HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/22/1994, 1 - REVIEW OF STATE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (HCD) COMMENTS ON THE NOVEMBER 1993 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT. THIS ITEM
`ypp����N�IGll�lylllll�lf I I II IIIIIIII
CONTINUED TO
MEETNG DATE:
CltJ or S�yi LUIS 0S
ht ul ITEM NUMBER:
WMIZA COUNCIL A
ORT
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Direct] By: Jeff Hoolzage
Planner
SUBJECT: Review of State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)
comments on the November 1993 Draft Housing Element.
CAO RECOMMENDATION: 1) Review and consider HCD comments on the Draft Housing
Element; and 2) Give direction to staff regarding changes or additions to the Draft Housing
Element to resolve HCD concerns, as appropriate.
SITUATION
The City recently received comments from the State Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) on the November 1993 Draft Housing Element. The November 1993 draft
was sent to HCD following City Council review last Fall (minutes attached). As directed by the
City Council, the Draft was reviewed by the Planning Commission in December (minutes
attached).
This is the second round of HCD comments on the Draft Housing Element. Last July, HCD
commented on the June 1993 draft. As a result of HCD comments and City Council direction,
the November 1993 hearing draft was prepared, and included numerous changes from the earlier
draft housing element. Most of the changes were intended to resolve HCD's concerns with the
previous draft, and to address requirements of the State Housing Law. HCD continues to have
concerns with this latest version of the Draft Housing Element, and has identified additional
changes needed before HCD can certify the Housing Element.
ADVISORY BODY COMMEENTS
At its December 1, 1993 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the November 1993 Draft
Housing Element. Commissioners generally supported the draft element, and forwarded their
comments to the City Council for consideration prior to final adoption. In summary, the
Commission recommended that: 1) Program 1.26.9 requiring downtown residential uses be
modified to allow greater flexibility and provide incentives for residential uses above the ground
floor, and that this be changed from a program to a policy; 2) Policy 1.27.4 regarding walled-off
neighborhoods be modified to accommodate sound walls; 3) Program 1.29.8 regarding water
retrofits for low-income households be modified to require private developer assistance; 4)
Program 1.31.5 be deleted since it did not relate to housing; 5) Programs 1.23.8 and 1.23.10
regarding "no net loss" of housing downtown and in office zones be deleted; 6) and that the last
sentence in Program 1.26.8 be deleted.
DISCUSSION
Most of the State's previous concerns were resolved with changes made in the November 1993
draft. HCD had previously identified 14 housing element issues needing clarification or further
��uH�itll��u►�Il���p°j►I@p� MY Of San'LUiS OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 2
analysis. HCD now cites seven remaining issues as needing changes or additional work. Four
of the issues appear to be easily resolved: 1) expand analysis of overpayment and overcrowding,
2) include a program to identify possible sites of and resources for emergency shelters and
transitional housing; 3) include an equal housing opportunity program, and 4) identify a
preservation strategy for "at-risk" affordable apartments at the Monterey Arms (Anderson
Hotel).
The other items will probably require policy changes to resolve, since they relate closely to the
City's established growth management and annexation policies. HCD's main request is for
additional documentation to show that the City could provide enough capacity for its assigned
regional housing need allocation. HCD staff believe that the City's growth and annexation
policies will preclude it from meeting regional housing needs, and therefore, from complying
with State Housing Law. Consequently, HCD is asking the City to exempt moderate-income
housing from growth management limits, and to take a more proactive approach to annexation.
Some of HCD's requested items are new (eg. providing a schedule for pre-zoning and annexing
expansion areas); and some items were identified in the previous HCD letter (documentation on
overcrowding and overpayment). Specific HCD requests are listed below. Staff comments on
the request are in italics.
1. Overcrowding and overpayment. Provide additional documentation on overcrowding
and overpayment.
Additional information was included in the November Draft to address these issues; however
HCD has identified additional information to be included. Staff does not anticipate any difficulty
in providing the requested data, and there are no policy implications.
2. Identify adequate sites to meet regional housing needs. Demonstrate that at least
3,500 new dwellings could be accommodated (assuming water was available) in
expansion areas by 1999.
