demand,
cost and supply.
1.30.6 Work with the County to discourage significant expansion of employment in the
unincorporated airport area south of the City, pending annexation to the City.
1.30.7 Request developers of housing projects to promote their projects only within the
housing market area (San Luis Obispo County).
24
a I/ 2
1.30.8 Make City promotional practices, economic development efforts, and other City
actions consistent with the policy of not enticing persons from elsewhere to move
here.
1.30.9 Advocate the establishment of a linkage between enrollment growth and the
expansion of campus housing programs at Cal-Poly and Cuesta College to reduce
pressure on the City's housing supply.
1.30.10 Advocate no further expansion of State institutions such as the California Men's
Colony unless the State makes adequate provisions for providing additional housing
for new employees.
1.30.11 The City will consider amending its growth management regulations to address non-
residential growth as a method for moderating the long-term demand for housing.
Goal 1.31: Suitability. Develop and retain housing on sites that are suitable for the
purpose.
Policies
1.31.1 Where property is equally suited for commercial or residential uses, the City will
give preference to residential use. Changes in land use designation from residential
to non-residential will be discouraged.
1.31.2 The City should not permit development of housing on a site if development conflicts
with other goals or policies of this Element, other General Plan Elements, or other
community goals.
1.31.3 The City should prevent new housing development on sites that should be preserved
for open space or parks, and on sites subject to natural hazards or unacceptable
manmade hazards.
1.31.4 The City should discourage redevelopment of sites where sound or rehabilitable
existing housing is well suited to the needs of low income households, or to
households with special needs, such as families with children, the elderly, or the
handicapped, unless an equivalent number of new units comparable in affordability
and amenities to those being removed are created as part of the new project.
Programs
1.31.5 The City will review its land use designations on vacant land and reclassify any sites
25
that should be set aside for open space or parks.
1.31.6 The City will adopt regulations to prevent new housing development on sites that
should be preserved as open space, and on sites subject to natural hazards like
geological or flood hazards, or wild fire hazards. The City should also adopt
regulations to prevent new housing development on sites subject to unacceptable
levels of manmade hazards or nuisances, including severe soil contamination, airport
noise or hazard, traffic noise or hazard, odors, or incompatible neighboring uses.
1.40 Public Participation
Adoption of this element involved extensive public review. It was prepared by City planning
staff with the guidance of the City's seven-member Planning Commission, the lead City
commission on land use and planning, and the City Council. The Planning Commission and the
City Council held public hearings between December 1991 and September 1993 to receive public
comment on the draft housing element. Community groups with interests or expertise in
housing, such as neighborhood groups, students, housing agencies, developers, architects, and
lenders reviewed the housing element update and suggested policies and programs.
In May 1993, the City Council conducted two public hearings on the draft housing element and
directed staff to revise the document and to forward the Housing Element to the State
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review. Once HCD's
comments are received, the Planning Commission and City Council will hold at least four
additional public hearings on the revised document prior to its anticipated adoption in September
1993.
26
II. BACKGROUND DATA/HOUSING LAW REQUIREiMENTS
2.00 Population and Housing Need
The City's estimated population is 42,480 (California Department of Finance, January 1992).
Between 1980 and 1990 the City grew by 7,706 persons, an increase of 22 percent. The City's
average annual population growth during this period was 2.2 percent -- slightly less than the
statewide average of 2.53 percent, and much less than the County's average annual growth rate
of 3.97 percent. Analysis of 1980 Census data and State Department of Finance population
estimates indicates that population growth in the City has been primarily due to net migration
to the housing market area -- mainly from Southern California. City residents comprise about
20 percent of the County's total population. Based on the General Plan, the City's population
is expected to increase at about one percent annual until it reaches its buildout population of
54,900 persons in 2017. After that, annual population growth is expected to slow to one-half
percent or less.
During the 1980s, the City's annual population growth rate averaged a little over two percent,
while the job growth rate was about three percent. In 1991, the City population was stable or
declined slightly. During 1980s, the County's population grew at about 3.5 percent annually,
while the job growth rate averaged about 3.8 percent. In 1991, the overall County population
increased about 2 percent.
Recent San Luis Obispo Council of Governments projections show the County's population as
a whole growing at. a little more than one percent annually between 1990 and 2020. State
officials predict that the State's population growth rate will average about 1.4 percent annually
from 1990 to 2020, while Federal officials have projected a growth rate of about 0.7 percent
................. .......................... .......... ................. ..................................................................... ..
nationwide during the same period. Tie Ctty'S. goal ls' to accommodate a growth rate slightly
higher than 1 percent, rcinststent with State projecilons
Housing demand is primarily affected by household formation and net migration to the housing
market area, which in turn are influenced by employment and enrollment changes. Based on
Land Use Element policies regarding economic and institutional growth, the City anticipates art.
arival housing growth rate which averages aliout 1 percent during the period covered by this
Element -- from September 1993 to September 1998.
2:10 Relationship:of.the General Plan #o a3ousuie
...............
_............................._ .._ ..
Tfie City's General Plan provides for a ope percent annual growth rate'from 1990 through 2023;
when the;.City rs expected to reach a'Suiidout 'populati.on of 58,200 persons `' The Residential
Growth Ivlanagment Regulahons ►mss.plement the;CJt tong,range goal to matr am a'steady and
environmentally sustama6le residential,growth .rate The regulations allow :;construction ,rate'
averaging; about ;.;180 dwelling <umts `per year for moderate- and iabove moderate income
....:.....................................................:..:::............................................. . ..... ....................:.. .... . . . ....... ....................... ...................................................
27
and-l'ow income households, projects consisting of one or:two dwellings,'group quarters for five
t�i'fewer peisons, replacement housing,remodef: or additions,:hotels and motels, Ana proJec.S
which. inchide their own growth managment provtstonsunder a specifc plan;or planned unit
;.
Mmeet;
:..,.:-P
.....................................................P................................................................. ................ .............. ........................................ ................... ..... .......... ... ...
t+,llgvvtng fog abort'::180 Units per year, plus i3ti dwelling:units of replacement dousing;;(source;:
R.gitlnai HousingNeed Allocation:Plan, S;an Luis'Obispo Area Coordinating Council: 1:991} for
natket.removals.(demolthon, rel ocatUort, f rej, plus at least 20;qua];fy ng i.
affordable dwelling
;..: ..
units:ani;ualLy, a fatal of about I,t85 new..............'....d.......
dwellings would be he accommodated during the C
V2, PP and covered by theReg1onal Noustng Needs ]?:lan, or an annual average of.182 units:
This wqulcl add about 2,540 persons, representing an annual average population growrate of
Un ar.,l percent {(eM:acement housing not counted toward population increase)
This a ath a b
b a +
b 37 The a
b b
rzewth
bfewth b
2.20 Housing Characteristics
Amount and Rate of Growth
The 1990 Census counted 17,877 housing units in the City, with a vacancy rate of 5.5 percent.
The stock of housing in the City grew by 3,500 units between 1980 and 1990, an average annual
increase of 350 dwellings, or 2.42 percent. The population growth was slightly lower (2.25
percent), but the number of persons per occupied unit remained unchanged because of an
increase in the percentage of vacant units. Housing distribution data for 1992, the most recent
year data are available, are shown in Table 2.
During the last decade, an average of 370 new dwellings have been built each year and about
20 have been lost each year due to fire, demolition, or conversion to another use. The annual
rate of building has generally followed cycles in the national economy. Slightly more than one-
half of all new dwellings have been in multi-family projects (apartments and condominiums).
28
Table 2
Housing Types Within The
Urban Reserve, 1992
Housing Type Total Units # Units # Units Percent
Occupied Vacant Vacant
Single-Family 8,992 8,562 430 4.83
Multi-Family' 10,158 9,592 566 5.63 .
TOTAL 1991502 189154 996 5.24
'Includes mobile homes and some condominiums which are considered to be single-family
dwellings by the Department of Finance.
Includes 983 dwelling units (including an equivalency for group housing) outside the City
limit but within the urban reserve line.
3U.S. Census, 1990.
°Average vacancy, California Department of Finance, 1992.
In 1986, for example, permits were issued for 432 dwelling units, with a building valuation of
over $56 million. During that time, fewer development restrictions and lower land and
construction costs favored higher construction rates. The effects of the drought and the City
exceeding its safe water yield had not yet been felt, so water was not a limiting factor. The
City's growth management regulations were modified and temporarily suspended to
accommodate the building surge. Financing was readily available, and the national economy had
not yet shown the effects of recession.
Housing Types and Tenure
San Luis Obispo's existing housing stock includes a wide range of dwellings from "Victorian"
style single-family houses near downtown to large, high-density apartment complexes. Most of
the City's neighborhoods contain a variety of single-family and multi-family housing. Over one-
half (53 percent) of the City's households rent. This figure does not include mobile home
owners who rent their spaces. This is significantly higher than County and State averages. The
percentage of City renter households has increased since 1980, while the State percentage
decreased. Also, the percentage of detached units occupied by renters is higher in the City than
in the State (32 percent versus 20 percent), and is higher than it was in the City in 1980 (27
percent). Table 3 compares housing tenure among the City, County, and State of California.
29
a-�Tu
Table 3
Comparison of Housing Tenure, City and County of
San Luis Obispo, and State of California, 1990.
Renter-Occupied Units Owner-Occupied Units
Jurisdiction Total Units
# of Units I % of Total # of Units I % of Total
City of SLO 91481 53 8,396 47 17,877
County of SLO 32,246 36 57,594 64 90,200
California 4,606,307 41 6,576,575 59 11,1822,882
Household Income
San Luis Obispo households tend to have lower incomes and pay a larger portion of their income
for mortgage or rent costs than county residents as a whole. Moreover, median household
incomes in the City have declined since 1979, relative to median household incomes in the
County. In 1979, the City's median household income was $13,074, or about 87 percent of the
countywide median. In 1989, the City's median family income was $25,982, or about 83
percent of the county median household income. Another income measure is per capita income.
In 1989, the per capita income in the City was $14,760, compared with a per capita income in
the County of $15,237. For the same year, the per capita income for California residents as a
whole was $16,409.
According to the 1990 U.S. Census, 11,140 City residents lived "below poverty" levels, or
about 27 percent of the total City population. By comparison, about 12 percent of the County's
total population is classified as living below poverty level. The statewide percentage of "below
poverty" residents is also about 12 percent.
Table 4 shows the estimated number of households in the City of San Luis Obispo, based on
State income categories: Very low income = household income is less than 50 percent of the
county median income (SLO County median income, family of 4 = S40,900); Low income =
household income is between 50 and 80 percent of the county median income; Moderate income
= household income is between 80 and 120 percent of the county median income; and Above
moderate income = household income is greater than 120 percent of the county median income.
30
�.u4
Table 4
Projected Households by Income Group, 1991 - 1997
Income January 1991 July 1997
Group Households % of Total Households % of Total
Very Low 5,318 31 6,538 30
Other Low 3,088 18 3,839 18
Moderate 2,916 17 3,901 18
Above Mod. 5,833 34 7,568 34
TOTAL 17,155 100 21,846 100
(Source: San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council, November 199 1)
Housing Cost
On average, the cost of both rental and owner-occupied housing is higher in San Luis Obispo
than most of the surrounding communities. The 1990 Census indicates the median contract rent
is $546, compared with $510 countywide, and $561 statewide. A review of monthly rents in
the.local newspaper indicates that $546 would probably not be enough to rent a dwelling in San
Luis Obispo larger than a one-bedroom apartment. According to the 1990 Census, the median
value for owner-occupied homes in the City is $241,100, compared with $215,300 countywide.
These figures are notably higher than the state median home price of$195,500 and the national
median of $79,100.
Although the total price of a home is an important indicator of affordability, the primary
affordability determinant is the monthly payment. Lenders typically require applicants to
demonstrate that the total monthly loan payment, consisting of loan principal, interest, taxes, and
insurance will not exceed 30 percent of gross monthly household income. Table 5 shows the
monthly median income and median housing costs San Luis Obispo City and County, and in
California.
31
ago
2.30 Housing Constraints
Governmental Factors
Land Use Policies
Policies outlined in the Land Use Element prescribe the amount, type, and location of housing.
They establish the prevailing housing pattern and population density. Residential zones account
for over 40 percent of total land area within City limits. Dwellings are also allowed in all
commercial zones, except those designated for service commercial/light industrial and
manufacturing uses. General plan policies encourage infill development to avoid sprawl, and
also designate major residential expansion areas contiguous to City limits. The policies seek to
balance residential development with open space preservation and availability of urban services,
recognizing that the City's water demand currently exceeds its safe annual yield. Table 19
summarizes the land use zones acreages.
Table 5
Comparison of Median Household Income and Median Housing Cost
in City and County of SLO, and State of California'
Jurisdiction Median Monthly Median Monthly Percent of
Housing Cost($) Income ($) Income
City of SLO 1,183 27165 55
County of SLO 1,053 2,597 41
State 1,077 2,983 36
`1990 U.S. Census; housing cost includes mortgage plus utilities.
......................
Lot Size
Lot saw n >estalilisfied neo` �'o'cl ood atterns influence the types of housing in a community.
..... .....::..:>..:. ....>;;.: P YP g Y
Smaller single lots in residential zones, regardless of allowed density, tend to encourage
development of low-density, detached housing. Reducing the minimum lot size is often
recommended as a means of increasing housing density and thereby reducing cost. It does not
necessarily follow, however, that small lots will result in more affordable housing. There are
many coastal resort communities in California with high priced cottages on small lots. In high
density residential areas, small lots may encourage the construction of detached, rather than
multifamily housing. Large parcels in medium- and high density residential zones offer the best
opportunities to encourage affordable housing. Larger parcels, even in low density residential
32
a CfI
zones, are suitable for apartments and condominiums.
San Luis Obispo allows relatively small R-1 lots of 6,000 square feet in all residential zones,
and has the second highest residential density of the County's cities (after Grover Beach) with
about 4,500 persons per square mile. It remains, however, one of the most expensive housing
markets in the County. Clearly, market demand strongly influences housing costs. And while
the City's lot pattern has been established in most areas, lot patterns in expansion areas are yet
to established.
Residential growth management
Regulations adopted in 1982 include a schedule of maximum residential construction rates
through 1999. They exempt individually built houses and duplexes, replacement housing
(through demolition, relocation, or tire), group quarters of five or fewer persons, hotels and
motels, and projects that include their own growth management provisions pursuant to an
approved specific plan or planned development. The regulations are intended to provide a steady
rate of population growth of about 1 percent per year, while promoting affordable housing close
to employment centers and Cal Poly University.
As a result of ordinance changes and market conditions, the Residential Growth Management
Ordinance did not significantly constrain or delay housing production. The regulations were
subsequently modified to accommodate a building surge following the 1980 - 1982 recession,
and to exempt projects within specific plan areas. In 1987 these regulations were suspended
when the City Council adopted the Water Allocation regulations.
The Land Use Element (LUE) states the City's basic position on the extent, rate, composition,
and financing of growth, and limits growth in the City's housing supply to not more than one
percent per year. The Draft LUE (adoption expected Fall 1993) accomodates a maximum
buildout of 24,173 dwelling units in the City, and a total City population of 58,200.
Most of these additional units will be located in designated expansion areas located outside 1992
City limits but inside the urban reserve. Figure 4 shows the location of future residential areas
outside the 1992 City limits. City policies require preparation of specific plans for each of the
major expansion areas, with provisions for phased housing development. Each area's phasing
will be determined, in part, by the affordability of the dwellings, and by other public benefits
such as open space. The specific plan area committed to developing the largest number of
dwellings affordable to very-low or low-income residents would be developed first.
33
Land use and development standards
Zoning Regulations
Zoning regulations implement the City's land use policies. The regulations allow a range of
residential densities, from seven dwellings per acre in the R-I zone to a maximum of 24 two-
bedroom units per acre in the R-4 zone, and up to 36 two-bedroom units per acre in the
intensively developed Central Business District. Parking and setback requirements, height and
coverage limits allow the maximum densities, except on small, oddly-shaped and sloping sites.
The regulations apply equally to mobile homes, manufactured and site-built housing. Allowed
residential densities by zone are listed in Table 6.
Zoning Regulations allow property owners to provide modest, affordable units such as attached
accessory apartments, or "granny flats", in any residential zone. Also, several exception
procedures and the "planned development" and "specific plan" zones allow flexibility in site
planning and building design to encourage the development of housing for special need groups.
Code>sEnfo.hent
.
Cgde epforcement'foctises:mainly on Zoning or Building Code violations which
adversely affect: public health or:safety The code enforcement program is handled by the
orun lgvest�gat ons Cc ordinatpr, and includes education,:: mI tk , and prosecution
.
components. Since beguning in November 1989, the Crty's Ne�g}borltood Improvemeri€
Program has resoiYed over 1200 'code enforcement complaints; and worked tivith ,tenant and
and groups to l} explain City standards for safe and sound Housing, and Z) explain the
process for correcUpg codeviolatiQns and unsafe Housing conditions Of these 1200 enforcement
actions, less than l q actually resulted in l'displacipg the current`occupant
'1'1ie�Bode enforcement program is;complaint dnven, and.fiandj.
les'over 300 cases per year once
a probienn ;s Identified; a.building inspector makes a preliminary sitz vtsit grid informse
trootdinator:: aboutrsite conditions Lf the problem 'is`; minor;' the inspector, issues<a code
c+ ireetton nofice to resolve the issue More complicated cases are ;handled with the ,Cary
Attorney -s office and are set for at ate,nen:t proceedings, or in some cases, criminal A.x...