The Draft Housing Element provides for about 1,600 additional dwellings to be added within the
existing city limits through new development, rezoning, redevelopment and intensification. Based
on the City's draft Land Use Element, about 3,200 dwellings could be accommodated in
expansion areas by the year 2017 The total additional housing to be provided within Urban
Reserve is about 1,600 + 3,200 = 4,800 dwelling units -- about 300 units short of the City's
RHNA allocation of 5,128 dwellings. To meet the RHNA requirement, the City would need to
show how it could accommodate an additional 300 units in the expansion areas or within current
city limits.
y�
�����►�Ni�IIIIIIIIIU°N°°IIUIII CI-W Or San-LUIS OBISPO
= COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 3
3. Pre-zoning and annexation. Provide a plan and timeline for pre-zoning and annexing
sufficient sites in expansion area to accommodate regional need; show how the
infrastructure and public services will be provided to expansion areas to accommodate
this level of development; and identify the amount of development which could occur in
expansion areas given City growth management and development phasing policies.
Here, HCD is asking the City to identify an annexation strategy which would enable the City to
meet the RHNA requirement, and to spell out how infrastructure would be provided to serve
residential growth. The Draft Element includes a policy stating that the Ciry will adopt specific
plans for residential expansion areas which designate sufficient R-4 zoned land to meet the City's
affordable housing needs for very-low and low-income households. HCD wants additional
assurances that the City is doing everything possible to meet its RHNA requirement; hence, the
new request for an annexation schedule and related information.
It has not been the City's policy to initiate residential annexations. Market demand and property
owner project proposals have initiated annexations. The Margarita/Airport Area annexation was
initiated by the City at the request of the property owners. Detailed plans for infrastructure and
public services are included as pan of a specific plan or project development plan which must
be approved by the City prior to annexation.
To meet the RHNA requirement, it appears the City would need to provide a schedule for
annexing all of the residential expansion areas within the 5-year timeframe of the Housing
Element (by 1999), and allow higher residential densities either within existing city limits or in
expansion areas to make up for the 300 dwelling "shortfall. " It is possible to set out a
conceptual schedule for annexation and in development, however unless the City
initiates the annexations, the schedule is subject entirely to external factors not under City
control and hence, may not provide the desired assurances. This HCD request appears to go
beyond the letter of State Housing Law.
4. Emergency shelters and transitional housing. The City should include a program to
identify adequate sites for emergency shelters and transitional housing for homeless. This
requirement could be met be revising Zoning Regulations to allow shelters and
transitional housing as permitted or conditionally allowed uses in one or more zones.
Zoning Regulations already allow emergency shelters with approval of a Planning Commission
use permit in 10 zones. Transitional housing, or "Residential Care Facility for six or fewer
residents" in San Luis Obispo's Zoning Regulations, is allowed by right in six zones. Facilities
occupied by more than six residents are conditionally allowed with use permit approval in six
zones. Consequently, this is basically an information request and would not involve a policy
change.
//4
���n�►��►uVlllll��p°�'u►►��U City of San 'QUI s•OBISPO
ni;s COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 4
5. Exempt moderate-cost dwellings from the growth management regulations.
Council previously considered this option when it last reviewed the Draft Housing Element. At
that time, councilmembers felt that such an exemption was not consistent with the City's overall
General Plan growth management objectives. HCD's response was that a minimum number of
units must le, possible in each of the income categories addressed by the RHNA. Exempting
moderate income housing could result in the City exceeding the General Plan's 1% annual
average growth rate.
6. Equal Housing Program. Include an equal housing opportunity program in the Housing
Element, for example, establishing a tenant/landlord conflict resolution process for
housing discrimination or complaints; and explain how the public will be notified of the
program.
Staff does not anticipate a problem meeting this requirement. The City's Housing Authority,
already provides to some degree, referral services for housing complaints. If additional
assistance is warranted, a program can be included in the Draft to resolve HCD's concern.
There do not appear to be land use or housing policy implications involved with this request.
7. "At-Risk Housing." HCD has asked the City to identify possible program actions for
preserving the Monterey Arms as affordable.housing, including timelines and possible
funding, and the City's responsibility for reviewing a "plan of action" and advising
tenants of possible assistance.
The State has extended the time period covered by this Housing Element update from 1996 to
1999. In so doing, the Monterey Arms fell under the "at-risk" housing category since Section
8 agreements are due to expire during this extended period. Additional analysis and a program
can be included to address this issue, and staff does not anticipate a problem meeting this
requirement. There are no land use policy implications with this issue.
RECOAC%1ENDATION
Direct staff to take any of the following actions deemed appropriate:
1. No Further Response — Adopt the November 1993 Draft Housing Element with or
without the Planning Commission recommended changes. Under this approach, staff
would come back to the City Council with the final text changes and draft resolution for
adoption, including findings to address State requirements.
2. Limited Response -- Direct staff to make changes to the Draft Housing Element that
address those HCD comments which do not involve changes to existing policies, and
return for final adoption.
���H�i�i►uulllllll�l�►��u�► II city of sari Luis OBISpo
aft�IIUI COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 5
3. increased Housing Capacity -- Consider increasing housing capacity by 300 dwelling
units, and direct staff to return with alternatives and analysis for Council consideration.
4. Moderate-Income Exemption -- Consider allowing a moderate-income housing
exemption from residential growth limits, and direct staff to return with alternatives and
analysis for council consideration.
5. Annexation Schedule -- Consider including an annexation timetable for the major
expansion areas and direct staff to develop a timeline, analyze the implications and return
for Council consideration.
Attachments:
-HCD Comments on November 1993 Draft Housing Element
-Planning Commission Minutes
-City Council Minutes
y-�
Com•---�a� Tt.. - 7T-if
+i
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS,TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY PETE WILSON,Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
800 THIRD STREET,Room 430
P.0 BOX 952053
SACRAMEN-rO,CA 94252-2053
(916)373-3176 FAX(916)3236625
RECEIVED
January 13, 1994
JAN t ° 1994
CIIA
Mr. John Dunn'
City Manager
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93403
Dear Mr. Dunn:
RE: Review of the City of San Luis Obispo' s Draft Housing
Element
Thank you for submitting San Luis Obispo' s revised draft
housing element, received November 29, 1993 for our review. We
are required to review draft housing elements and report our
findings to the locality pursuant to Government Code Section
65585 (b) .
Identified concerns were reviewed in a telephone
conversation on January 5, 1994 with Mr. Jeff Hook, the Project
Planner for the housing element. This letter and Appendix
contain a summary of that discussion.
The revised element adequately responds to many of the
concerns outlined in our July 1, 1993 review letter. For
example, the element now includes an adequate analysis of
potential governmental and nongovernmental constraints,
establishes . quantified objectives for new construction,
rehabilitation and conservation, and includes more specific
program actions. However, revisions are needed for the element
to comply with State housing element law (Article 10 .6 of the
Government Code) .
In particular, the element should include a program which
identifies adequate sites to accommodate the City' s regional
housing needs and mitigates the effects of local growth
management policies on the City' s ability to accommodate its
regional housing needs. The Appendix to this letter outlines
these and other revisions needed to bring the element into
compliance. We have also enclosed a copy of our letter to
Assemblywoman Seastrand in response to your continuing concerns
about the methodology and procedure used to .calculate regional
housing needs.
Mr. John Dunn
Page 2
we will be happy to visit the City again to provide direct
assistance with the revision of the element. If you would like
to arrange such a meeting, or have questions concerning our
comments, please contact Gary Collord, of our staff, at
(916) 327-2644.
In accordance. with requests pursuant to the Public Records
Act, we are forwarding copies of this letter to the persons and
organizations listed below.
Sincerely,
Thomas B. Cook
Deputy Director
Enclosures
cc: Honorable Andrea Seastrand, Member of the Assembly
Honorable Gary Hart, Member of the Senate
Peg Pinard, Mayor, City of San Luis Obispo
Debbi Hosli, Administrative Analyst, City of San Luis Obispo
Arnold Jonas, Director of Community Development
Jeff Hook, Project Planner, City of San Luis Obispo
Jeanette Duncan, Peoples ' Self-Help Housing
Kathleen Mikkelson, Deputy Attorney General
Bob Cervantes, Governor' s Office of Planning and Research
Dwight Hanson, California Building Industry Association
Kerry Harrington Morrison, California Association of
Realtors
Marc Brown, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
Rob Wiener, California Coalition for Rural Housing
Susan DeSantis, The Planning Center
Dara Schur, Western Center for Law and Poverty
�-7
APPENDIX
City of San Luis Obispo
The following changes would bring San Luis Obispo' s housing
element into compliance with Article 10 . 6 of the Government Code.