Iii: recent years= complaigts about netghtiorhood' overcrowding and ill'egat construction have
aceotinted for the ma3onty of City;entorcement cases The illegal coversion of;garages, sheds;F
atttcs, etc to liab�table space Have contributed to substandard housing, parking violations;
iC4perty tnatntenance complaints and other housing concerns I'he City notif es property owners
in wilting of specific conditions that must:be addressed,_and provides clear direction on how to
coriircE ibe viotatto'rF The;Zoning:Investgations;'Coordinator works with property owners and
atC . staff to ;determme if the illegal construction canbe upgraded and remain, or what
steps are necessary;to reinove any: illegai>or ansate construction
34
,�X53
Table:,:6
Allowed R6 dent,al Density By Zone:
Zone Description A;Iaziinum F.zpected
Allowed Nusity NnsitWNet
Density jmi i et A...4
At cre
04. Central>Co rimerc al 36 56
ON Neig}tiorf►ood:Com►mercial i:2 3
=;H Retail' trommercial 3.6 27
Tour st`Comrr eicial 12 3
GlOS Conservation/Open Space; f dwelling/5 `acres 0.12
0Offce 12 3
Ivv'`Dens ..':€:;Residential 7
22<2 lvledni=D'en;s: :Residential 12OS
tvfediusn= I "f Dens t`:'::R'es dential 18 15
g y:
R=4 Hi kH;ensi.,":;;Residential 24 24`€S
g h'
Net acre refers to site.area minus dedicated i ght of way.
Expected density in non residential :zones Eased on a limited number of previous projects.
Subdivision and Grading Regulations
Subdivision regulations determine how land is subdivided, and set requirements for facilities
such as public streets and utility lines in new subdivisions. Specific requirements for materials
and construction techniques are adopted as policy by the City as recommended by the City
Engineer. Special limits and requirements are often set by the City Council in approving
individual subdivisions. Minimum lot size in residential zones is 6,000 square feet, with
minimum widths of 50 or 60 feet; however exceptions to lot size and shape standards are
possible with City Council approval. As a special type of attached, ownership housing, the
Condominium Regulations set minimum standards for open-space, recreation, laundry facilities,
solar heating, and storage which are higher than those applied to rental housing.
The City's Grading Regulations set limits and procedures for earth-moving, generally to prevent
35
mass recontouring and erosion and to assure stable building sites.
COM c6 Godes
San Luis Obispo's;construction codes are; with-few;exceptions; unitorin codes enacted by the
Statelegislature and used througfiout the state ;' They set health aiid. safety: standards for
structures, :plumbing, electrical and fire.prevention The cost "of meeting State construction
codes laws intended to. male nzw'.housinb safer,'stronger, more energy:efficient, and
resistive
to fire and earthquake hazards ►s; ultiinafeI passed onto the dousing consumer In the long
term:: t7Aany building standards can reduee.contimlmg housing costs through Iower utility bills
and insurance premiums:
......................................................................................................... ..... ..... ........ .... ....... . ............ . .. .. ....... .. .. ................. ............... . .................
In..ne cases, San Luis,Q. po has adopted more stringent construction codes :than mandated
by file State: 3.oca1 Building ;Code amendments: that'could affect housing cost include he
..
following..
TP—.Construction nt the downtown .commercial fire;:zone must of 518" Type X gypsum waIlboard
cirless the building is .provided with an automatic fire extinguishinb system throughout;
.
Additional material cost:of the wallboard is not,sigmficant,
2; .Du to expansive soils,in the area, residential foundations and`slabs must meef more sfnngerit
requirements,.un,pss a soils report is;provided;to show that such :upgrades ale not'needed
'fhe estimated cost for the foundapon upgrade as approximately.$2500.per dwelling
..................4...
ciod shake 2nd; shingle roofing materials are:prohibited Adopted by ordinance iri 1983;
t]ieTaw s;tntended io reduce fire hazards and title potential for aoss ofaife andrproperty......T..
..r.....o.......
rom
a ina�or fire in the City The ordinance;differs'from State and'County regulations in tfiat they
allow wood shale roofing which meets a mimmum Class C rating .. ddiddriaf onstruction
cost, if any.. would depend on the buiIder's clioice of roofing;matenal
:.A.nautomatic fi::re extinguishing system is required in all new buildings 'except detached
garage of 500 square feet or 1 !=Mes ::adds approximately $2 00 per'Square foot tdthe cost.
o 2t single fairiily residence ed in ;1990, the ordinance includes::all residential'
iticoupangies and is'intended to reduce fire hazards to life and property to allow development
ere
fire-flow,'access„;or setback defciencies might otherwise preclude it, $rid toredtice
cin going'public costs o fire suppression
..................................... .... . .......... .. .....
One fire eede standard The fire spnri Ier requirementis net easily ameFfized by builder-s
. adds
about $2.00 per square foot to the cost of construction - or $4000 for a 2000 square foot home.
Added cost of fire-spnnlaeis may be:offset or recovered:`in the`aong term since:.
36
a—�S�
1
} Most insurance.coinp4ples have reduced homeowner insurance rates for:homes.with fire
rinkiers#
wxx
2}' Fire sprinklers add value to a:(iome, and all .ora portion of the costs; can be.recovered upon
resale
3): Dong development, additional cost saving :allowances are'made for spnnklered buildings
feg longer distances between :fire hydrants.serving .a development,'teduceo vehicle access.
.My.ireinenw
re flew requi ements'are reduced by;50 percent, allowing the use of existing mains in most
cases Thas allows infill development where infrastructure de: ciencies rntgl t have otherwise
prevented rt
Installation requirements such as upsizing a water meter and service lateral from the City water
main can add $2000 to $3000 to fire sprinkler cost. With a typical 13 percent credit on an
insurance premium, it would take approximately 10 years to amortize the initial cost of fire
sprinklers. Not all insurance-companies recognize residential fire sprinkler systems as a
justification for reduced premiums. In adopting more restrictive standards -- fire sprinklers for
detached houses, for example -- the City must weigh the added public safety against public and
individual costs.
Site improvement requirements
The City may require on- or off-site improvements such as streets, utilities, traffic signals, and
landscaping as a condition of use permit, variance, subdivision or other land use approval.
Dedication of right-of-way, public transit facilities, easements or access rights may also be
required. These improvements add costs which are usually passed on to the housing consumer.
This housing element includes policies which require the City to consider and minimize costs
of imposing additional requirements on housing projects beyond those requirements which are
required by State law, or necessary for public health, safety or welfare.
Non-conforming uses and structures
Some dwellings are subject to premature deterioration and replacement because of their legal,
non-conforming status. A legal, nonconforming use or structure is one which was established
with permits, but is no longer allowed and could not be replaced under the current Zoning
Regulations. Examples include housing as a principle use in a manufacturing zone.
Traditionally, lenders and insurance carriers avoid lending or insuring project improvements for
such non-conforming dwellings.
An estimated 175 dwellings are considered non-conforming because of their location in the
37
T
manufacturing or service-commercial zone. Housing Element programs address this issue by
encouraging the conservation of non-conforming housing, and through programs which enable
low-income homeowners to rehabilitate substandard housing through low-interest loans or grants.
Length of development review
The development review process adds time and cost to building a project. The City's
development review procedures are designed to protect health and safety, to simplify and
expedite the review process where possible, and to ensure that new development meets State and
local development standards within time limits set by State law. The Permit Streamlining Act
requires final City action within six months of receiving a complete application for a project
which will not have a significant environmental impact, and within one year for projects which
require an environmental impact report.
c r:irtost nimor or relatively 'simple items which are ekempt from environmental review such
as administrarive use permits, minor or incidental architectural;review,>mrnor subdrvisons, and
lot erne adjustments, processing time troiii submittal tofinal action lasts approximately four to
six:weeks;: In Sari Luis Obispo; architectural re..yiew is;:requ>red for rriulti family projects and
residential subdivisions More cgmplex Plann>tig rtems'requirng initial environmental studies
sricli:ztS architectural review of new comiiierc�al'„ industrial and residential projects, conditional
use permits and variances (Planning Commission): planned deyelopi ient/re oning, standard
Sul> vts[on8 typically require eight to twelve weeks The City's most complex..:.P.. 1
annuig items
.:.Z..................general plan amendments iarge'scale reomngs annezaaons, :and Zoning Regulations
ie7ct amendments, ;and any development project hat requires an EIR can tale ;from srz months.
t :ti year frpin filing to foal City action :.Development review procedures such'as public notice
aYid heairrrigs, and envrroi mental:review<are mandated<by State law and also add .O:aL d rime
needed t4 -.:.n ew housing protects The: Crty 'is revising its Zoning and Subdrnsion
reuiretnents to f............nd speed up development approvals
Development fees
Application and permit fees
In 1991, the City raised planning, building and engineering fees for new development. These
fees were last revised in 1983, and have generally been less than the fees charged in other cities
of comparable size and development activity. For most applications, zzhe fees;assume;:full cost
rekor+ery for actual City costs to deliver the .planning:and building services In ilie future?
e elopment review fees will e.::updated:;annually, based on the Chanes in the'Consumer Pnce
Index nn October 1st of each year Housing Element::Program
1.2.2....J.....&..
22 16..6...
alls for..t. e City to
amend its regulations to exempt residential projects which include affordability guarantees for
very low and Iow income households from payment of development review, construction permit;:
$ewer and water:hool. up'fees Appendix A lists the current=fees for Planii.ing, Biuiding and
38
a-57
Engineering servrces� and.rncludes a 199.1 compa..nson of San L.ws Obispo Cttyj feeswith seven,
Central Coast cominunrttes
Development impact fees
In 1991, the City Council approved water and wastewater (sewer) development impact fees
(Resolution No. 7022). These fees ensure that new development pays its fair share of the cost
of constructing the water and sewer facilities necessary to serve it. The impact fees were based
solely on the capital costs attributable to new development. There are four specific projects
which these fees will assist in funding:
■ Salinas Reservoir expansion (water)
■ Water treatment plant improvement (water)
■ Infiltration and inflow improvements (sewer)
■ Wastewater treatment plant improvements (sewer)
Starting in November 1991, fees were applied to both residential and commercial projects. Fees
for single family dwellings are:
■ $2,628 for water facilities
■ $2,218 for wastewater facilities
In 1993 the City is considering adoption of traffic and public services impact fees.
Implementation of this fee program could begin in 1993 or 1994.
Availability of Utilities
The City is committed to living within its resource constraints, while planning to meet the future
resource needs of its citizens. Like much of the State, the City has experienced over five years
of drought, resulting in unusually low levels in the City's two reservoirs, and water use rates
which have substantially exceeded safe annual yield from all available water sources.
Beginning about 1984, the normal level of City water use exceeded safe yield. During the
drought which began in 1987, it became apparent that the City would run out of water if usage
continued to exceed safe yield. As a result, the City Council:
A) accelerated efforts to obtain additional water supplies, including groundwater, which
temporarily provided a large share of water supply;
B) established mandatory conservation for water customers, which dramatically reduced
water use; and
39
t
C) adopted rules limiting the amount of development which could occur, based on the
relationship between normal water use levels and safe yield.
Although above-normal rainfall in 1992 and 1993 has eased drought conditions, continued
conservation and monitoring of water use are needed until additional water sources are on line.
Residential development requires that adequate roads, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection,
and other public services be available. Generally, the developer provides facilities within or
next to the development site, while the City is responsible for the facilities which serve a larger
area. For example, the City provides arterial streets, a sewer treatment plant and main
collection pipes, and water reservoirs, a treatment plant, and main pipes. When an area is
subdivided, the subdivider installs local roads and utility lines. The costs of Citywide services
are borne by utility customers and taxpayers. Increasingly, the City is requiring developers to
pay for the increased capacity of Citywide facilities needed to serve new development. The
developer's costs for installing public facilities within a development, and for funding Citywide
facilities, and passed on to occupants of the new housing.
Most sites within the City have streets and utility lines nearby, so they can be developed without
significant extensions. Expansion areas at the edge of the City will need extensions of services.
For each major expansion area a specific plan is required, and for each minor expansion area,
a development plan. These plans will address phasing of development and services, subject to
availability of additional water sources.
Increased water and sewer service capacity is needed before more housing can be
accommodated. The Land Use Element requires that before land is annexed to accommodate
new development, the City should adopt a plan for how the necessary public services and
utilities will be financed and provided. For major expansion areas, actual development can
occur only when the City can provide adequate services for the annexed area as well as for
existing and potential development elsewhere within the City.
Water
Beginning in about 1984, normal water demand exceeded safe yield of the City's water sources.
(Safe yield is the amount of water which can be drawn from a source over the long term,
including droughts, without depleting the source.) Demand exceeding safe yield had no
immediate effect so long as yearly rainfall was average or above. However, from 1987 through
1991, rainfall and water runoff into the City's two reservoirs were below average. To avoid
running out of water, the City:
■ Adopted Water Allocation Regulations to ensure that new development does not cause
the normal level of water demand (about 8,200 acre-feet per year in early 1992) to
further exceed safe yield (about 7,800 acre-feet per year). This requires that new
40
_I.. 4'Q
development replace toilets in existing development with water-saving models to save at
least twice as much water as the new project is expected to use.
■ Began conservation programs, including imposition of mandatory conservation with
substantial surcharges on water bills for customers who exceeded target water use levels
based on certain reductions from previous consumption levels, which resulted in actual
water use being about 5,000 acre-feet in 1992;
■ Developed groundwater supplies yielding up to 2,000 acre-feet per year in the short
term, though only about 450 acre-feet were counted toward safe yield to avoid long-term
overdrafting of groundwater.
The 1992-1993 estimated safe yield will not allow substantial new development. Water
Allocation Regulations will allow .only about 560 dwellings to be built by offsetting new water
demand through retrofitting existing buildings with water-saving plumbing fixtures.
By early 1992, about 2,500 dwellings and motel units, plus about 45 buildings of other kinds,
had been retrofitted, to allow some 85 projects to be built (both residential and nonresidential).
This and other retrofitting has probably occurred in 20 to 25 percent of all facilities where it
could be done. Thus, if all remaining facilities were retrofitted, and two-thirds of the offset
credits were earned by residential projects (roughly reflecting the current split between
residential and nonresidential water use), about 560 new dwellings could be built. Above normal
rainfall in 1992 has reduced the urgency of the drought, but conservation and additional water
sources are still needed.
Once the City's wastewater treatment upgrade is completed in 1994, about 800 to 1,200 acre-feet
of reclaimed water will be available for landscaping to offset the use of potable water supplies.
Some of this could enable additional housing development.
The City is pursuing two projects in San Luis Obispo County that could increase safe yield:
- About 1,600 acre feet from raising the Salinas Dam spillway, available no sooner than July
1997; and
- About 6,600 acre-feet from a pipeline from Nacimiento Reservoir, available no sooner than
January 2001.
Another option is desalinization. Desalination of seawater, proposed in 1991 when it appeared
that the City's reservoirs and groundwater supplies would be depleted during the drought even
at reduced consumption levels, was seen as a temporary, emergency source only and due to its
cost, energy use, and other environmental concerns, is not being pursued. In 1992, San Luis
Obispo a majority of voters opposed the City's planned participation in the State Water Project.
41
�-rea
4
Consequently, the City is no longer pursuing this potential water source. Possible new water
sources for which the City is actively planning are summarized in Table 7.
Table 7
Possible New Water Sources
Source Earliest date Maximum amount Amount for Potential
available (a) available (b) housing c dwellings (d)
Retrofitting any time no new supply none 560 (e)
Reclamation 1994 1,200 Acre Feet 0 0
Expand Salinas 199-57 1,650 1,089 2,420
Reservoir
...............
Nacimiento line 20iT€' 6,600 4,356 91680
TOTALS 99450 5,445 12,660
(Source: City of SLO Utilities Department)
Notes:
(a) Assumes all required approvals are obtained and projects built in the shortest realistic
time, and water sources are capable of providing the full amount in the first year of
operation.
(b) For reclamation, assumes approval of diversion from existing uses (stream flow and
groundwater recharge); for Nacimiento, which is oversubscribed, City receives requested
amount, which is not likely. It is more probable that the City will receive a pro-rated,
reduced amount.
(c) Assumes that all reclaimed water will be used to balance safe yield and normal use levels;
two thirds of all new sources will be available directly for housing projects, one-third for
commercial, industrial, and public projects.
(d) Assumes an average water consumption rate of .45 acre foot per dwelling unit per year.
(e) Assumes that all facilities in the City which are not low-flow in 1993 are retrofitted, and
two-thirds of the total offset credit goes to residential projects, with the same average
42
'Zo_.& 1
usage noted in (d) above.
Sewer
The City's current wastewater treatment capacity is 5.1 million gallons per day (mgd). A major
upgrade of the wastewater treatment plant is underway to meet State water quality standards;
however the project will not significantly increase treatment capacity.
Availability of Public Services
Police and Fire
As the City's population grows, the need for police and fire services grows at a
disproportionately faster rate. Police staffing in San Luis Obispo is already below the state
average, as measured by the number of sworn officers to resident population. Currently, the
City's ratio of sworn officers to population is 1.33 per 1,000 resident population, below the state
average of 1.8 per 1,000. The increased need for staff, equipment, and facilities will be met
partially through development impact fees and environmental impact mitigation fees imposed at
the time of future development. Added costs for these services will, in part, be paid by City
residents through increased fees or taxes.
Schools
San Luis Coastal Unified School District's current enrollment is 7,800 (includes eight schools
outside SLO City). According to District studies, new residential development generates 0.65
schoolchild per dwelling. In recent years, the District has grown at about 80 students per year.
Due to budget constraints and overcrowding at the elementary school level, new dwellings will
have serious adverse consequences for school staffing, facilities, and programs in the City alone,
not counting additional problems due to enrollment growth in areas outside the City also served
by the District, unless the new development adequately mitigates the adverse impacts on school
facilities.