Following each recommended change or addition, we refer to the
applicable provision of the Government Code. Where particular
program examples or data sources are listed, these suggestions
are for your information only. We recognize that the City may
choose other means of complying with the law.
A. Housing Needs. Resources and Constraints
Expand the analysis of household overpayment and housing unit overcrowding
(Section 65583(c)(2)).
As indicated in our July 1, 1993 review letter, the analysis
should document overcrowding and overpayment in the City by
tenure. Additionally, the analysis of overpayment should
identify and focus upon the number or proportion of lower-
income households overpaying for housing. The census data
information incorporated into our previous review letter
included sufficient information to perform this analysis.
Where housing needs exist, the element should identify
potential solutions and resources to address the need.
B. Proarams
1. Identify adequate sites which will be made available through appropriate
zoning and development standards and with public services and facilities
needed to facilitate aqui encourage the development of a variety of housing
types for all income groups, including multifamily rental housing factory-built
housing mobilehomes, and emergency shelters and transitional housing.
Where the inventory of sites does not identify adequate sites to accommodate
the need for all household income groups pursuant to Section 65584, the
program shall provide for sufficient sites with zoning that permits owner-
occupied and rental multifamily residential use by right; including density and
development standards that could accommodate and facilitate the feasibility of
housing for verylow- and low-income households (Section 65583(c)(1)).
a. We are encouraged by the City' s commitment to
adopt specific plans for the expansion areas and
ensure that a sufficient amount of land is
appropriately zoned within these areas to
accommodate the City' s moderate- and lower-income
housing needs (Program 1.26.10) . However, it is
not evident that sufficient sites will be
available for development in the expansion areas,
to accommodate the balance of the City' s housing
needs, within the planning period (by July 1999) .
Table 14, for example, only identifies enough
sites in the City to accommodate about 1, 600
units. Therefore, the element will need to
demonstrate that approximately 3, 500 units (the
balance of the total regional housing need) can be
accommodated in the expansion areas during the
planning period.
In addition, if sites in the expansion areas do
not currently have access to the public facilities
and services necessary to support development, the
element should clearly indicate when the
facilities and services can or will be provided.
We realize that water supply limitations may
prevent development from occurring until sometime
after 1997, however, the City should undertake
every planning action possible to ensure that
adequate facilities and services are readily
available to accommodate development of the sites
as soon as additional water supplies become
available.
Therefore, to demonstrate that sufficient sites
will be available in the expansion areas to
accommodate the balance of the City' s regional
housing needs, the element should include programs
(with specific timelines) to: (1) annex and zone a
sufficient number of sites at appropriate
densities to accommodate the balance of the City' s
housing need for all income groups; (2) adopt
plans which describe how the facilities and
services necessary to support development will be
financed and provided (as required by the City' s
land use element) ; and (3) clearly identify the
amount of development which could occur in the
expansion areas (during the planning period) in
light of adopted growth management or development
phasing policies.
b. The revised analysis of the City' s homeless
population clearly identifies an unmet need for
emergency shelter and transitional housing in the
City. Therefore, the element should include a
program to identify adequate sites for emergency
shelters and transitional housing for homeless
families and. individuals. This requirement could
be met by allowing shelters and transitional
housing as permitted, or conditionally permitted,
2
�-9
1
PP
P .- r
C. Prese vatioaIof. Sub'si'dized 'Housing. -
Pursuant�to'Cha ter`14`51/ Statutes-"&CiI989 �.ident-i€y program
actions for prese , multfamilylfhousing
rvingassisted
developments,• thatr are efigible ,to; e to' 'non low income
r <housin ;`uses_within';ten earaltlb `the housin releme'rit update .
.., g
"(Jul grr'1992) due to rminati�ori of siibsdyrcontracts,
mortgage"prepayment; or expiration of,use4restrictons
Pzj
l 3 �c.YuF.. ._r•.
(Sect
ion",65583 (a) ;(8)'1)' ! F -
r.
.A;
The elementshould 'include Ya program rifor i4presenvngun'its
aG�rishzof conversion during, thea:plann ng persod .,(Section...
p A 65583r,:(c) (6)ry) andy(estab 'to'
ish,,quantified` objectives for" the
number of aty ri^sk units, to obeypreserved du -i-ng ft,a planning
period ofth�e �elJement (Section 65,58l3fi
fir"
Since the s Monterey, Arms, prod ect f�i"s�at�riskrrwi�thn .the
planning period, ;the ;element should include :a program whi_ch .
'clearly descr=es the ,specif-ic actions�or steps the City
would''.take to preserve,tlhe ::'prosect, if; necessary;,; including
the identification of ,Pimplementatonst=imelnes �and� trhe:
finding !sources ,�lto be used i r The 'program should also
ydescribd thei City' s respoas b lity for reviewing .any..,plan; of
actio�a :fsubmitted- for the, pro j ect-:°and advising tenants 'of:
r - rJ .h+ e33
available
.. .._ - •�4. .. - : K',�r�- "� `{-JT.�I '..`'L a3 �:'L' Far -_ ..h
c .
r
' {t' •.k ,T ._ �be .art
.. - r:�. f ;i •5 y.i.n 'IL_' m YRi •� y nM^,J
.U: .rte',^, .
.. _ ! �L� ,L'' l .y 7i. �•r o ril• _ :;� `�t"F. d�� JY._J
n •. 'IA r'•- [.r(L _ .1 L 7 _.1 1: ti•�J'M '�J'- TI.` •r1
4
S ,
t 1,
r
�..NWi '+S} 7 ..71i' L W:' I 11
"�.q]i�f.'y
�1 uses in,•oneL or, more zoniLn districts We aretk
>r r gra ,x y,
r-5 enclosibng a techn cauls adistance paper, ,Housing�
for theHomel�ess; toLassi]st� theWaCty in developing,
_� x -
{;' ~ can' app'roprate ,prog,ram 'response ,
Fr E-. r ,F ��' ,cr,� � a�j. - +.T r 1 �t ',•(' `(tw "" ;? � y. :. r y i r'y�ra i. a .
+ `� 2 w Address gni:4-awheretlggally posswig,,,remove governmental constraznu;tolthe,
Imatntena.'nce, improvement,;or developmeizt of-kousuzgfor all uzcomefgroups`
(� �.}�^
Sectzon r.65583 6 3
/ » , T
r The City's Residential Growth Management Ordinance61
9. ,.,,c, .F`..-
¢ , q.,appears ,to cgntznue )to=preve.nt th' accommodation of.
.r«L`. !1 ++ r•.•• f-aY .E• -4'_
T Pry sufficient` r'esidenti°al ,,'development commensurate with
tlie'City:s regions}lt housing needs Wh-ile`',we'�Aaref'- .l' f
war + �, f'.6-� i 104. a , x j r„ �,• {
$ en'couragedlby recent-at, ions !to^exempt lower income�;rx, c r
ti h housing;, units' from'the .growth management ,policyr,r] its
4b Y still `appears that the policy will prevent' the-City
r "
rom`accommtodatirig the bal^ancesof its ioderate `ander , _' ;, r
Y rt4 `a abovve moderate income liousrg' neecis4 within 'theplanning
;period: I t.
N tiC T'r',d-Accordiag �tor.the el�ement'y(page� 28i): ,`Rthe City ,no�plans * ro
to�Nl^iui t�tconstniction toahapproxunatelTyl41851 moder-afe
�-. ter' IY V yaJ^. vv �..-.A. 't'd+•i .
,.. 7 and above 3moderateF income^ units per year g0�ver the
=current° 8 'Sup planning period (January�1991 Julyr; p r>r a
1999) , this would• accomzaodate 'a roximatel 1;570 4 '
v e Pp a .w yd42?r .. i C 1
units ; The City'hs regional ;housiiigr need for}they° N l=" '
�, - '"i _._ In .7':o-4 ]G�^PC•f � Xr +F, f'• r~v..