Non-governmental factors
Economic conditions
Historically, San Luis Obispo has been buffered from economic downturns due to a relatively
large government employment(23 percent), service sector employment(21 percent) and a strong
regional retail trade (26 percent). A lingering recession, however, exacerbated by five years of
below-normal rainfall, high unemployment and continuing uncertainty in the savings and loan
industry has clearly affected the local economy and discouraged new housing projects. In the
City of San Luis Obispo, sales tax revenues dropped $65,000 between fiscal years 1989-90 and
43
.17 -A n
1990-91. City building g activity during 1991 fell 32 percent in total value compared with 1990,
0
and 69 percent compared with 1989.
Housing starts are a key indicator of economic activity in the United States. Typically housing
starts are up during a "strong" or expanding economy and down when the economy is "slow.."
d-.........Ub- d ' 1 fIor::new:dwellin'gs::iss.... :in
... ...Ul....Mg activity
...................
tWCity.:i.......-.. quarters
.' 6.1.1..r....$....t....A......h..........................
q
LMIS' ?f 1 5.....0..... :qonpxpd. II.t.h... 2l:
]pe.r....m... iit dunn .t..h...e...:.s..a..m...
e.-b....q...n.....o..
d
R.499012deU I.construction . than'd rinc :ih611980
s
.
................. :
-.7building. p;mts Third quarter
eiuibuizc: signs for 1993 project a gradual economic recovery in_Califorgia The City's
;:be:.. 'ujlV:
.q under
Current and projected local economic cond%tions
Construction cost
Technological advances in home building have increased efficiency and reduced the proportional
costs of labor and materials. Nationally, labor and materials accounted for 69 percent of the
cost of a new home in 1949. By 1989, that percentage had dropped to 53 percent (National
Association of Home Builders). Reduced construction costs have, however, been more than
offset by increased land costs.
..........................
........ .......
VW
I'D ........U.-
ReS.Wififla �!�i: ey er q W.:.....:Housing
m
. ........ 2
"I thfi, d tac Mi.
:Tami wg
MAO
2M.1 V� e it
.. . ...........C.
201 28.61V
...... . . ........ Moss.X
: rnprqyemenis)
--:1, "J.
F=:; 1:4.
C
4%
.... ......
Vinifiking ..... .......
...............
5.3
SAT. ..... 100;4.0
.. .... 100
.. .
...........
..... ::based.......
...... ....... I:!�A:A;;:::
�0":AU--zosts:�: : average ;1500 square ':foot �.....uj ding
............. ..... ............. ....
44
ridustty Association of the Central Coast, September 1993).
zBased on an85 unit residential contlorrumum, 1200 J.
square foot attached units, 1.991
CnuStrtiction costs include land, development,{land costs utithes and street improvements}
construction (labor,materials, aiid proc ',ssinglpermit feesj, financing, and profit ConsVUctlon
casts in 1993 for a typical Single family detached `home `and multr family dwelling ate
.. above in Ta61e 8 According to a:Building Industry source, the average cost of
typzcaf yI`ype V wood frame residential coilstructioz zs $64 80 per square foot, or about
l l 000 for an :1850
square 'foot detached house For apartments,?Type Y wood frame
eoristtuction costs $b5 4S per square foot �Butlding Standards, July Augusi 1993)
Land cost
Land cost is the second largest component of the cost of new housing, accounting for over 20
percent of development costs. Because land costs are so high, it is difficult to build affordable
housing if the project involves purchasing land at today's prices. In 1992, the cost of a typical
residential lot in San Luis Obispo is estimated by members of the Board of Realtors multiple
listing service to be between $140,000 and $200,000, depending on its size and location.
Availability and cost of financing
According to local loan officers and private developers, residential construction projects are
scrutinized more closely in the early 1990s than they were in the 1980s. Recessionary economic
forces, over-construction in some markets, and problems in the savings and loan industry have
resulted in bank failures and a depletion of deposit insurance funds. Consequently, speculative
real estate projects now face stiffer qualification requirements. In the past, the typical
development loan was made for 80 percent to 85 percent of the project cost. In 1992, the
ceiling on development loans is now typically at 70 percent, and developers must document a
source of repayment outside the projected value of the project. Financing for housing projects,
particularly those targeted for low and very-low income buyers, and for mixed
commercial/residential projects is, therefore, more difficult to secure than it was during the
1980s.
In contrast, lenders view loans for market-rate, owner-occupied houses as relatively low risk;
hence, mortgage and construction loans for these projects are readily available in all areas of the
City for purchase, new construction, and rehabilitation at relatively low interest rates. Interest
rates on 30-year fixed rate mortgage loans fluctuated around 9.5 percent during 1990, and
dropped to as low as 6:75 percent for 30 year, fixed rate mortgagesn 3rd quartet 1'993
Interest rates are expected to remain low due to Federal Reserve efforts to encourage an
economic recovery.
Although low interest rates in 1993 are making housing more affordable than in recent years,
45
a-64
t
the necessary down payment can pose an insurmountable obstacle -- particularly to first-time
homebuyers. Lenders typically prefer a 20 percent down payment on a mortgage loan.
Prospective buyers who might be able to support an 80 percent loan, often do not have the
financial resources to make the required down payment.: A medtaWpriced home: in Sa Luis
Obispo costs $219,200{SLO Board of Realtors, July 1993), requiring a $43,840.down payment
to get yntn a new house benders :will sometimes loanup to 90 percent of an asking price, but
arf.apphcarit's credit is much more closely scrutinized, and;monthly :payments and monthly
income requirements are signjfieantly hjgher
Design expectations
Housing preferences have changed dramatically in the last generation, as shown by a comparison
of tract housing built in town around 1960 and tract housing built today. Detached homes are
generally larger and include more built-in features and amenities. Even many attached
condominiums, which have become owner-occupied "starter" housing, include more indoor space
and amenities than older detached housing.
Those seeking homes today are children of the generation which experienced the greatest
increase in real housing buying power, and they often prefer large, detached homes similar to
those they were raised in. These expectations are often unrealistic give the high cost of living
in California when compared with other states, and the relatively high cost of living in San Luis
Obispo compared with other areas.
Home buyers moving to San Luis Obispo from urban areas often enjoy higher median incomes
and arrive with substantial equity from selling a home. Their buying power, together with the
desire for small-City life, has maintained the demand for large, detached homes.
Investment expectations
Investment expectations can also add to the cost of housing. As a nation we put a high value
on home ownership. Housing is an investment that can provide a hedge against inflation, and
allows homeowners to build substantial equity in a relatively short period of time. Ironically,
the favorable tax treatment established to protect home ownership has helped push the cost of
housing beyond its value for shelter alone, and created a competitive market for real estate as
a financial investment. Home ownership has become an elusive goal for many first-time buyers,
as prices increased in response to market expectations. Renters find themselves paying a larger
and larger share of their income for housing, as rental properties are resold to a succession of
landlords.
Many home owners and owners of rental property benefit from significant tax advantages.
Mortgage interest on loans for both a principal home and a second home is fully deductible for
taxpayers with an adjusted gross income of $100,000 or less. Interest on home equity loans is
46
a-�s
also fully deductible. In addition, homeowners can defer capital gains resulting from the sale
of a house so long as another home is purchased at the same or higher cost, and may extract
$125,000 in capital gains after the age of 55 without paying any tax.
Owners of rental property can deduct expenses such as property taxes, mortgage interest
payments, and maintenance costs. Also, since rental property theoretically depreciates in value
over time, the owner can deduct part of the property's value each year from his or her taxable
income. While depreciation allowances provide an investment benefit for each successive
property owner, they also provide a strong incentive to resell a property once the largest share
of depreciation has been taken. Typically, the new, higher sales price is then offset by increased
rents. Real estate sales commissions, typically ranging from four to six percent of the sales
price, also affect housing costs.
2.30 COG Regional Housing Need Assessment
San:Luis Obispo's share of the region's }iousing needs, along with that of the :.other cities and
the unincorporated areas,,was determined 6y the San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating.j.
Council
(tr .Q. as provided underState law;and distnbute to local governments as the Regional Housing
Needs Plan (RHNA} The plan zs shown in Table 9, below It identifies a need for I4,884 new
housX .units i1i San Luis gbispo County betweeniJanuary 19�l and July 1997,and a 29percent
;...
Increase uI:the City's housing stock oyez one fourth of the County's totat pzoaected housing
need State]avid requires the cities and counties to:incorporate taus determination of housing need
i ;their housuig eiemen#s, ►r show why those reeds cannotbe accommodated and::revise,:their
:;.
tavusing neEcts accordingly:
Ta. e...9.
........ .................
...........................
............................
...........................
Re,gIonAlTousin g;.Neec�s �`or the City of'San Luis Obtspo
As Determined; by COG, January 1991 July 199fi
Inco><ne Categoryi .. roJected Mousing Need
(dwelhn
<> units
�ry
............ V,1.13
XVloderate 0'I
..........
Above l�ipd'e ate t<'898
O'CA)fi1'28
'Based vn Gate ncome emits tor:;a tame y of tour, see a e
47
2.31 Revised Housing Needs
As provided under Article 10.6, Section 65584 of the California Government Code, the City has
revised the housing needs plan in response to environmental, fiscal, public services, sewer and
water constraints which will preclude the City from achieving the COG'S targeted housing needs
during the time frame of this element. Given the region's relatively sluggish economic
conditions from 1991 to late 1993, State population projections, and resource constraints, the
City has determined that the accommodation of the 5,128 units called for in the RHNA plan is
not appropriate nor achievable within the identified time frame, due to the planning factors and
constraints discussed below. Gity land use and hettsing,
dwellings.
within the 25 year planning her-izea ef the genefel plan. The City has identified a variety of
programs to remove constraints to housing production where possible, however several
constraints remain which play a key role in the City's 5-year housing objectives:
■ availability of water
■ adequacy of public services
■ environmental impacts
Constraints to housing construction are discussed in Section 2.32.
..........................
During the Housing Element's five-year planning period from DeCembef Septefab 1993 to
D'eA ewc SeptembeF 1998 (which overlaps the RHNA planning period), policies and programs
....
will accommodate a net increase of at least 900 dwelling units. The City's growth management
policies now exempt new housing which replaces housing lost through market removals. This
element also includes a program which will amend the Residential Growth Management
Regulations to exempt housing which is affordable to very-low and low income households from
the 1 percent growth limit. It is estimated that an additional 20 exempt dwellings will be
produced annually which meet affordability standards. When exempt replacement and affordable
housing is included, the total number of new dwellings accommodated during this element's five-
year planning period is approximately 1,100. Table 10 summarizes projected housing production
by income group anticipated for the Housing Element planning period, September 1993 to
September 1998.
The City's draft Housing and Land Use Elements include policies and programs which allow the
City to accommodate up to 1,185 additional dwellings between January 1991 and July 1997,
about 4,000 fewer dwellings than called for in the RHNA Plan. Of these, 782 dwelling units,
or 66 percent of the total units to be accommodated, would be targeted for very-low, low, and
moderate income households.
48
R
Within this managed growth target, the City intends to provide residents with high-quality,
affordable housing, and to meet regional housing targets in the same percentage allocations by
income group as prescribed by the SLO Area Coordinating Council (COG) in the RHNA Plan.
To acheive the projected housing construction in Table 10 below, the City must take steps
intends to encourage housing production by zoning adequate sites for future housing, securing
the necessary water resources and sewer capacity to accommodate new development, and by
relaxing restrictions on housing production to encourage affordable housing where such changes
will not conflict with other general plan goals.
Table 10
Projected Housing Construction By Income Group,
September 1993 - September 1998
Household Income Number of New Dwellings Percent of Total Units
Category to be Constructed Added
Very Low 279 31
Low 162 18
Moderate 153 17
Above Moderate 306 34
SUBTOTAL 900 100
1/2% allowance for market 91 --
removals
Additional affordable units 100 --
TOTAL 19091 --
::::..........;......:....:....:::::::::..:::.:::......,.:.;.::: .:......:.....:.;.:.......::::.;.:
2 32 Residential:Crdwth Constra 11
Cross�xh ro e
p ctrons asswrre that ade�uateesourres and publac s'�vrces are avarlable Housing
grovtf�£beyond 560 d►uel/rixgs (number of unus :YCh ran be built ►►�rtTrout new'.ivater supplies);
r alrnve a o ulatron o. about 43,zOQ; are rerlacated ori success 1 Cr
p p p fir ty e,�nrts zo secure
a�lrltrrar�al water�upplres ioserve �ruwth Crry General P16h pvlrcles seed to manage resuienlral
Anil co�runPrcral gro►vth so that ►ew cleielupminr occrrs �n tin orderly mur{irer anrf can be
arler�uately'served by urrl:tiesorul Public servzcPs 1�Ie nnlire,frre schools,purlcs.and reemanor
and,gencral government?
49
a -� S
eis an
bpast empleynienta
b b
r-ewth rates en ihe
availability ef Water-, ) b
pelieies and b +
. The City's
ability to accommodate additional housing is constrained by:
■ Availability of Water. The Ciry's combined safe annual yield from reservoirs and
groundwater supplies is 7,735 AFY. During recent years, mandatory water conservation
measures have reduced water consumption by as much as 45 percent from peak consumption
levels in the 1980s. With the return. of "normal" supply conditions due to 1992 and 1993
rainfall, per capita water consumption is expected to rise.
Under normal conditions (without mandatory water rationing), Ciry water demand would be
approximately 8,411 acre feet per year (AFY), based on pre-drought water consumption rates
in 1988. This level of demand would exceed the City's available water supply by 676 AFY,
or about nine percent. Water savings due to plumbing retrofitting cann allow the development
of 500 additional dwellings without the development new water sources. 777e City is planning
to secure additional water. Optimistically, the earliest date that a new water source (Salinas
Reservoir Expansion) will be available is January 1995.
■ Public Facilities. Schools, police and fire services, parks, and general Ciry administration
are currently considered marginally adequate to meet current. needs (Draft Environmental
Impact Report, Ory of SLO Draft Land Use Element, January 1993). To accommodate
additional residential growth under the RHNA plan would require 15 additional firefighting
personnel, 19 sworn police officers, and approximately 88 orher fidl-time City staff; would
generate demand for additional 76 acres of neighborhood and district parks; and require
additional faculty and classroom space to accommodate 2,364 students, assuming current
services are maintained at current levels. The capital costs of meeting these public services
needs under rhe plan would exceed the Ory's and school district's financial resources, and
result in significant financial hardship and public sgfey concerns.
■ Environmental Impact. Significant,, unmitigatable adverse impacts to citywide traffic safety
and circulation, air quality, agricultural land, and aesthetics will result from accommodating
the 5,000+ additional dwellings anticipated in the City's general plan (Draft Environmental
Impact Report, SLO Draft Land Use Element, January 1993). Although not entirely
mitigatable, the 25-year planning time frame allows this level of growth to be absorbed by
the community with the least possible impact to utilities, public services, and environmental
conditions.
.. i...e..
Based upon these constraints, it is the Citv's policy to'grow �n a sustainable ,manner during V
rojeeced tnneframe of h General Plan The City intends o. conserve limited resources <fo:
50
a-b9
alfaw steady growth, rattier thaw pursue rapid" urban growth over the abort term and then face
a sadden lack of resources or public services necessary ;to support ' continu. P-rowtti;
I.pg.Menting the°RRI numbe of 5 :128 witlim a...:....5....:I........,.
5- to.........1.0.
..4..:.y..:e..:ar timeframe would. exhaust
.
resources rneeded to sustain the Citv's hong term growth objectives,"and require the City o
expand outward onto ad3acent agricultural land:;
....................... ..
Therefore::rather than:base housing production targets on past employment growth rates which
areuttl�kely to continue, tfe City has based housing ,production and populationgrowth.rates oil
tTie Y2ila ility of water, public services and facilnttes, and on environnienW effects of growth:
Orty poilcies and programs will accommodate a sustainable, i percent apnual population growth;
t2te` iitil'#lie City reaches targeted buildout to 2023 with a total bobu ati&bfS92K
e Oity's residential growth pro�ectnons are conservatwe, in that ;they assume that past
construction rates of very low and low income housuig, liistoncally low compared with:housing
targeted fqr moderate and above iiioderate income persons, will increase only'slig. t Several
Houslirg dement rograms provide incentives; to accelerate ;t1ie production.:: of low'Income
housiig flyer hlstornc levels Consequently, the I percent growth rate could beexceeded at an'y
tune by housing projects with large proportions of units{targeted for iow and very lo�v income
liotseholds, provided that resources and public services were available to serve_the new
,. ,
=esrdents `
2.33 Quantified Housing Objectives
As required by law, San Luis Obispo has established quantified objectives for new housing
construction, rehabilitation, and conservation. These objectives, representing the maximum
number of housing units that are expected to be constructed during the housing element's 5-year
planning timeframe, are further broken down by income group (eg. very-low, low-, moderate
and above moderate income households). Quantified housing objectives allow the community
to evaluate its progress toward meeting key housing needs, to help priortize funding and
planning efforts. Table 11 summarizes the City's quantified housing objectives.
51
e
Table 11
Quantified Housing Objectives, 1993 - 1998
Income Level New Construction` Rehabilitation' Conservation'
Very-Low 342 56 57
Low 199 33 34
Moderate 183 31 --
Above Moderate 367 62 --
Total 1,091 182 T 91
'Includes allowance to replace market removals, and affordable housing.
'One percent of City 1993 housing stock (18,216).
'One-half of one percent of City 1993 housing stock.
:.:.:. :::....:..:......:........:..,..j,..:...,;;:>::...,.. ;::.............,:.. :.. :.: .,....;el
.....:..:....:.........