4 L phanning period; however; includes �Z,9`75 moderate.;' and' n
above +moderate Yincome units..
L
F S,i
4Unhess .the City can clearlyf demonstrate that. additional
r • i r,r 1•, ' d a.., .4 3. R. —'r•]j` p.- { /,v
eYh ;�F moderate, and abovea\moddrq ie income units can :be},-
accommodated..under the,;development phasing\ policiesb of;�
s ",, {the` expansion "areas (see it
B `l' above) ; thegrowth
L4 .. I r f. G 34> dr^r*r r? n,t` -as-'-ter x-• r 1 J f" ,.
a �F maaagement�]polri�cyw> (,or the deve opment .phas,ing pol�ici`esr �,
z _;�y '� ofF the ;expansion areas)` is serving, as a development 4.v,,-
�], � ,,, 4 a• constraints which. should' be tremove3 or Lmit�gated � t'For ily ,;
�F.' ' example; the' exeznptionn:;of.'lower ,. and moderate, ncome� r'
units L'fromraYie growth management policy rwould pr bably
Y ahlowI,the City rto Accomunodate the balance of: its ,;:��+r^ ? s
housing;' needs within 'the plannng..per`iod'
'Inclztde an equal'housvz8 �PPouY Program�(Secnon 6SS83 fc)(S))T
S.
The eluent still does .not include�an equaf housing x
i -:. �.�4-�i �. ,�
opportunity=program: " The City shouldimplrementka rx 4";�, r
] 41.1 �• '� ..2 .L 1.v- 1 L 1
Yprogram which allows. for the resolution ,of housin n
discrnation 'complaints The, element or>�program ` " a.
should-'also 'describe .how the City'.wi 1 ;promote ori :° r^
.;th advert 'se the ,availability of the;:,prog=am fin^ bhe, Ciwty,4
LL= Refer to our':July.-Il 1993` rev ew,.lette% fori,km- ore
information,about. how:theCity:'. could implement this,
p j
a` • .
.51
pr'ograin.
3.
. ''1•.. , r ,r ,;�. it
�.,!; f °:; r i:. t t r"ur r_ _ - .'t- _...... J, '1y•d''a ? afro y,..:v o-]r+` 3a„J�.y,.if+'h-.•"..•)'•�+, ,',: Y�.
P.C. Minutes
December 1, 1993
Page 2
John Mandeville said that the staff report could be used as a outline for Commission
comment and discussion because it listed the major changes made by the City
Council.
Chairman Karleskint asked Jeff Hook to lead the Commission through the staff report.
Jeff Hook explained that Housing Element policies goals, policies, and programs had
been broadened, especially in regard to energy and water conservation. He said new
policies included encouraging houses to have visibility of the street to promote safety
in neighborhoods, encouraging neighborhoods to have houses of various price ranges
so they contain a mixture of economic groups, and changing the required duration of
providing affordable housing from 30 years to 50 years. He said the top of page 4
outlined major policy changes. When the Commission last reviewed the element in
1992, there were 26 policies and now there were 53 policies. He explained the major
new policies and called special attention to 1.26.1 which set the City's overall growth
target at about 1,2060 dwellings between 1993 and 1998. He explained that HCD was
very supportive of low and very low housing being exempted from the residential
growth management regulations and had suggested that moderate cost housing also
be exempted. Mr. Hook noted that the Council had voted not to add moderate
housing to the exemption.
In answer to a question by Commr. Whittlesey, Jeff Hook explained that policies 1.23.1
and 1.23.2 were similar, but 1.23.2 was specialized in that it discouraged housing in
specific zones.
Commr. Karleskint asked what was meant by "encourage" and "discourage."
Jeff Hook said if a use permit or other discretionary approval was required, this
language could be the basis for findings used to approve or deny a development
request, for example, to convert a residence to an office.
John Mandeville explained it would be setting a policy that such requests should
generally be denied unless some valid evidence such a health, safety and welfare
issue or conformance with other City policies was presented. He said exceptions
could be granted, but only with valid reasons.