Tab1e.`I .st�mzes the,new boustng ;ponstruetion by source anttepated fpr the Housing
i~1�ti�eui planning period,September 1993 to 5eptembe I998. The number af'affordable units
::.:..<:;.. ...t.. :..::.........;:::...:..:..:::......... ..
.... ..n..n.... ..............................u:...':.:.:'..YS:::•i::: ,.:.:.... i.:ii::.::^:. ::.n::!i:.!!n.i..:'!.::!.:i.:i::i:•%p.:::: .:.i:i::: 8::::::iii.::: y:y:::.:.i :i
to be:btttlL; ...............................erbased on past consttuct�ott trends Dwellings affoidabie to very low
:.:....:v:.�
and.lO tn4rocne households are exempt Ecom growth management Itmtts, and cbiild substantially
excee3 ItlO units dunntr the 5 year:#3mefrarne cif:this element
Table 12
Projected New Housing Construction By Source, City of San Luis Obispo
September 1993 to September 1998
Source of New Dwelling Units - Number of Dwelling Units
1% annual increase in new, non-exempt 900
dwelling units.' (5 years ® 180 units per year)
0.5% replacement housing construction' 91
(.005 X 18,1673 = 91)
Estimated 20 affordable exempt housing units 100
annually' (5 X 20 = 100)
TOTAL 19091
'This number is based on the City's limited capacity to accommodate new residential
52
development during the element's planning period. A one percent annual increase in the
housing stock can be accommodated by existing or planned public services and utilities
without significant environmental or financial impacts.
2Based on RHNA plan, SLO Area Coordinating Council.
'Total number of dwellings in City, Department of Finance, January 1992.
'Assumes Community Development Block Grant or similar. funding available starting in
1994 to subsidize costs of affordable housing construction.
Table 13 summarizes the State income limits in San Luis Obispo County for the various income
groups. Income groups include "very low, low, moderate, and above moderate." The
California Health and Safety Code defines these terms as follows: moderate income = 120
percent of county median income; low income = 80 percent of county median income; and very
low income = 50 percent of county median income. Percentages of housing need for each
income group follow the same allocation used in the State>apgroveo RHNA plan.
Table 13
State Income Limits - May 1993
San Luis Obispo County
Income Group Income Limttsl
Very Low Income Income of $20,450 or less
Low Income Income between $20,450 and $32,700
Moderate Income Income between $32,700 and $49,100
Above Moderate Income Income above $49,100
Median Income $40,900
`Annual income for a family of four persons (Source: California Department of Housing and
Community Development, New Income Limits, May 1993).
In determining housing need by income group, COG assumes that the fraction of new dwellings
for a particular income group should be the same as that income group's fraction of total
households in 1990. This same percentage is reflected in the City's projected housing needs,
Table 10. (1990 households have been projected from 1980 census data and State estimates of
1990 income levels in the county.) To compensate for housing units lost through fire,
demolition, or conversion, the base housing construction need is increased by five percent, the
average rate of market removals in the City between 1985 and 1992.
53
_'-72
2.34 Sites available for new housing
Sites available for new housing fall into one of the three categories listed below:
■ Residentially zoned land inside City limits that is either vacant, underdeveloped, or
developed with a nonconforming use;
■ Commercially zoned land inside City limits which is either vacant or developed, and
suitable for rezoning and residential or mixed use development because of its size,
location, adjacent land uses, and other environmental conditions.
■ Vacant land outside City limits, identified in the Land Use Element (1992 update in
progress).
Figure 1 shows vacant infill sites of roughly one-half acre or larger which are zoned for
residential use. Figure 2 shows the location of some of the larger, privately owned commercial
sites which may be suitable for future residential development. Figure 3 shows City-owned
parcels with residential development potential, based on minimum lot area, compatibility with
adjacent uses, and development status. Infill sites like those shown in Figures 1 and 2 might
best accommodate housing as part of a mixed-use project. The total estimated new residential
capacity of the City is shown in Table 14, and the residential capacity of three sites with
potential for mixed residential/commercial uses if they were rezoned is shown in Table 15.
Table 14
Residential Capacity
Category Potential New Dwelling Units
Vacant Residential Land 995
Rezoned Sites 1`:52 2-50
Redevelopment and Intensification 460
(commercial and residential zones)
Expansion Areas (outside 1992 City 3,24`1 3
Limits)
TOTAL 4;848.. 950
54
a- 73
Table 15
Estimated Residential Capacity,
Rezoned Sites, 1993
Project/Site Acres Zone Change Dwelling Units
TRW 7.00 M-S to R-3-PD 43 440 1
Villa Rosa 8.26 M to R-3-PD 85'
Laurel/Orcutt 0.07 C-S to R-4 24 _5 '
TOTALS 15.33 2-50 .142
'{PD 13=93Mxe, Ordtnance No 1239, 1993 Series), —nes mix of Unit
2APProved project.
'Approved project for low-income elderly (Source: SLO Community Development
Department)
Vacant residential land in the City
An inventory of vacant, residentially zoned land in the City was prepared in December 1991,
and is shown graphically for large residential parcels in Figure 1. The inventory includes two
classes of land: (1) that which can be developed before the end of 1997, because it has, or is
expected to have, adequate access and utility distribution lines, and (2) land which, due to
inadequate access or utilities or other practical considerations, probably could not be developed
until after 1997.
Generally, single family houses are built in the R-1 zone, while multifamily dwellings
(apartments and condominiums) are built in the R-2, R-3, and R-4 zones. Residentially-zoned
vacant land which could be developed before 1997, provided that water and sewer are adequate,
could accommodate about 361 houses and about 340 apartments. Land likely to be developed
after 1997 could accommodate an additional 277 houses and about 17 apartments.
The inventory shows the affordability category of housing which each site could accommodate,
based on allowed density and physical conditions, such as slopes. Affordability categories are
based on the assumption that more affordable housing can be built on relatively flat sites in
higher density zones. The categories do not reflect the high cost of land or the current sales
prices of various housing types.
Vacant land which is likely to be developed before 1997 could accommodate at least 588
dwellings for above-moderate-income residents, about 356 dwellings for moderate-income
55
residents, and up to 191 dwellings for low and very-low income residents. (The total of these
numbers exceeds the vacant land capacity in Table 19 because some sites could accommodate
more than one affordability category.) The inventory classified sites as suitable for assisted
rental housing, but did not distinguish between the two lowest income categories.
Comparing the inventory with the COG's assessment of the City's regional housing need, it is
apparent that there is not enough vacant land to accommodate an entire allocation in any single
affordability category. Moreover, To meet the construction needs estimated by the State, the
City would need to add an additional 290 acres of residentially-zoned land, assuming that
development in the annexed area continued at the 1992 Citywide average density of 14 dwelling
units per residential acre.
Table 16
Residential Capacity Within City Limits,
Residential Zones (no. of dwelling units)
Zone..:: SFR; 1992- MFR, 1992- SFR, After MFR, Total Units
97' 972 1997After 1997
R-1 302 112 277 17 708
R-2 56 51 0 0 107
R:-4 . 0 177 0 0 177
TOTALS 361 340 277 17 995
'Single-Family Residential, available for development, 1992 - 1997.
2Multi-Family Residential, available for development, 1992 - 1997.
;Dwellings which lack street access, infrastructure, or need resubdivision prior to
development. Not available for development until after 1997.
(Source: SLO Community Development Department, 1991)
Expansion Areas outside the City
The most feasible approach to developing affordable housing involves annexing major expansion
areas identified in the City's Land Use Element. These are unincorporated areas which have
been designated .as suitable for futures residential development Expansion:areas _providtrig
additional'#lousing sites were deternuned by cons�deriiig the ;City s ability to provide urban
56
a- 75
.. ..
services tQ ahese areas, environmental constratnts a,�d the need„to protect valuable open space
and' agncu tural resources lacent to the;City for future generations
The City has adopted policies which provide density bonuses and other incentives for affordable
housing in these annexation areas. Annexation is, however, contingent primarily on the City's
obtaining additional water sources. Once sufficient additional water is obtained, annexation of
residential land would then be possible. The expansion areas' residential capacity is summarized
in Table 17, and their locations are shown in Figure 4.
Table 17
Estimated Housing Capacity in Expansion Areas, 1992
Expansion Area Dwelling Units
Irish Hills 700
Dalidio 220
Margarita 1,100
Orcutt 500
Broad Street Annexation 380 :199
Edna-Islay West 4S5 362
Stoneridge 60
Minor Areas' 100
TOTAL 3,24:13
'(Foothill Saddle, Luneta, CDF, Highland, Miossi, Alrita, Maino,
Cal Poly, and other residential areas)
Redevelopment, infill, intensification and mixed uses
Additional housing can be accommodated by replacing or remodelling commercial buildings in
residential zones for housing (redevelopment).:', ' a
a
dwellings
"Redevelopment" here does
not imply any City intent to acquire land or fund new construction, although the City's zoning
57
oZ' 7�
regulations do encourage replacement of incompatible nonresidential uses with residential uses
in the residential zones.
8. p166housing needs have been
........e........t.....i.n..
.the City py:selc
; CIn 0.. .. .pprne.n .o...n.......previously
an residentiallyW sites within ih. (infll); (2) the of more dW611ngs
residential :which not 1eve1oped to: the: maximum AChsityallowed y ?ppinc
regulations {intensification), and
P.4.thedevelopment of project which:incorporate. residences
::.
..... I.Coramerc ivse&:Jmgcommerqiallyzondd:area (mixed use):
cationoccurs;:.as...older.
..........
OWN.
:ke.P. ..l.a.......c.....e...d.......'...-...b........,...'...
.....................................
...
......:...:..:...........................h.......9....u.........s.....i..n.....:"....&.......:....a
n............a....s.
u�ni..t.'.s......a..r
...e 6..:
added
:to
xproperties
roper!ies..
w.... hi
c.h....
.a.....r.....e
already developedM6d' usually occur&.lmthe .form: of. dwellingunit: n .:topofa
CCMM09piAl fficeuseJqh All these options�difffer.frontraditional expansion
in (fitat d!isnot necessary Yto maintain a
compact, Ell. ,urban edge valuablepreseve: apricuItu lands .ad: o . q space
while at thesame.time.providing:increased housing..ppportuni les. .
The City hgs expenenceda.. ............
t:increase 0f
295 dwelling units .through..infill andAd
ntensi.ication
ovX the last five years (1988 1992) for percent..qgn new .dwellings
............. . . . ........... ..............
built during this time period
Table.4.&!sft6Ws did:distribution: of dwellit b:units by year an
Table 18
Dwellings Added Through Infill, Intensification
and Mixed Use, 1988 - 19921
Year. Infill Intensification Mixed Use Total
1988 9 5 0 14
1989 53 47 1 101
1990 39 24 0 63
1991 44 25 6 75
1992 23 19 0 42
Totals L 168 1 120 7 1 295
'Excludes additions, remodels, and conversions. City of San Luis Obispo Community
Development Department, 1993.
In 1991, the City completed a block-by-block evaluation of the number of dwellings which could
be accommodated by redevelopment and intensification in the R-2, R-3, and R-4 zones. It found
that developed areas Could accommodate about 370 additional dwellings, the majority of which
58
q? - 707
would be multifamily rental units. This estimate does not reflect the maximum development
potential possible; rather, it is based on the density and design of recent housing projects built
in San Luis Obispo. In most cases, about one-quarter of the parcels in a developed block in the
multifamily zones could accommodate some additional development within the time frame of this
element. The estimate does not include dwellings which could be built under the City's "second
unit regulations", which allow, with special approval, small attached dwellings in areas where
normally only single-family houses are allowed.
The City's Zoning Regulations allow residential uses in the neighborhood-, retail-, central-
commercial, and office zones. New housing is rarely developed in such areas, however, for two
main reasons: 1) commercial development is perceived as having a higher economic return, and
2) lenders view mixed-use development as financially risky, making it difficult to assemble the
necessary financing for a mixed-use project. Nonetheless, changing lifestyles and a growing
disillusionment with car-dependent land use patterns have prompted a resurgence of interest in
mixed-use development. New housing in commercial zones would most likely be suitable for
smaller households, and in the downtown retail area could accommodate subsidized units for the
elderly.
The 1992 Land Use Element emphasizes mixed-use development, particularly in downtown and
in major expansion areas, as a way to provide modest housing close to jobs and services. Staff
estimates that 200 additional housing units could be accommodated in the downtown area alone
through mixed-uses. The City has added a "mixed-use" designation to its Zoning Regulations.
The mixed-use zone allows or requires a mix of residential and non-residential uses to be
developed on a site, through procedures more flexible than were previously available. The
mixed-use zone is expected to result in more housing being developed in areas now designated
primarily for commercial uses.
Accessory apartments
Accessory apartments are a common and relatively inexpensive form of housing that allows
households to accommodate extended families, and allows elderly persons to share large homes,
or rent small studio apartments attached to a main house. City standards require that either the
primary or secondary unit must be owner occupied. Accessory apartments are allowed, subject
to use permit approval and architectural review. General requirements, performance standards,
and review procedures are outlined in the Zoning Regulations, and closely follow State and City
criteria.
elkalititaton'andconservation
............................................ ........................................
Tete City's housing stockis generally in good condrtton 82 percent of the C>ty`s housX.1nR:stock
has been built since 1950Since the early 19,70s, significant;ienovation has':occurred m tle'
bider, cential area neighborhoods without public assistance However, a mintier of single-
59
a-78
family houses and apartments;.require rehabilitation to. correct: unsightly or unsafe conditions;
parti gl:ariy< in medium and high density residential zones, and where dwellings are non=
coitforinmg uses
QW. staffesdmates.that About 180:dwei]ings {one percent of the;liousing stock):need substantial
rehabilitation based on 1990 U S Census data:and 1992 "windshield"; surveys The: surveys
show abou[.4.....6...::..a wellings, mostly houses, which show outward signs of deterioration (eg sagging
roof or porch, dilapidated:exteriors, or_unsightly or unsafe site conditions) 1?vnng the Perm of
housing cemeet, about one half of those dwellings;now needing rehabilitation are<likely to
_.
be: habilitat.6d hiough 'private development, and about one quarter will be' demol,shed..or
relgcated outside of the City Itis anticipated that the remaining one-quarter . A esus
�irii s will by rehabilitated<or conserved throughpublic assistance;
Commercial sites suitable for residential uses
A number of coin mercially-zoned parcels have been rezoned to allow residential uses, or are
being considered for such use. Table 15 lists three rezoned sites which could accommodate up
to 250 additional dwellings. The Planning Commission has also identified vacant and
underdeveloped commercial properties which may be suitable for future residential or mixed use
development. These sites are shown in Figure 2. Site-specific evaluations are needed to
determine the residential capacity of these areas. Each site will need to be evaluated based on
environmental conditions, availability of services, current use, land use compatibility, and other
variables yet to be defined.
60
�? -79
Table 19
Land Use Statistics By Zone', May 1993
Zone Vacant Parks, Developed Total No. of Density`
Developable Open Land Land Dwellings
Land'' Space' Area' Area
C-C 0.48 0.14 43.43 44.05 129 2.97
C-N 3.71 0.34 48.60 52.65 51 1.05
C-R 1.05 1.37 93.24 95.66 96 1.03
C-S 74.95 4.05 261.17 340.17 149' 0.57
C-T 8.94 0.00 89.77 98.71 62 0.69
C/OS 72.25 493.63 299.01 864.89 32 0.11
M 40.36 4.71 128.34 173.41 29' 0.23
O 1.90 1.43 143.85 147.18 311 2.16
PF 0.00 140.26 265.48 405.74 1 0.00
R=1 274.78 62.80 1,325.50 1,663.08 6,472 4.88
R-2 21.63 1.72 509.94 533.29 4,841 9.49
R-3 10.69 0.10 151.93 162.72 21240 14.74
R-4 8.12 0.04 159.99 168.15 3,911 24.45
R.O.W. 1,417.67
TOTALS 518..86 710.59 3,520.25 6,167.37 18,324 4.80
'Land area in acres. Figures include the Broad Street Annexation. (City of SLO Community
Development Department, June 1993).
ZSIC codes 0011, 0014, 0015.
3SIC codes 0012, 0016, 0021 through 0038.
'Includes utilities, agriculture and nonconforming or interim uses.
5Number of dwellings per acre of developed land area.
Nonconforming uses.
61
a-8D
City-owned parcels suitable for housing
City-owned parcels which may be suitable for housing are shown on Figure 3. Many of the sites
are located downtown and used for public parking. It is anticipated that approximately 250
additional dwellings could be built on available City-owned land in the downtown, in the C-C
zone which allows dwellings above the ground floor at a density of 36 density units per acre.
Sites for manufactured housing
Mobile homes, placed on permanent foundations and located outside mobile home parks, and
manufactured (modular) housing are treated the same as conventional site-built housing under
the City's zoning, subdivision, and architectural review requirements. Therefore, all the vacant
residentially-zoned land identified in Table 19 is available for some type of manufactured
housing. Mobile-home parks are allowed with use-permit approval in all residential zones.
The City has few areas suitable for new, large mobile-home parks or expansion of existing
parks. The Edna-Islay specific plan area is the only area within the City which can
accommodate a new, large mobile-home park; however future expansion areas could
accommodate mobile home parks once they are annexed.
2.40 Special Housing Needs
Disabled Persons
People with mental or physical disabilities need accommodations which are not usually provided
in conventional housing. Depending on the disability, accommodations needed range from large
residential care facilities (convalescent hospitals) to specially-equipped single-family homes. In
1992 there is a need for seven homes, including six "independent living" homes for emotionally
disturbed adults, as estimated by the major provider of this care (Transitions, Inc.). The need
for group homes for long-term residents is expected to increase at the same rate as the general
population.
Convalescent homes provide limited medical care in an institutional setting. They usually
accommodate older residents and others who do not need acute medical care but who cannot live
independently. San Luis Obispo has two large convalescent homes with a combined capacity
of 300. There is currently a shortage of convalescent accommodations, as shown by a combined
waiting list of 25 persons for the two existing homes in November 1991.
Additional convalescent homes are being built elsewhere in the county, but in 1992 there are no
plans for any additional homes within the City. Within the City limits, convalescent homes are
allowed in six zones, with approval of a use permit. These are the three multi-family zones,
plus Office, Public Facilities, and Retail Commercial. There are three large residential lots
62
a-8 �
(numbers 3, 16, and 17 on Figure 1) and seven commercial sites (numbers 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, and
10 on Figure 2) that appear suitable for development of new convalescent homes.
Other adults, who need less medical attention than is provided by a convalescent home, are
accommodated by an increasing number of small group homes (discussed below). Persons with
multiple or severe disabilities, usually both physical and mental, require group living
arrangements where care and supervision can be provided. San Luis Obispo has one large
facility with about 90 occupants and one smaller facility for infants and young children. The
demand for such accommodations is expected to grow at about the same rate as the overall
population. Sites for large facilities of this type are limited, though moderately-sized and
smaller facilities could be accommodated in several areas.
Persons with.mental or physical disabilities who do not need medical supervision but are not
able to live independently can usually be accommodated in large or small group homes. Small
residential care facilities typically provide space for between six and twelve persons, and provide
beds, meals and 24-hour assistance by caregivers. San Luis Obispo currently has four licensed
group homes for long-tern residents, to serve persons who are severely emotionally-disturbed,
mentally-ill, or physically disabled. These four homes can accommodate up to thirty persons.
Seven additional homes are needed, including six "independent living" homes for emotionally
disturbed adults, whose needs cannot now be met. The need for group homes for long-term
residents is expected to increase at the same rate as the general population.
Those recovering from alcohol and other drug dependencies and those making the transition from
institutional to more independent living benefit from sheltered and supervised accommodations,
sometimes called "halfway houses." San Luis Obispo has one rehabilitation residence with about
ten occupants. Demand for additional facilities of this type can be met through houses for six
or fewer residents and additional medium-sized facilities. Demand for such facilities is expected
to grow at about the same rate as the overall population.
Elderly Persons
The percentage of City residents 65 years of age or older has increased from 11.5 percent in
1980 to 12.2 percent in 1990. Most elderly persons who own their own homes are in relatively
good positions financially. Given the high cost of housing in the area, some could sell their
homes for a profit and have an adequate budget for a smaller apartment or condominium, or an
elder-care facility if needed.
However, seniors on fixed incomes with few assets have a more difficult time securing needed
housing. Based on requests to the City's Housing Authority for housing affordable to the
elderly, there is a clear need for more subsidized elderly housing in the City. Because of its
inability to meet the continued, high demand for subsidized housing, the San Luis Obispo
Housing Authority was forced to close its waiting lists in July of 1990. With the aging of the
63
so-called "Baby Boom" generation born in the 1950s, and with longer life expectancies, the need
for suitable housing and related services will continue to grow.
The number of elderly citizens with below-moderate incomes is estimated at about 1000 persons,
based .on 1990 Census figures. There are differences in this age group, however, that affect
housing needs of the elderly:
Home ownership: Of those housing units occupied by persons 65 years old or older, 80
percent (2,545) are owner-occupied, and 20 percent are renter-occupied (605). Another way
of looking at this information is to say that 34 percent of the owner-occupied homes in the
City are owned by persons over 65 years of age, while this group constitutes only 12.2
percent of the City's population. The large percentage of home-ownership within this group
indicates that most elderly householders in San Luis Obispo have an adequate financial asset
to fall back on, given the high value of housing locally.
Retirement income: Most persons over 65 years of age are retired. This is the time of life
when their wage or salary incomes are low, but savings, annuities or other income may be
substantial. However, many elderly persons have only their retirement incomes to live on.
To estimate the number of elderly persons needing housing assistance, the City contacted
local organizations which assist the elderly and examined waiting lists for subsidized housing
projects and convalescent facilities. This information is summarized below. The conclusion
drawn from these figures is that most elderly persons living in San Luis Obispo are
financially able to provide for their own needs. Given the lower percentage of elderly
persons within as opposed to outside the City, it may be that some elderly persons have
moved from homes here to less-expensive living arrangements elsewhere. It is clear from
waiting list information that there is an unmet demand for affordable elderly housing.
As of September 1991, Adult Protection Services was providing services to 106 low-income
elderly households in the City. The Department of Social Services estimates that of the 720
MediCal clients in the San Luis Obispo area, about one-third are low-income elderly households
(about 240). Judson Terrace, a subsidized housing project for the elderly with 107 units, has
a waiting list of 30 qualified applicants as of November 1991. The Anderson Hotel, with 68
subsidized units for the elderly and disabled, typically has a waiting list of 30 to 50 applicants,
all of which may not meet the income limits to qualify for placement.
The Housing Authority also maintains two additional subsidized apartment complexes specifically
for the elderly: the Toro Street apartments, with 20 units, and the Park Hotel, with 21 units.
These units are always 100 percent occupied. The waiting list maintained by the Housing
Authority had reached such a large number a few years ago, that no additional names were
added to it. Since then, an estimated 5,000 persons have applied for assistance and were turned
away. There is no way to determine how many of the 5,000 were San Luis Obispo residents,
or how many of the residents were elderly. To meet some of the need, a 26-unit apartment
64
o2
project is to be developed by the City's Housing Authority, which is to be shared by disabled
and elderly residents.
Some elderly persons live in one of the two large retirement homes: the Village, with 112 units
(16 of which are subsidized) and Las Brisas, which has 100 units and is marketed to the more
affluent elderly. Others are cared for at the two convalescent facilities noted under "Persons
with disabilities," above, or in small residential care homes.
Elderly persons are becoming a larger segment of the total population. Twenty percent of the
City's households are odcupied by one or more persons 65 years of age or older. Forty-two
percent of these households are elderly persons living alone. The older the householder, the
more likely she is to be a woman living alone. The increase in percentage of elderly persons
is probably a result of Americans living longer lives. Nationally, the percentage of elderly
persons has risen steadily since the census first counted them at 2.7 percent of the population
in 1860, to the 1990 national estimate of about 13.8 percent. The City's percentage of elderly
is slightly lower than national levels, and the County's is slightly higher. Several cities within
the County attract retirees more than does San Luis Obispo, for example Pismo Beach, Morro
Bay, and Cambria.
Many elderly persons need regular medical care, special access features, home medical
equipment or trained medical care, transportation, and opportunities to socialize. Those with
moderate or above-moderate incomes can usually afford accommodations for these needs.
However, many elderly citizens have low incomes, many of which are fixed. Elderly persons,
who have low incomes and do not own a home, compete for rentals with other small households
that either have greater financial resources, or have potential for greater income in the future.
Those low-income elderly persons who do own homes may have difficulty affording property
maintenance costs.
Large households
About ten percent of San Luis Obispo's residents live in "large family" households with five or
more persons. The needs of large families are not considered separately from the needs of other
households at various income levels, as the City's housing stock contains about 5200 large
dwellings, or 29 percent of the total number of dwellings, with six or more rooms. Of the
City's 16,952 households in 1990, 3,825 households consisted of families. Of these, 765 (20
percent) had five or more persons. By comparison, of San Luis Obispo County's 80,281
households in 1990, 24,424 households consisted of families, and of these, 6902 (28 percent)
had five or more persons.
Farmworkers
The demand for farmworker housing in San Luis Obispo does not appear to be significant.
65
7 -8L{
Farms in or near San Luis Obispo are small and typically fain i ly-operated. A study on
farmworker housing prepared by the People's Self-Help Housing Corporation in San Luis Obispo
indicates that while there is some need for farmworker housing in the City, the strongest needs
for farmworker housing actually are in other nearby agricultural areas such as Cambria, Paso
Robles, Shandon, Morro Bay, Los Osos, Arroyo Grande, Nipomo, Oceano, and Grover Beach.
The City of San Luis Obispo is in the Central Coastal agricultural region of the County, with
the highest concentration of intensive agricultural activity located in the Edna Valley, south of
the City, which has heavy viticulture production. The study also indicates that the rents in the
City of San Luis Obispo are generally too high for the average farmworker family. Based on
the 1980 U.S. Census, of the 15,801 persons employed in the City, 481 or three percent work
in agriculture or related activities. The 1990 U.S. Census reflects the same percentage of
agricultural workers to the total City workforce.
Single-parent families
According to 1990 Census, about 1000 single parent families live in the City. Of those, more
than 80 percent are single mothers with children. This group's housing needs are similar to
those of the elderly in that affordability, limited income, and access to services are key concerns.
Single-parent households have space needs similar to two parent households, but are at a distinct
disadvantage in competing for suitable housing with the financial resources of only one adult.
Often, the single parent must settle for a small dwelling which does not meet the household's
needs, or must spend and inordinately large a share of the household's monthly income on
housing.
Housing close to employment, schools, and services tends to be more desirable and therefore
more expensive. In their search for affordable housing, families are often forced to trade the
convenience of proximity for affordability. As the distance between work, school, daycare, and
the market is increased, so is the time spent connecting the stops, leaving less time for the
family to spend together, a particularly difficult situation for single parent families. The
relatively low number of single-parent households in the City (5.5 percent versus 7.4 percent
countywide) may reflect the relatively higher housing costs in San Luis Obispo.
One indicator that a growing number of single-parent families is unable to afford adequate
housing in San Luis Obispo is the number of single parent families receiving public assistance.
In June 1991, 305 City households received Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).
It is estimated that two-thirds (201) of those households are single parent families. To qualify
for AFDC funds, a household cannot have more than $1000 worth of assets, excluding
ownership of a primary residence. Assistance is based on monthly income and household size.
Maximum monthly assistance for a family of four as of October 1991 is $788.00. According
to the City/County homeless shelter's staff, more single=parent households are showing up at
emergency shelters locally as part of the homeless population.
66
Homeless persons
San Luis Obispo has long been a stopping point for transients and those seeking seasonal work
along the Pacific coast. The nationwide recession which began in the early 1990s has increased
the numbers of homeless persons due to increased unemployment and the release of previously
institutionalized people.
Historically, most homeless persons were young or middle-aged men, often with little education
or with alcohol or drug dependencies. In recent years, homelessness in San Luis Obispo has
become more visible. Families and better-educated single people with part-time jobs have joined
the ranks of traditional homeless. In 1992, the fastest-growing segment of the homeless
population is women with young children, a direct result of cuts in welfare programs.
Noformal. surveys have been done on ;the number of:homeless persons living in 'San Lui
Obispo Homeless Sheite staft estnnate that a'daily average;of approximately 180 homeless
persons liv.:e in the: City ;::Homeless Shelter facilities m:the City can accommodate 49 persons
Pe r M h(t with an?addihonal 25 beds provided m local`churches:durtn the winter months A
ypround:unmerneed continues to be for additional'emergency. shelter,spage Local.churches
so
have provided emergency.shelter and meals on a rotatuig basis from November through Apnl
Women-and-children families are staying at homeless emergency shelters in larger numbers than
previously counted. The local women's shelter provided 3,615 shelter nights to women and
children from all parts of the county, including 35 families. Six of those families were City
residents. Between 30 percent and 40 percent of our local homeless are women and children.
The needs of these fainilies differ significantly from those of indigent, single males for whom
shelters have traditionally been designed. The Economic Opportunity Commission (EOC),
which manages the City's homeless shelter, believes another shelter will be necessary to
specifically accommodate homeless women and children.
In fiscal year 1992, the SLO Homeless Shelterprovided'servtces to 861: persons who were new
tra the program {646 men;......I.47 women, and 68 children) 581;:additional persons were served
urtttt meals only ;A total.of 18,077 nights of shelter were provided in FY X992, and 41,190
meals erved 779 individuals were provided with social services through the';:Service Center;;
with 4435 units of service provided (ciieit contacts tor,a variety of referrat, informational and
advoccy purposes).
Students
College students comprise more than one quarter of the City's population, and strongly influence
the housing market. Although often grouped into low income categories statistically, many
students can spend more on housing than income data suggests because of parent support or
larger household sizes. By pooling their housing funds, groups of students can often afford
more expensive housing than non-student households. This contributes to higher rents in San
67
f/� rV
Luis Obispo than in other parts of the county.
Student housing preferences sometimes result in competition and conflicts with other segments
of the City population. Student apartment complexes close to Cal Poly University have, in the
early 1990s, experienced high vacancy rates, and the number of students living in off-campus
dormitories in the City has decreased since 1980. Many students are choosing to share houses
in single-family neighborhoods. The presence of students renting houses in neighborhoods
sometimes leads to complaints from surrounding property owners due to life-style conflicts; and
parking, noise and property maintenance concerns.
In 1990, about one-half of Cal Poly's 18,500 student body -- over 9,000 students -- lived in the
City. In 1991, enrollment was about 17,500. About 15 percent of the students live on campus.
Their lifestyles -- and thus, housing needs -- often differ from those of non-student households.
Census figures show that the percentage of owner-occupied housing has dropped from 47 percent
in 1980 to 44 percent in 1990. Most Cal Poly students are young adults, have cars, many have
part-time jobs, and most have classes anytime from early morning to late at night. To meet
these needs, student-oriented housing often includes 1) a larger number of parking spaces in
proportion to bedrooms than is required for "traditional" family housing, 2) individual study
areas, 3) nearness to Cal Poly or transit, 4) easy access to food services, laundromats, and
recreational facilities.
Cal Poly students are, on the average, relatively affluent, and many can afford housing that
meets their needs. However, large apartment complexes in the City designed specifically for
students have begun to experience higher than normal vacancy rates as many students choose
instead to live in detached houses-
Coming from family homes, many young students prefer the appearance and freedom offered
by detached houses, often located in what have been called "single-family neighborhoods." To
afford the rent, three or more students often live together and share costs. This means that
homes designed to meet the needs of families are now occupied by several adults, and the homes
need to meet different needs. Because the homes were not designed to meet student needs or
lifestyles, conflicts with the neighborhood sometimes arise. Common complaints are 1) that
there are too many cars, 2) that activities, including parties, are taking place late at night, and
3) that the homes and grounds are not well-maintained.
The City is working with Cal Poly to have a Student Housing Preference Study conducted by
a consultant. The study is intended to help Cal Poly, Cuesta College, and the City encourage
or provide the type of housing that students want while maintaining good neighborhood relations.
Fraternities and Sororities
A major area of concern is meeting the housing needs of student fraternities and sororities.
68
a-S ?
"Greek" houses are allowed in medium-high-and high-density residential zones, with a Planning
Commission use permit. At present, seventeen fraternities and sororities have use permits for
houses within the City limits, housing approximately 430 students. Approximately 2,500 Cal
Poly students belong to sororities or fraternities.
Fraternities and sororities often host meetings, rush activities or parties which can have
unwelcome effects on neighbors. For example, on-street parking is affected, and noise and
traffic levels often increase due to frequent visits by non-residents for fraternal activities.
There are few large sites available that could accommodate a new fraternity or sorority and meet
parking and group meeting needs without posing neighborhood conflicts. Conflicts between
these_organizations and other citizens are common -- partly because there has never been a
community plan to guide the University, fraternities and sororities, neighbors, and the City in
meeting this need.
For several years, various committees have devoted themselves to creating a "Greek Row" -an
area large enough to house all sororities and fraternities in one place. The concept has wide
support in the community, but the possible locations all have drawbacks. At this time, the
Community Housing Task Force, a group that includes students, members of Cal Poly
administration, the Mayor, and other citizens and City staff, meets monthly to work through
alternative locations for a Greek Row. Among those alternatives are Cal Poly land, the Hathway
neighborhood, the Foothill-Ferrini area, and conversion of existing student complexes, like
Mustang Village. Rather than allow fraternities and sororities to locate in any R-3 and R-4
zoned site with approval of use permit, the City intends to encourage "Greek housing" on the
Cal Poly campus, or in R-3 and R-4 zones within approximately one-half mile of the Cal Poly
Campus.
"Shared" households
Many persons are looking for ways to limit the amount of income spent on housing. Census
figures show that more unrelated adults are sharing houses than ever before. In San Luis
Obispo, the percentage of non-family households (households with one or more non-relatives)
is 31 percent, up six percent from 1980. In addition to saving money, sharing a house provides
the benefits of companionship and support.
There is increasing interest for more formalized and extensive shared housing opportunities such
as cooperative or co-housing. Co-housing allows residents to live in their own private spaces,
and to share centralized dining, meeting and recreation facilities and services. Co-housing
started in Denmark in the 1960s and has been gaining popularity in this country. Some of the
obstacles to providing co-housing in the City are availability of sites, public acceptance and
possible need for exceptions to current standards to develop a project. San Luis Obispo
encourages a variety of housing types to meet varied lifestyles and needs.
69
en?' 1777)
O.l?erpaynjent
Housing affordability is determined by'its cost and by the occhpant's'income and other sources:
of purchasing power All types of aiousing involve. both.initial or "move in" costs and
conEinuing costs, such as:;rent or mortgage.payments and..maintenance. Although there is no
universally accepted definition of "affordability", it is sometimes described in terms: f what
proportion of household 'Income should be spent on housing Accordmg.to the U S Department
of )Iousina and
anDevelopmenr (l�UD); tJle California; Department .of Housing and
oinmunjty Development (HCD);' and many lending institutions, households should ;spend no
:
more 30 percent {25 percent for very low and:low income households);of their gross:monthly
inXX
come on'housing Itis:: not uncommon, however, for .households,.to spend more:than 30.
percent of inonthiy income for b'ousmg Table; 20 compares. the percentages of households
spending 3.0% or more of: their monthly„incong on housing inAle City, County, and State;:
These figures show that renters pay a substantially larger share of their income for housing in
.... ..-:
San Luts Obispo Ciry than do renters in.;the County.or.die State
Table=20
Compar>son of Hotistnb Cost As a Percentage of
Gross..: Zonthly Income, City(CountylState
Jurisdiction' % Owner Occupied % Renter'oativied
Households paying 305or households paying 30%
more of income .for housings or more orousing'
City of;S;an; )ru s. 20 62.