Commr. Williams questioned whether retention of housing in industrial areas should be
encouraged.
y-13
MINUTES - CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
City of San Luis Obispo
December 1, 1993
PRESENT: Commrs. Mary Whittlesey, Gilbert Hoffman, Dodie Williams, Brett Cross,
Sandra Sigurdson, Charles Senn, and Chairman Bary Karleskint
ABSENT: None
OTHERS
PRESENT: John Mandeville, Long Range Planning Manager; Jeff Hook, Associate
Planner; Glenn Matteson, Associate Planner; Terry Sanville,
Transportation Planner; Cindy Clemens, Assistant City Attorney; and
Diane Wright, Recording Secretary
PUBLIC
COMMENT: There were no public comments.
AGENDA: Chairman Karleskint noted that Item 2, the Circulation and Land Use
Elements, were listed for one hour on the agenda at the door and the
agenda in the Commissioners' packets allotted 2 hours. He said the
Commission would consider the item for at least one hour.
1. Draft General Plan Housing Element. Consideration of City Council
modifications to the draft General Plan Housing Element.
Jeff Hook presented the staff report and explained that the Commission was being
asked to review changes made to the draft Housing Element by the City Council since
May, 1992. He said that the City Council had reviewed the document four times and
suggested changes to bring the element into closer conformance with State Law. He
said the draft document had been sent to the State Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) last week. He suggested the Commission focus on
Section 1, Policies and Programs, which was where the City Council had made
significant changes. He said the tone of the document had been changed to
emphasize the City's commitment to affordable housing and to provide for 1,200 new
units from 1993 to 1998. He explained that low and very low income housing would
be exempt from residential growth management controls. An inclusionary housing
program, a housing trust fund program, longer term affordability standards, and
incentives were included to encourage affordable housing. He said the City's
quantified housing objectives were new and had not previously been seen by the
Commission. He explained that this information, along with using constraints, costs,
and special housing needs, was required by State law.
P.C. Minutes
December 1, 1993
Page 4
Jeff Hook said the downtown C-C zone already had the highest allowed density in the
City at 36 density units per acre, and there was no policy in the housing element to
change that density.
Commr. Sigurdson expressed concern about requiring residential units above street
level as stated in program 1.26.8. She questioned whether it was a program at all
because it was worded °consider applying."
Commr. Cross asked how many C-N zones were currently undeveloped in the City.
Jeff Hook said there was vacant C-N land near the intersection of Broad and South
Streets.
Commr. Cross questioned how program 1.26.8, encouraging residential in C-N zones,
could be implemented because the City had so few undeveloped C-N zones.
John Mandeville said.new developments could be zoned C-N and that expansion
areas had potential for some C-N zoning. He asked that the Commission consider
evaluating it on the basis of implementation in future developments and not just on the
C-N areas that currently exist in the City.
Commr. Cross said that requiring mixed use has changed C-N zones, particularly
regarding shopping centers.
Commr. Sigurdson felt the words "consider applying" should be replaced with
"encourage" in Program 1.26.10. She asked what Program 1.27.9 would include.
Jeff Hook said he thought the City Council envisioned street improvements,
landscaping, and other features to improve neighborhood quality to address that
program.
Brett Cross said most of the buildings downtown had retail uses on the first floor and
office uses on the second floor. He felt it would not be financially feasible to require
residential uses on the second floor as stated in Program 1.26.9.
Commr. Karleskint agreed that the program needed more flexibility. He said the
Downtown Centre would not now exist if that program had been in effect.
Commr. Williams agreed with Commrs. Cross and Karleskint.
P.C. Minutes
December 1, 1993
Page 3
Jeff Hook said that when the Commission reviewed the Villa Rosa project, the
Commission discussed rezoning neighboring industrial land back to residential.
Commr. Karleskint asked that compatibility would be a factor. In these circumstances,
Jeff Hook said yes, and that the Commission and City Council would need to evaluate
compatibility of residential use on a case-by-case basis.
Commr. Williams felt the land near Villa Rosa wasn't really an industrial area.
Jeff Hook said there were 37 programs in the earlier draft and there were now 56
programs. He briefly explained the new programs to the Commission.