Q6rspa
Cour y'of5an; ,'luis 23 49.
Qb
ppo
StateofCaliforara 24 45.
Universe Total number of owner occupJed:.unitsa11 income ]eve s. (1000:U S Census)'.
Universe Total DUMber:U4.enter oceupied ;units, a.l..l. income levels::
Overcrowding
.. .................. ....................
Overcrowding in City housing units has not traditionally been a major issue. 'T e':U S' 'Census
defines an overcrowded uiut as. one occupied by 1 Ol .persons 'or more per room (excluding
bath`rooms�;. Table 2I compares 'overcrowding`'figures for the::City and County of San Luis
Obispo and the 'State of California :U.S. ..Census..rfigures : show:: :thatCity and:;County
70
a-r)9
.
ovesc�rowdtng Tates are both ow about six percent Overcrowdjngfor theState as a whole
is:abottt 1 percent
Another measure of residential occupancy is the number of persons per occupied housing unit.
The 1990 U.S. Census shows an average of 2.39 persons per occupied rental housing unit in the
City of San Luis Obispo, compared with 2.53 and 2.79 in the County and the State, respectively.
One City issue related to overcrowding has been the concern with students or other groups of
adults sharing housing in low and medium density (R-1 and R-2) residential neighborhoods.
Concerns centered on the fact that most detached houses in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods were not
designed to accommodate groups of adults and that high occupancies result in adverse impacts
on neighborhood parking and overall quality of life.
In response to these concerns, the City Council adopted an ordinance in February of 1990 that
requires households with six or more adult occupants in the R-1 and R-2 zones to secure
approval of an administrative use permit and meet standards related to parking, floor space per
individual, and number of bathrooms. This ordinance enables the City to monitor and control
problems with overcrowding and helps deter setting up large, overcrowded households in R-1
and R-2 zones.
................................
Ta:b
.... ..
...............................
........................... ....
Com�ar�son of Restdent�al Overcrow : zn the
City and County of San Luis Obtspo and Statef California
unsdcti0n Percent,of(�ccvpied
Dwellings OvercrowdedF
pity of'Sar.. Luis S
Obispo,
ount :jof€San; I u s 6.
::.....
Olispo
$tafe;of'Cali forma 1'
.........:::::>:.,;,:,,>:,,<::.;,;,;<,:<,;•; ..,::2....`..... p;;::< r:f:Y;;::c;`:ji.'7:'s::;:"Di:» ,:<::>—:;u„':-[`:?:>:> >::>;::::;::>:::><;;
Percent Of total oCcupid housing units-with i-M- OP...mote persons per
r om€ i3ni�rerse .occupied housing umts.XU S 1990 Census):
Displacement
New dwellings built on redevelopment,intensification, and mixed-use sites will probably balance
the housing lost as dwellings are replaced with businesses in office and commercial zones. New
71
replacement housing is likely to be less affordable (or not affordable) to those who have been
displaced.
2.50 Preserving At-risk Housing
New State law requires an analysis of subsidized multifamily rental units which are eligible to
change to market-rate housing due to termination of a subsidy contract, mortgage prepayment,
or expiring use restrictions during the 10 year period prior to 2003. Three pr-ejeets in San Lui_s
a mdffket rate b -duringthe pimning
f1va54Aa cieif3ef21992 to 1997 A-feareJe
Hettsing and Urban Develepment Depawnent's itwentery ef at risk units, but analysis indieale
<on...
r ,..
t�e�� 'S. 1;3epartrnent of H7using a`nd Urban beyelopment's inventory of at nskun�ts, .Only ons
of tftase properi�es u na�v at nsk of conversion to maket rate housing due fo ownership or
caritract�ral changes, as explained below: T7iaL property u known as the Monterey Aims:..
Dan Law Apartments
The Dan Law Apartments, located at 649 Branch Street, contain 9 units for low income families.
In May 1973, the project received a 40 year loan for $153,000 at 7 percent interest as part of
an FHA 236 mortgage subsidy program. ift May 1993,
pfepaying the balanee of the b b
f
hewe%,er the pessibility still exist
ineeme Musing) Management
+ it is net b
te dir-eel4y prepay these b +
a
neaf jobs will ne
effeeted; the of lew ifteeme residents te find safe Md Sanitary b
Deeause F' Ceegen 236 Fifianeing, this - et is subjeet te thepr-e%,isieftsh T T -
1 t' Fneans F Fee1' able a et
ftifilf,estment. Alte ..t:. a ..1.
ein0
+ er sellingthe pfepei4y,
T#t;is property is no longer at4isk of conversion to market rate housing In March #1993, ttie
72
_.................. _. .... .::... . ...
owner filed a Notice of:Intention to extend low=income. affordability provisions, and has been'
w0kmg with HUD to make necessary repairs to the apartments and' ;maintain their status as
NX
of iordable,housring folow income households on person Sharon Bowman at the Los
Angelei l.W office.
Monterey Arms
The Monterey Arms, located at 955 Monterey Street (and also known as the Anderson Hotel),
has 68 single-occupancy units available for elderly and disabled tenants. The only use
restrictions follow from the Section 8 contract, which limits the income and savings assets of
qualifying residents. This was originally a 15 year contract which would have terminated in
September 1992. However, the property owners applied for a 5 year extension of the contract,
moving the earliest date of conversion to September 1997.
In informal conversations with staff, the owners report they are pleased with the Section 8
Program, and typically have 30 to 50 people on a waiting list hoping to qualify for units as they
become available. The downtown location of these units is ideal for tenants who want to be
close to shopping, public transportation, government services, medical care, and community
events and entertainment. Because of the project's central location, property owners may be
motivated to convert some or all of the residential units to commercial uses in the future, and
convert subsidized units to market rate units.
eitipefl , in theheeentf l business distfiet. Be f :,aenti.., tinits_ean b, een%,et4ed
Fie'cot of replacing;[he68 units in the Monterey Anns is estimated' to be $4 4 niillioq ($2
riillton in comparable land cost,plus $65 00 per square foot for new residential const�uc#�oi%:
Th.. estimate does;not nclude,engrneenn,g and,architectural fees which'could;add another YO to.
S:pe..cM on the total-replacement cost Preservation costs are not known, since no;physical
iispectron has been dane;to determine th'e buildng's;coiidition and what improvements would
be::needed to bnng the.strucWr.e into cpn pliance with State and; Fedeial code requireme.nu?
.
Parkwood Apartments
In 1984, the City Council approved a planned development rezoning to enable construction of
168 units at 1045 Southwood. In 1985, the council approved an exception to the growth
management regulations to enable the for-profit project to be built in a single phase, with a
condition that 20 percent of the project, or 34 units, be reserved for occupancy by low and
moderate income tenants. The City also issued multifamily housing revenue bonds in 1985 to
assist with construction of the project. As part of the bond financing agreement, 34 units were
to remain affordable until April 1997. The Housing Authority monitors compliance with the
73
a-��
agreement and matches eligible tenants with available units.
The . 4 :tQng:..e...V...a..tn.
-sk
..g...f.conversion.........I
n Julye. hLuis Obispoit
Y.
.C..0...unqlrl9 ...Y................A
ssuanceb ...... enable
the owners Ao
prepay bands . issued
to finance the<Parkwood
n :....:::con:s ction:.:.:.Ao a
........................
pori: ttxon�.. �f the '.new bond Issuance, xhe property owner
:::t :contimie..to:� ease::,.a
............................
Etlrn
. ... ... ...
..... ................
housing. program, or its
-,e ef th
A repr-esen-tofi
... ............
ndeminiumg- heuxt-wer. the Feques
qhga_'; dpf;ip itiens Festfiet apffeW4 ef eendeminium eenwr-siens te ene half th
atimber ef multifafnily rental dwelfings eenstfteted during the pr-es,ieus yeaf. Gewf,ersien ef 168
units wetild eftly be allewed if at least 336 rente4 units were eenstrueted the pfeyieus yeef.
*11 net
Fuftherfnere, ff-e-vsA fequiFes a finding that the pr-epesed eefvver-sieft wi
displaee a signifieant nuraber- ef lew eF fnedefate ineeme heusehelds. 3A'hile it is HijklEely th
pfejeet .eeuld fneet the eriteria set fei4h by Entiftieipal r-egulatiens r-eggefding eende i i
eenver-siens, there is nething te pfe,,,ent the pfeperfy ewner ffem eenk,ening the 34 subsidized
tifikS W ffiafket Fate renWs as ear4y as 1997-.—
Tre presen,e subsidized tinits at Park-weed Village, the Gity md the pr-epei4y ewfiers Fflay wan
te eensider- eenyei4ing a perdeft ef the teW pfejeet te eendemiftitims with a eeHditien that SeEn
er eR ef the subsidized units be fnaint6ned fer aft additienal leiig
.,th ef time. Pessibly sef:Re e
the eeRdefniaiuffis eeeld be effer-ed fer- sale at prtiees affer-dable te lew and fnedemte ifieem
heusehelds, with resale een"Is te presef:ve the units' affer-dability.
Judson Terrace Homes
This complex of 107 single occupancy units for the elderly, located at 3600 Augusta Street, is
... ... tinder fittl risk of converting to market rate units. Unlike the other projects discussed
.... .
...1 ..' -I
in this section, the Judson Terrace Homes complex is operated by a nonprofit organization,
ganization,
American Baptist Homes. The mortgage agreement (FHA 202 Elderly) restricts tenant eligibility
on the basis of income and age. These use restrictions will remain in place until November
2010. Forty-three of the units are eligible for additional Section 8 Program subsidies. The
nonprofit organization has the option of terminating the Section 8 contract as early as July 31,
1995, or renewing the contract for an additional 5 years.
Judson Terrace Homes has no intention of terminating its Section 8 contract. Some Section 8
residents have been there for as long as 20 years. As of December 1991, there was a waiting
list of 30 pre-qualified applicants. The typical wait for a studio apartment is three to six months,
and one year for a one bedroom apartment.
74
e-Q 4-3
Resources for preserving assisted housing
Community Development Block Grant Program
Starting in July 1994, San Luis Obispo will participate with the County and other incorporated
cities in the Urban County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program administered
by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). HUD estimates that the
City will be eligible for approximately $800,000 annually. Of this, $250,000 is proposed for
the acquisition, rehabilitation, or construction of rental housing for very-low and low-income
households. An additional $50,000 is to be used for architectural, engineering, and economic
feasibility studies leading to the development of low-income elderly housing in the downtown
area.
Housing Trust Fund
The City will establish a housing trust fund to be used to develop affordable housing, provide
low-cost loans for low-income households, acquire or write-down land for affordable housing
projects, and to fund public improvements like utility extensions or street improvements to serve
affordable housing projects. Initial fund amount is estimated at $250,000, with funds derived
from State and Federal funds, in-lieu housing fees, and other housing-related revenues.
Housing Agency Resources:
San Luis Obispo Housing Authority
The Housing Authority administers the City's low income housing programs and facilities,
including the Section 8 rental assistance program. Established by the City Council in 1968, the
Housing Authority is a quasi-independent public agency authorized under Section 34200 of the
California Health and Safety Code. Governed by a seven-member Commission, the Authority
is charged with broad powers to prepare and implement housing programs for low and moderate
income persons. The Housing Authority advises the City Council on housing issues and needs,
and administers housing programs for seniors, handicapped persons, and low- and moderate-
income persons. The Housing Authority affiliate, the SLO Non-Profit Housing Corporation,
acquires, develops and manages affordable housing countywide. In 1993, the non-profit is
building a 24-unit senior and handicapped development in San Luis Obispo known as Laurel
Creek Apartments.
Peoples' Self-Help Housing Corporation
Peoples' Self-elp Housing Corporation (PSHHC) is a local non-profit corporation formed in
1970. PSHHC has developed almost 700 homeownership units, 200 rental housing units, and
several thousand rehabilitated housing units. The corporation currently manages several hundred
75
a-9�
low-income rental housing units, in addition to on-going programs in housing rehabilitation,
rental housing acquisition and construction for low-income persons, and mutual self-help home
ownership programs.
2.60 Evaluation of Previous Housing Element Policies
1. New housing construction should keep pace with enrollment and employment growth and
help reduce commuting.
Results: Housing production in the City and County has lagged behind enrollment and job
growth during this period. Between adoption of the housing element in June 1986
and January 1990, the City added 1,624 new housing units, a 10 percent increase in
the number of housing units in the City. In San Luis Obispo County, the total
number of housing units increased by 11,046 during the same period -- a 14 percent
increase. During the same period, enrollment at Cal Poly increased from 16,007 to
18,657, an increase of 17 percent.
As noted in the previous housing element, City housing needs have been partially
met through housing construction in nearby communities on the coast and in north
and south SLO County. Relatively lower housing costs in Los Osos, Arroyo Grande,
Atascadero, Templeton, and Paso Robles have made these housing markets attractive
to San Luis Obispo workers.
2. The City will encourage replacement of detrimental, nonconforming uses in residential
neighborhoods, to provide additional housing and improve neighborhood quality.
Results: During the previous planning period, ten non-conforming uses were replaced with
housing. Zoning regulations require that non-conforming uses be converted to
conforming uses if they are abandoned for a period of six months or more. Changes
of ownership, tenancy, or management do not affect the status of legal, non-
conforming uses. Also, regulations allow such uses to be replaced with another non-
conforming use upon approval of a conditional use permit. Few non-conforming
uses exist in residential areas, however, and those that do exist are rarely abandoned.
3. The City will attempt to accommodate replacement housing for housing types such as
mobile homes which may be lost through land-use changes.
Results: Two projects were approved during the planning period which affected mobile
homes: a 43-unit condominium project which would replace 23 motel units and
about 32 out of 75 existing mobile homes and kitchenette apartments; and the
conversion of 237 mobile homes to condominium ownership. Qualifying residents
received state-funded loans to help purchase their spaces, and the City co-signed for
76
a -9S
ten homeowner loans.
4. The City favors development of modest housing for first-time buyers. Due to its
relatively low cost, manufactured housing will have a high priority for land within
residential expansion areas.
Results: Between 1986 and 1992 the City approved about 100 dwellings which could be
considered "modest" or starter housing for San Luis Obispo. These were houses and
condominiums, either attached or detached, which sold or rented for less than the
median housing cost in SLO County ($185,000 for 3-bedroom detached, 1991).
5. The City favors development of additional student housing on the Cal Poly campus.
Results: No additional on-campus student housing was developed at Cal Poly during this
period. According to University officials, insufficient demand for on-campus
housing and limited State funding make additional on-campus housing infeasible.
6. The City will consider annexing land during the planning period of this element,
consistent with the City's ability to provide utilities and services, for the development of
senior-citizen and affordable housing. Of the total dwellings built on annexed land, at
least five percent should be affordable to very-low income households, ten percent should
be affordable to other low-income households, and 50 percent should be affordable to
moderate-income households.
Results: No annexations occurred during the planning period. City general plan policies
adopted in 1977, and strengthened since, discourage annexation until City water and
sewer service are adequate to meet the needs of existing and potential customers
inside the City, plus those in the area to be annexed.
7. Governmental housing assistance will be available to those area residents who are unable
to obtain any type of housing at market rates due to circumstances beyond their control.
Housing assistance should not be an incentive for those living outside the housing market
to move to San Luis Obispo.
Results: Through its Section 8 rental housing program, the City's Housing Authority helped
7,769 households find housing in San Luis Obispo from 1986 through 1990. Most
of these persons already resided in the City or surrounding areas before receiving
housing assistance. No governmental assistance was available for below-market
home purchases for low- and moderate-income households.
8. Existing housing will be conserved and the displacement of residents will be minimized.
77
a-9�
Results: During the planning period, 89 dwellings were lost through demolition and
conversion to other uses. The loss of existing housing has been minimal.
9. The totaf costs of housing development will be minimized and equitably distributed. The
City will not make new housing more affordable by shifting costs to existing housing.
Results: Costs to develop housing have increased due, in part, to higher land, material and
labor costs; higher school fees; higher interest costs; and more stringent building and
fire code requirements. The increased costs have been borne by developers and
builders who generally pass these increased costs on to homebuyers. Development
costs for City planning approvals, permits, sewer and water hook-up fees, and
building inspections have remained relatively low when compared with other cities
in the County and State. The City recently increased its development fees to more
accurately reflect the actual City costs of providing the services so that existing
residents are not subsidizing new development costs.
10. Housing should be available to all without regard to age, sex, marital status, race or
religion.
Results: According to State records, there have been cases of alleged housing discrimination
in San Luis Obispo during the planning period. The City was not aware of these
instances, nor was it asked to take any action. Housing Authority programs and City
policies are available to all persons, regardless of race, age, gender, marital status,
or religion.
11. The interests of landlords and tenants will be balanced, realizing that a satisfactory rental
hosing market requires attention to both.
Results: The City has tried to balance landlord and tenant interests by enforcing zoning and
building codes to protect the health and safety of renters; and by approving several
rezonings to allow the construction of apartment projects. From 1986 through 1991,
the City added 566 multi-family dwellings, and saw vacancy rates decrease from an
average of about six percent to five percent. By contrast, average County vacancy
rates increased during the same period from about ten percent to eleven percent.
12. The City supports cooperative purchase of mobile home parks and apartments by the
occupants who so desire to help minimize costs increases due to resales and to prevent
changes to other uses.
Results: The City has approved a conversion of a mobile home park (Chumash Mobile Home
Park) to condominium ownership to allow renters to purchase their own spaces. City
approvals included measures to prevent tenant displacement and to provide financial
78
a- 9�
assistance to tenants to purchase their spaces. No cooperative purchase of mobile
home parks or apartments have been proposed or approved.
13. The City will discourage activities which would aggravate the imbalance between
residential and employment opportunities among the communities in the housing market
area.
Results: The imbalance between jobs and housing has increased during the planning period,
due in large part to continued commercial growth in the City and in adjacent
unincorporated areas, plus increased government employment. In addition, the City
has approved the development of about 100,000 square feet of new office,
commercial and industrial floor space during the planning period. The City has also
rezoned about 15 acres of service-commercial/light-industrial land to residential uses
to improve the jobs/housing balance.
2.70 Evaluation of Previous Housing Element Programs
The City successfully achieved five of eleven programs targeted in the previous housing element.
For example, the City exceeded its housing production target of 1,600 new dwellings between
1984 and 1990; however it did not reach its goal of producing an average of 18 subsidized rental
apartments per year. A total of 25 subsidized rental apartments were produced during this
period. Programs dealing with the City's residential expansion areas -- such as allowing large
sites for mobile or manufactured homes -- required the preparation of a specific plan. Due to
the lack of water supplies to support growth, and due to work on the Land Use Element update,
preparation of specific plans was not completed. A specific plan is now being prepared for the
Margarita expansion areas.
Previous housing element programs and their results are summarized below.
1. Allow the production of 1,600 new housing units between 1984 and 1990.
Results: During 1984 through 1990, new construction resulted in a net increase of 2,690
dwellings, of which about 1,400 were rental units.
2. Obtain and prepare suitable sites to allow construction of an average of 15 dwelling
units per year of subsidized rental housing.
Results: Since the previous housing element was adopted, the City has made available sites
for a 21 unit, low-income family rental project which has since been built; and for
a 26 unit elderly housing project which is being processed. Both are San Luis
Obispo Housing Authority projects.
79
a -9 �
3. Identify sites in expansion areas for 160 mobile or manufactured dwellings.
Results: The Margarita Area Specific Plan will identify sites for about 1100 dwellings; an
early draft included a site for 125 mobile homes. An early 1992 draft included a
substantial number of modest-cost dwellings, but no specific type of construction is
specified. Other specific plans for large expansion areas will include a designated
number of affordable dwelling units.
4. Develop about 50 additional dwellings at Cal Poly for low- and moderate-income
students.
Results: No dwellings have been built, but a student housing preference study at Cal Poly is
underway. Upon completion of the study, Cal Poly and the City intend to reevaluate
the need for and feasibility of developing more on-campus student housing.
5. Develop on average 18 units per year of subsidized rental apartments.
Results: Since the element was last updated, one twenty-unit family rental project was
completed by the City's Housing Authority, and a four-unit apartment as part of a
remodel to the San Luis Hotel. The City has also approved and helped fund a 54-
bed homeless shelter which began operation in 1990.
6. Refer City-owned properties to the Housing Authority for possible use as affordable
housing sites.
Results: The Housing Authority has been made aware of all City-owned properties. A site
on Orcutt Road has been rezoned for residential use and ]eased to the Housing
Authority for a 26-unit low-income senior citizen housing project.
7. Reuse Community Development Block Grant funds which were repaid from a
previous loan program.
Results: The City has reused the funds to assist housing maintenance through below-market
housing rehabilitation loans, with an emphasis on seismic upgrades and historic
structures.
8. Decide on City participation in mortgage revenue bonds for affordable housing
development.
Results: No action taken.
9. Do not impede development of assisted housing through growth management
80
A-99
regulations.
Results: Under the City's Residential Growth Management Regulations, assisted housing
would have received the highest eligibility ranking; however due to exceptions in the
regulations, and also due to reduced construction rates, only a few residential permits
were delayed by the growth limits. Under the Water Allocation Regulations,
affordable housing projects have a special reserve. The water reserve for affordable
housing is still available; although due to mandatory water rationing, no allocations
for privately-funded affordable housing have been granted.
10. Specific plans for major residential expansion areas will include adequate sites for
affordable housing.
Results: The Margarita Area Specific Plan, in progress, includes sites suitable for multi-
family rental and condominium housing.
11. Through density bonuses and other incentives, include affordable dwellings in all
major housing projects.
Results: One major project, the Edna-Islay specific plan area, has included a Housing
Authority assisted, affordable housing project. Density bonuses have not been used
to produce affordable housing.
12. Specific plans for major expansion areas will include adequate sites for affordable
housing, and will require the production of certain amounts affordable housing.
Results: No specific plans were adopted since the element was last updated; however specific
plans for the Margarita expansion area is being prepared in 1992. The City has
completed a feasibility study of requiring a certain number of affordable housing
units in expansion areas, and as a result of the study, will require affordable housing
in expansion areas as part of this housing element update.
J7JL:hagmv5.wp
Sl
FIGURE 1
1. 159 BROAD 0.52 Ac.,
--------"" 2. 1815 SYDNEY 0.99 Ac.
3. 2760 JOHNSON 0.72 0
4. MONTEREY HISTS. 21.3
` f
S. COLINA 4.38 F,..
7. 3963/-C'65 POINSETTIA 2.00 Ac.
r, U
I
� L foLY o. EDNA ISLAY 111.0 Ac.
* 1720 JOHNSON 0.32 Ac.
4 10. 2125 RACHEL 0.19 Ac.
11. 2120 FLORENCE 0.45 Ac.
12. 2353 BUSHNELL 0.53 Ac.
13. 3050 ROCKVIEW 0.17 Ac.
14. 3361 BROAD 0.87 Ac.
r 15. 625 BROAD 0.63 Ac.
-�. . 16. 651 FOOTHILL 5.71 Ac.
17. END OF LAWRENCE 3.22 Ac.
• LAGUNA LAKE b
' j��•
ts
SRI, . .
A.
8
/y _
a/ P!r
/-
,\
N SCALE i-a3soo'
i
CITY LIMIT LINE:--
.l
LARGE VACANT RESIDENTIAL PARCELS INSIDE `NITv LIM. ITS *
city or 'Capable of further subdivision
San IDIS OBISPO
ca:- S::ee::Pcs: O!••ce 6c. 6i00 • San Lu•s ONSD0.CA 9-340--
82 /oJ
FIGURE 2
%of vacancy ,
------------ 1. 275-85 BRIDGE 100%
2. 841 LAWRENCE 100%
3. 2900-3030 BROAD 95%
4. 3053-85 S. HIGUERA 60%
5. 3251-71 S. HIGUERA 80%
CAL_POLY 1 6. 75 SANTA ROSA 600/0
7. 374-96 SANTA ROSA 70%
- 8. 1121-47 MONTALBAN 80%
9. 1231-41 LAUREL 80%
. . t} 10. 3229 49 BROAD 95%
11. 2959 BROAD 70%
12. 3069 BROAD 90%
13. 2238-2252 BROAD %
4; 1 gZ
gz* _
LAOUNA LAKE j
:J,
IN
�� {{ 10 ti
F..
! .
uRPORT \
N SCALE =350°'
I/y CI-Y UMIT LINE:----- \
COMMERCIAL SITES WITH RESIDENTIALJMD{ED USE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
City of SITE CRITERIA:
�- "J r Meets minimum lot dimensions
= San tuts OBISp0 Compatible adjacent uses
-
51:eel/Pos, o:+. -
'?- =-�� .e �:. _ _a . L:15 Oams:c.Ct 93405EtOC Vacant or not permanently committed to existing use
83 � �'�
FIGURE .3
4
-------------•• # ADDRESS VACANT
1. 533 BROAD ST. N
2. 170 BROOK
3. END OF FLORENCE Y
------- _ 4. 640 HIGUERA N
k \\ pr f GL PM' 5. 1280 LAUREL N
6. 736 MARSH N
7. 630 MONTEREY ST. N
% f 8. 999 MONTEREY N
9. 955 MORRO N
10. 1071 ORCUTT Y
11. 860 PACIFIC N
--`--- '---• \ �� 12. 877 PALM N
13. 748 PISMO N
j• 14. 3271 ROCKVIEW Y
t
1 �(
/ '9,12 .,
7
'4
3
,.�••.;...
i ff - 3
LACW"LAKE 2 6 .
�y s tom• � �c'�i�-
66
x"14
t, A.%
\�f
---- � .rte-•...._._ ���,
:A ".
1
I
N SCALE t'=3500
CITY LIMIT LINE;-----
CITY-OWNED SITES WITH RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
city of SITE CRITERIA:
_��— "J r Meets minimum lot dimensions
San lues OBISp0 Compatible adjacent uses
.;. =aim SneevPc6: O"ice 3c. 500 • San Luis OOHS DO.CA 9340---5100.07 Not permanently committed to existing use
• -:06
84 Q„103
rltuur�lc �+
1. Irish Hills
2. Dalidio
3. Stoneridge
8 1 4. Margarita
5. Broad St.Annexation
'.
6. Edna Islay West
Cbl POLY
7. Orcutt
-- 13
14 8. CDF
�} •- - 'K,/ 9. Highland
i 10. Foothill Saddle
10 * XT
11. Luneta
• 12. Maino
- --- : _ 13. Cal Poly
11 a 14. Miossi
j 15. Alrita
LAGUNA LAKE
--I.
'� o t ` 't
f I
4� a ..N�'r• _':"`Ea:3~-L
5XX
"'
i -- ti
s
5
.... .. .
i
yry ,.,TY LIM.T UNE:
POTENTIAL RESIDENTIAL AREAS OUTSIDE 1992 CITY LIMITS
$_ City Of `-" `3 SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT AREAS
- = san IUIS OB1Sp0 * MINOR DEVELOPMENT AREAS
'z S!•eel�Posi 0!!ice Eo: 6.00 • San LuiS OtisDo.CA 93403.8100
OURCE: 1992 L.U.E. UPDATE IN PROGRESS 85
Attachment . .. . ' .
Q ;moi �•�....�...' .. F9. :�. [V CD....::::i>...;°3�f� :'01
.; :.
pr •r%%?%i%'i' .{ N Mi?
y
do
ra
a
Lt) c,7 M M Ln of a
MOCON nN
N No O !n w NN C d
y 7 f9 69 N .:' 69 to Ccg
U f9 69 f9 w y
v
m .n
O w IT IV 69 to Inn N Lf)
r d O
J
M m 44 419% r N Q 69 M 4? O
4. 0 69 49 69 49 R
O
Q = `
C4
QQ ao 69vN (D " N � � •e
O y
as f944). v: CIS 6M9 nw w
y 1'J
� C
z O O N N0 C N N M 4 •�
O O N M C O Q C M v y
G (n O 0 49 Q N M O O M O d
to Y f9 69 r N M N N CD C C
O 0 f9 69 69 69 69 N •y
2
~ U �
0 O O N CD LO co Mr CO M 0 0 C , d
Q y
Q N N49 N LO -T C Q O
QC
z N N r- N le e
X 69 64 49 69 69 69 69 69
o m �
O h
J C9 M 49 Q N to to � V
J r r r N M r r to V O r
C/) Q
49 69 49 69 49 f9 69 W d
z
c
W av lw M Co O T O O 117 V dcu
L E Q Q 1n In m y cO IT 1n 1n 9T ca
�'- Q M 1a 69 r C7 U7 Of Of r d ` +'
CL Q Q N 69 c+i N 69 69 r` O f,
O m fA fA 69 69 J m U ya
W Q g � C
O O T N N M r r F W y y aJ
y > 0 2 M N N Cm r 0 N M O m •C d U
QCp WUQ N N 49 co 0 CJ co W W � z L. O .0 (C9
N W 49 H 69 H W J p a p C
J a m 2 a o ? a e LL
U
o, Q Q O o0 4o t °a
Oz Q C o > C) d .Na
mW N uri 'Ta - L%)
a
J n m ,O
d V w ~ C'J C v 'o rn
3w� ^ CCC LUco
Z o C
n W LL y N O Q J O O w C3 LL •C
•� d d N d V ca
LU U— Intim u c c w LL -Cc a zj � �? u
ct CO U— ca U— 0WLU zW0O d � �
(y D LL C C LLJN m Y V C z C. c Cn Z O 0 tt �..� LL y T
E c7 " ; °a °- ia � Qcscm w ou� zwa � �
CLw z � c7 r✓7t o � LU c W > Ot7C (7 f2. 0
O W ma Z cU c CO u 3W LL � � E SSMJ LO h C
y z c3 O cl c g ? ¢ jm -� UUzm O d d
> Q R o `� o C7 co o E- to » Q Q O n o
0 aCL >- Dc7amt- um_ t- 0 ¢ 0m W wUm_
Attachment., .
oo'o�o'o NLn�,- m o000 �i ..
p O <7
O O t'71 tD N�.� r° 0O O Lo
. r
c`7���07 (9'tD�03(D N N N O iA
01 a::>a9 .Q.: O ,..L7
: , .... i;'s,i:f 69'.CV'V. {O' > �
.O 64 69 69 69 69 69 6F3 r
j .<...
c : 0 Ln 0 0 0 Ln in c� m Ln r)0 Ln : m
tl O 1� r tin C7 t7 Ln to
Q O O Lf) r C7'.;_ :.;; 69 N (D cf 0 O O (D :':
69 0 46 N Co O :.. CD Cj
U 6969H6969 "...� d V
., V
K V LL o
s • • • • 1
(/) r N W I-- Lo 0 r N co O Qcc
Q,
0 W = (+i co r N Q0 (D 0, t]
J r co Q 69 Lo 69 O' tl. M 0 (o O L- tl y
Q m 69 69 69 r Q N �O C tl
a 0 69 6N9 609 0 69 r (4 O c Z
a:
O C O O O
to C) N 10 f� N Ln r co P O O f� N O G
q Q r O W 69 r N f� r 0 O Ln Ln 0 mtl tl
z a: Q CD Ir 1: 69). Ln O to 1` N N N Ln p 69 O 4
Z N 69 r Q O (o N N O G7 r r O (?
69 69 69. N Q N 69 Q Q O co O r II 6 tl
FA 69 64 69 69r69 rfA O (,q ¢ •? y U U
C u 0 y tl tl
0 O O O O O N Ln r 0 Q O O Q N r fl a C. C �.
Z O O O 69 O N 1, r O N Ln Ln m Q W �. O tl y
q (J1 O U9 O to 69 0 O (7 n N N N (7 bg (n Q O .d = t)
QN N N LD c! (D N c N N C c 0 11 F- C O tl 3
0 0 69 69 b9 69 69 69 9 (A 69 69 U
6U •�
= 69 F- F- q � 4 C tl
I . Z a - b tl
O o U LJJ C3
(`4 Q. .�
r 0 M n Q N W r N 0 O P M O W J y C o y
CD Q_ Lo C) to 69 Q N I-. O O (D (D O
Z Oi M N Lo Ln N O N Q Q r c1 D O Z
L X 69 69 69 � 69 69 H 69 69 69 r F- a: W �: tl •E tl
0 K U tl QCj tl
z TZ
Q O Co N CIO N O r p O O O O c! (� 0 a � p h
_ W O N Q 69 N N f� r 0 Ln O O 0 N Cr) 2 O tl r
cc 0 4 n Lo 69 Ln O LA N O O N Q J (] p ai
J C1 r Q N c7 (:� L7 C7 N O Ln (o z fl (Z a` O a1
J v> ; 696969 la 49 � w � b96699co r�499 0au 4a oa
44
Q ynQ a'
Q co Ln 0 Q r` cry N (D r O O O O b G O, 2 C
q a: O C7 f` C O M (D r r O O O O r y tv
Z N n rl = I 69 m O v cc f� r Lo h O V Q) L-)y 41
z m f� r �bq 69 0 Q o! cli C7 O N (O O O Q c.
W N Q 49 69 I 69 6Q9 co 69 cv 69 r fA 6Q9 to 69 r R O d
69 pf o C p O
U J o 0 0 0 o Of P C O O O O O O RI y' C y C�
y W 0 = Ln O O O Ln N Q r M N O O N LD a L9 V
C g U 1, N O Q Lo 69 v c! N m O O (moi N O (� d QL Q C
O ¢ (/) q h N r r C c t� r O O r r Lr) L 0
W 69 69 69 r (q 0 M 69 c m (o h W C .y •C O C
J am w wwa 6469 u9 w ¢ C7 4
w aLL
E � (n a ¢ QU c
[L o O (s tl a
0 a U Lo to o m
U LL .. 0u ri C O U C O
f� o p y .Q o
LLQ a: li w v aa: z0 oUe ° h
> Z m 3 >- ayi rn U v UwQv h y .c
o w R o o ra
CC cn 11
E _o twi LL ni 'i! LLL Wi. c ri a p W U 2 W o r a o m
`. �- w _� a: CD q EIi E a 'u. a a = irjLogOC7 m aq w
Ln
J. Z LL c N CD Y 5 Z I c c o O 2 a < y = c tl o
0 a O 3 c a v a. a °i o c W p q N ¢ m _ �a y q
L = C7 E e6 O U U' W L w o W c° 0 7 p W F. O IZ C7 tl z
J ? o E 0 C) d Z C U C fl W > W LL
C� Z j i� c z 0 :2 "a z v c J ¢ U U La m ti o
_ Q c o v o J o o U E o o H c�i� ar q q F h u 4
CJ ,J W hagF- j (D C3 ZI - - UI- 1- m W w
0 LL CL m w Q
Attachment.
::ggtn f7 N CV c
Q :W rF 3 LD tD N i9. Q CD :r C i0 i. Cf
z:49
d
c
.w.
yJ
c o 0 :6 in Lo N :r o o .o a
2 C) :.
CD Ln r :. M co N 'p Ln Ln O to
M r Ln ............ 419 N N .4m::: N M 'r r. 0 .0
y V w w w49 69 w a w n >r
b u L
� o n
CD O tl Ln co 0M O O Q �
0 � CV 6699 M 4990CY v LO Ln M ro a niy
Q m w w Q LD O N M d C 0
d 0 w 69 rw w rw j O C - .
V �
N O Q Q r N v N M O O O Ln
I (j
-13
w N CD M Ln N O Q
U
T D k `Z ¢ 69 C$ O Cy ^Q M o Cf N N .1
N w w w w w w 49 -,-Z r p V
N t CO]
Z O O O N C P M O O O M Q C �-
U') w N N M r M N Ln O O C y
Q N O O w IT LD r N N to L.7 O � - 0
co Y N N M it Cf to Lr O r C O RS 3
Q w w w w w w w r N R
= 0 w w 5 c
oC) Zz
E C)
O N b CO) to M O M to Ln O N
Lr) O Q r� to Ln y •E O y
'-- Q C Qf C o h M N w r 1� to C� O M O N r y L J
Z' z m w C < tD O w N N C) Q h Q
W O w w w w w w `U C E ri
q
c C C
L O O
} '7 O '7 N@ M
O W r w r N C1 r M O Ln N 0 co
J C C 40) C to r C! N r 0 U S o r
J co _' 69 W 669 49 w w 649 649 r u o
co a
W �
> y m m
W Q N M r CO r to C7 O O O O U O Q E
Q Q Q N CD cD to V. N Cf O O O w W v Q{ k
F- Q C.) O M69 N q 0r CD n N O U O y F"
Q Z m N w C7 LA 4 Cy r N M O O a
NQ w w w 44 W w .9 w Nw a O ` � N
Cui
o
Li. O O O Cf N N M O O O M D y C y U
N0 = Ln O In N Q O h Ln to O N U R t9 C
C W g U h < r w Ln t'7 b N N N Ln_ Q O V •O d]4
U-
CL ww w � � � � 69 6y QCT ` � O ` ii
o O
U a
E o u 4 ` o
LO
r C]
CSO � cn
U.
5 N LU
LL U. W V C Q r FN Z o 0 C � y J
W LLL L C uj N ui O y Ol C
'r nN U v Z Lm"
v Q ( > r LL H U. co W C G O O Q Z W .O V m Q Chi
to C O Li — O = atS LWL d o •C a W 0 0
c w " d t� 0 0 65 W z i= cy � a Q- :!j
d Q ON
LL. : L C m Y C Z O O C N0 ¢ U U y O V
etf v o CC Eo UZ
0 0 Z c u a Z U c m w > W tui C U
o a
a� O z a = `� O c32 z a � `� ¢ j -� dZm m E 'o
d O JdQ I- D0FL m H Z � U � 0 CCl) ZmUa ~ b h V 4
N D_ m W F-
1 D7
Attachmentrl
:z
c N
s
U)
o ¢ o . Win IV
� p'oc >"oo a + F � •en 2aoO�alaw
J a W y o eo o c o :ice. O.O aq w t-.¢ N w.an�¢�u p
La.
N to a: V/ A CO O N tO J 1 I +IN + Ly tD W
= O, N N_ w w .N. ap ¢Z y•.
a d .n N Q tn;,
N 0 a-
a - a a, a
Y
♦ U +
N Z W Z W J U J W Z W Z W
O J0 v N N W 2 S tip LL 1. W = W= O N
Q O N I N N N + U +U N ZQ LO _ O + (.) + U N N 'r„ N
CL O N N N N r. ZtoZ + g + W as N e Zt`o-iZN N N w
N J J O LL N ¢ W J W J N
aNayZy a a
W
to
+ J + J ` J + JJ
:>J0 1.- <1 � a a _ a ` a
as ` F + !- + F- Ma 0WIW N OW0LLu L9 Cc En m 0 WyW
0 1` 00o m CcO � OF- ¢ ar'> of anal- ar 1- p
Z a O to N N�7� c OJO -j + W W aL:l v Wa Wa W a4 < N
N N w � � N w cOa01' OST O � D � � � W � w
y � NK ww 'Aw p < � .c w C%l � .pQ •e Q .e
Cli
Z w� a WZ 4W 6O0W - WoU.-
zM rim V62
i9F- 19 60 w !- wH
Q O
la
L)J N 1 a2 LU
JW
C N CD p ?y O N ^ s 1 LL
Z7
O
N 1 W) O O J N O J q N O 00 N N N N 0
CM
ON
w w Z < y
LU
< LL
W
LL y
W Q v� v�M I vm zN 101
L)
V Q NOC p �O O O P. NO NO ^ OF ^ W Q�f tai a ZLLa
5: Lo1 U a� a N .� O 1 U 7 U y U C* J7 Co Fr 0
O N W N N N ' w N W N W w a' Nu C3 w. N w r O J U r
N W¢ W¢Ip Q� ¢ w ^LLZ Q1
w a Z t-
UI
Z S: ^ O CCi
Z W r m N t0 O .Co Q O < j N Z O Z N t� Z E
J Q N N I^ lqf N Jf fOq ¢ � .:J wM �S � t? W NQ ,N
U < W N N N Nlzr
�nw z + � vtnv t'nN 1 p In
> I Kw w w N w N w [0
Q. U z w
n� CL
v� gN�f �� o � oz �' z O U
a ¢ Nom ¢ o '-� v,F ^ f �fCw) IN�-� mf a N o w G
zM N0 N O Ys0o0 0 `►O w0 "P0 to to N m
Q 2 I U aN„' 1 0 I LL I U I 001,C)
v` 1 = orf Cl to 2 a C
N Q N LO N v 0 p O R yLLJ e HLli y O N H N p H N N U LL
G W¢ 2 CCN Z N 2 M 2 y 2 C.¢ S O z Q
Z 44 N
L1
N
.r.4
V p C3
pp a c oo C1
C5 C3 C3
d O NNO Lu N¢ O N I
Q O O + O N N N 64LU N 00 � N
N 44 W H ..-{
1 p J
Cn 5; C',U N w N H C O_
W CL W LL w
"� C
W 0 m
U U) P Ln
W CLQ > u W 00 w w o 0
> a
Zy z z a Zu ¢ < z
41
W W a O � t W 2 a ¢ > z z O
W < Lo
'�� F- IL U Q 6 CL U 0. F O d d Zp rz
V LU j O Z U W LU z J 0 z W W U z LL < X y )c
Z w NO ¢ to r ¢ < 2 =LU > v g w z z i W
N 0 z ¢ > Lo OJ a ¢ u 0 w a a y 0 a a F-
Attachment
.IL.-LU p< :f p p OWc
UJ u ..Q bO .¢� � ? Q Ori, MA
N.ts1 :Z4U' .1 .Z C7 d Z Z .100
-IL 97
U.
J..y mom. Gaym.:-:-a:
0 .LU :I Q WQ W WQ W
O
S N ¢ O y ¢LL. O ¢LL. O W
u1 O U 0 O .0 O O U O O U O
0 LUfLJ
a0 a a Z a a
+ a + +
Of 0 � LU
Q Q 0 ° 0 ° 0cc
° D U
Z Q ] Z ] Z ] 2 >0 0
Z .
V1 0 0 p 0 m 0
Co J G J co J O J
Z m O m m
0 2 p LLI 2 Wp o o
< W D U D U D U D U
00 j 2 j Z j Z Z
= mo 2 5 m
m co
^� m
LLI
¢ o
2 LU Z Z N Z Z o Z V o Z O o
W x N :) Z N z Z N
m 0 f _0 + C3 + C +
LL O J C CO
m m J m J C J r
}L m m m �^ O
r
W 2 O X Wp 2 p 2 O y
LL } O V O V O V O VUJ LL. tL C
fn y < � z z i S ? °z_ 1
} J e o c O o 0 m
Cid W m !3o o a
Z0 0 2 0 2 O U
� QU � DU � DU � DU �
J < ¢ Z N j Z h j 2 N z Z ,� LL .
N Q O + + D + +
CD m J m m J m
m ^
CL
m m ^ m m U)
ui a
o I p 2 0 f o a
Ou 0 f- 0 0 0 0 u
H Wz Z j Z
dCO M 2 j Z J
♦ + + r
m p J m 0 m - C
1m ! m !' m m
z
a
Co L'
LU W a U
0 a LL. w
z z � z v
ow < U) zW
Lu wgLUn
W ¢
men
_ .
Y '
h . z. LL 0
Q
Dm O +
CCp QQ N >
Z m N N y yNq N y i y 4 w 0 a
N: H iz Z
to J y J y J y J co
y j ¢ to ¢ y ¢ N ¢ 1~j) cs
O O
CL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w w
+ +
8 0 c y p o o r p 0 +
Ln
HQN N O y N O
rA O yN O
wUN ww O
HUy w.�
w }Q� 0
¢7w
o
Ln
a � w� � Z 'LNZ �Dy0LL .
N N
Q Q
1=- 0 04 0
[]
O y 3 O N +
Q N N N N Q („) N Q O v 0 O N
Y O O wJ N
00 m W w J ~ H w °' ,�� w w
Q N D 1 Q N z 1 w w N w
Q ~ P- d U o r a U o
CL a
+ LL LL
W
LL y 0 0 Q 00
0 0
O F-
F F U p O N F W a? Y F W 9 Y F N
U Z o Lu Q U LO N ~ G O = O = _ _ Z O U
��.... w N F Z U t7 F Z U > > !� Z
W Q V OLL U W (A W W r + y =64 ¢ 44+ y = ¢ z ��_( w O
W 0 1 G ¢ Z > W Ip r r a r a N Q N V
49 LU
LL O Lo n 0 w ¢ F 0 0 0 0 � O y w cc
y w y + `s a
'R .� V ¢ O et ;9 N G� N LL yVj lL N lL yVj LL N Z O.1
v F LL Mco
Z
a
+ + +
F N O O O y F W v Y H W v Y < C
C W N
W N W y c a w y -1 ¢ w W -i ¢ w W 0 y E
W L J 0 0 f- U w 60 w U eg7 F W (=j CC.) F W (=j 0 O41
G U LL W } r- 1- w f. x w f. 2 - z U Q p
_ H Q LL N W J y X ¢ F + N ►-W LU Lo0 + ^ 1-- 0 J yC w m
C2. to
0 CL
O N = p U. Z > Z O ¢ Y O p ¢ y O O 7 <� d
V � o � o 0IL 0 2oUN :° oUa ; l-
Z N U = 0 V w LL W w w LL W N U
W S V U Q G
Q
O C
ogoSy gg $ gy ►-
LL
• QQ O p N O O O O y 0 1.. j p
Q 2 cli
w w w w 0 "+ w w O + � �( O
cl
Z m N .y- ltj (¢y U O N ¢ U w O 4¢j ? Q O 71
f N '- W W �-- + eD y � y +i
N Q N LL Z Z > N w LL Z Z > N O w O O L
m O LL LL 0 2 O LL 0 O Z ami, H N co
O S O 0 O O w _
N C- * N Q V. e` * N U N ~ w n
!V N ^ cl H N V) N C
1- J
0 = W N F z N F + 0 + O Z m
LL N LL .e co O t O N Cf]
N W O -0 Z0 0 O Z0 0 m m m N w
d m g U U 't U U w y w H N O
N N O
a
F- 00 LJ
U
u V U Z a
Z N a J u Q Z
Z cn Q Z 2 Z U CC Qa. CC
CL U ? a v a � u a ¢ a
e-2—/l17
p CAPITOL OFFICE �i$$�Ji���y comunTEES.- .
STATE CAPITOL l.. 7 AGRICULTURE
SACRAMENTO.CA 95814
NSUM
GOVERNMENTAL EFFICIENCY NCY
18181445-7795 COAND NEW TECHNOLOGY
Far.19181 324-5510 WAYS
AND MEANS
ANDREA SEASTRAND "°U�CAUCUS
❑ DISTRICT OFFICE ASSEMBLYWOMAN,THIRTY-THIRD DISTRICT SELECT COMMITTEE ON
523 HIGUERA STREET MARINE RESOURCES
SAN LUIS OBISPO.CA SMI ASSISTANT REPUBLICAN LEADER
18051549.3381
Fa::IBM)549-3400 5'rAT�
$gyp• �� rr 7
MEETING
DATE/O�_ _�ITEM
October 1, 1993
f%TrORNEY
CIL CDD DR
"N DIR
Timothy Coyle, Director ❑ FIRE CHIEF
Department of Housing OrPIVDill..
and Community Development (OPORIG ❑ POLICECHF
1800 Third Street, Suite 450 TEAM ❑ RECDIR
Sacrament , CA 95814 DFiFILE U UTILMR
' f' �� ❑ PERS DIR
Dear Mr. CXe:
As you may beaware,aware, the City of San Luis Obispo has revised
their Housing Element and will be presenting it for approval by
the City Council on Tuesday, October 5, 1993 . I am very much in
favor of a quick approval of this element by the Department of
Housing and Community Development (HCD) .
This new element allows for unlimited growth in the area of low
and very low income housing. By agreeing to this, the City of
San Luis Obispo has met .the language of the law which forbids the
implementation of an overall growth limit. The court decision
issued as a result of the battle between HCD and the County of
Santa Barbara established this distinction by overruling HCD in
its attempt to narrowly interpret the growth limitation law. I
am hopeful that it will not be necessary for the City of San Luis
Obispo to expend more of the taxpayers ' money in an effort
reestablish this precedent.
Further, the City of San Luis Obispo has used the Department of
Finance' s revised growth projections for the County of San Luis .
Obispo instead of the earlier, unrealistic projection. The new
10-year projection indicates a growth rate of no more than 1 .9
percent. If HCD refuses to accept these numbers as the projected
growth rate for the area, and instead continues to insist upon
the higher projection, I would like a detailed explanation.
As I have indicated to you before, the practice of holding
Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) hostage in order to
extract local housing elements which meet with your agency's
approval seems to be becoming commonplace. I understand clearly
the legal requirements HCD is charged to uphold and do no k_
OCT 5 1993
Clrr COUNCI
Printed an Recycled Paper SAN LUIS OBISPO,
Mr. Timothy Coyle
October 1, 1993
Page Number Two
that you make exceptions to the law. However, I am concerned
that grants which are designed to aid and assist the needy are
being denied and delayed because of HCD's. narrow and rigid
interpretations.
In conclusion, too often state and federal entities feel as
though they must intervene in matters which should be reserved
for local governments. I would like to see state officials show
faith in the ability of locally elected leaders to make the
correct decisions for their communities.
Sincerely,
ANDREA SEASTRAND
AS:ed
cc: Mayor Peg Pinard, City of SLO
Larry Campbell, SLO Women's Shelter
MEETING t.-.NDA October 5 1993
DATE - ITEM # '
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
We are very concerned with the prospect that the City might have an ill-advised housing plan
forced on to them by the State Office of Housing and Community Development. The bait is that
the City will not be eligible for "free" money. Of course this is very hard to resist. The central
question is how much will it cost us to maintain this eligibility.
It has been stated that simply putting the zoning in the plan does not get the housing built. True,
but it does make the City liable for the infrastructure to support the zoning. We are all
painfully aware that the current and planned infrastructure, particularly water supply and
distribution, will not even support the planned 1 percent growth. Further the Council has not
resolved the problem of funding any improvements that are made. Potential developers have
refused to fund the infrastructure made necessary by their developments and have placed this
obligation on existing home owners.
This comes at a time when there is already an over supply of housing in the City and vacant
housing remains unsold for months or even years. We are aware that there is a call for more
low-income (affordable) housing. The truth is that if housing is built to the current codes, all of
the required studies done and papers filed and all fees paid there is no "affordable" housing,
only subsidized housing. It is simply question of who will pay u're subsidy.
One major adverse impact on housing in the City is that Cal Poly has never given consideration
to meeting their obligation to provide adequate, high quality housing on campus. Acceptable on
campus housing would greatly mitigate the shortage of low priced housing in the City and
greatly reduce auto traffic and associated degradation in air quality.
Mean while Cuesta College grows without constraint and has no housing. If some means could
be found to build housing next to the campus, the benefits could be astonishing.
The City should be able to include student housing in their quota.
Everyone should be aware that this State agency is the same one that has set standards.for
occupancy that allows 10 persons in a one bedroom apartment, 17 in a two bed room apartment
and 40 or more in a 3 bedroom house. Will these standards apply to any new housing built to
satisfy their plan? Depending on the size of the units this could be a lot of people.
Sincerely, Ff- ArrORNEY
FDD DIR
EY FIN DIR �a
�o% w ❑ F,1€1'E CHIEF R E E I V E D
Iff tv DIR
❑ POLICE CHQCT 1993
O REC DIR
Henry & Doreen Case ❑ UnL CIR CITY CLERK
J' �� ❑ PERS DIR SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA
MEETING AGENDA 09
MEMORANDUM DATE 10-6' ITEb #
September 30, 1993
TO: City Council
FROM: Ken Hampian, Assistant City Administrative Officer
SUBJECT: Status of Women's Shelter CDBG Grant (Public Hearing #2)
A Councilmember has inquired as to the status of the Women's Shelter grant. Staff has
confirmed with State HCD staff that the grant will remain in an active status until February
28, 1995. Therefore, if the City's Housing Element is certified prior to that time, the grant
can still be awarded.
KH:bw
cc.mm2
F
CDD DIR(SIN DIR❑ FARE CHIEFp� C ,-10 POL CIE CHF RGCE•� v0 REC DIR0 UTIL GIP SEP 3 019.93 O PERS DIP CITY COUNCIL
SAN LUIS OBISPO, C v