Commr. Whittlesey questioned how the City could justify assisting low income
residents with seismic upgrades as suggested in Policy 1.23.14 and not assisting
other City residents.
Jeff Hook said that the City had several programs that targeted specific income
groups and provided assistance in maintaining and upgrading housing. He said low
and very low housing had been identified by the State as special need housing and
that this program would be consistent with State law.
Commr. Whittlesey asked if assistance for seismic upgrades to historical buildings
could also be done.
Jeff Hook said there had been such a program in the past, but there was not one at
the present time.
Commr. Whittlesey felt owners of historical buildings might also qualify under State
policy as being a special need group for seismic upgrade assistance.
Commr. Cross asked where the program came from.
Jeff Hook said the intent was probably to provide financial assistance to low income
homeowners who could not otherwise afford to upgrade older un-reinforced masonry
buildings. He said un-reinforced masonry buildings in the City had been identified, but
he did not know how many of those buildings were owned by low income residents.
Commr. Sigurdson asked why Program 1.26.10 addressed protection of downtown
but did not support increasing density. She said increases in density seemed to be
directed toward expansion areas.
P.C. Minutes
December 1, 1993
Page 6
John Mandeville said the wall shown in the draft Land Use Element was between a
residential area and an arterial street. He said walls could also be used as sound
barriers.
Commr. Senn felt the intent of Policy 1.27.4 was to prevent the creation of elitist
neighborhoods. He suggested language be added stating 'This should not
discourage walls which are used for sound reduction, for creating adequate privacy or
are consistent with the architectural scheme of the development." For example, there
was general support for walls in the project at Laurel Lane and Southwood.
Commr. Cross said he also disagreed with the wall at that development.
Commr. Cross said he did not have a problem with the way Policy 1.27.4 was worded
now, but he felt it was inconsistent with the draft LUE.
Commr. Senn felt his wording would provide flexibility so that the inconsistency would
be eliminated.
Commrs. Whittlesey and Hoffman agreed with Commr. Cross that the current wording
was acceptable.
Commr. Senn said he was not comfortable with it the way it was worded because it
lacked common sense.
Commr. Karleskint felt the wording presumed there would never be an exception.
Commr. Hoffman said there was a difference between a sound wall on one side of a
development and creating a gated exclusive neighborhood.
Commr. Whittlesey believed Policy 1.27.4 was adequate the way it was currently
worded. She said perhaps a program could be established to clarify its meaning.
The Commission decided there were already enough programs.
Commr. Whittlesey asked Jeff Hook to reiterate what exempting moderate income
housing under Program 1.26.1 would mean.
Jeff Hook said the availability of water would be the main limiting factor determining
the number of residences built in the next five years. He explained that if moderate
income housing were exempted from growth limits, the number of units actually built
would still be limited by the availability of water. Another major water source will
-/7
P.C. Minutes
December 1, 1993
Page 5
Commr. Karleskint felt incentives to encourage dwellings above the second floor in
commercial buildings would be appropriate, but second floor dwellings should not be
required.
Commr. Senn agreed with Commr. Karleskint. He felt that about 50 percent of the
time, commercial and residential uses were not compatible. He expressed concern
that it would send a message to the development community that they would have to
jump through illogical hoops to get a commercial project approved. He suggested the
Commission recommend to the City Council that residential uses should be
encouraged in multi-story buildings with an incentive program such a bonus for
density, height or parking, but not required.
John Mandeville said that the best way to convey messages to the City Council would
be to recommend alternate wording.
Commr. Senn suggested that Program 1.26.9 be changed to state 'The City will
amend its regulations to encourage that some reasonable portion of multi-story
commercial buildings in the downtown core be designated for residential use. The
City will establish appropriate incentives."
John Mandeville asked if the Commission would recommend moving Program 1.26.9
from the Program section to the Policy section.
The Commissioners agreed with Commr. Senn's rewording and John Mandeville's
suggestion.
Commr. Williams said the program for 1.26.9 should remain and contain the
incentives.
Commr. Senn suggested qualifying language be added to Policy 1.23.2 so that it
states 'The City shall discourage the conversion or elimination of existing housing in
office, commercial and industrial areas so long as the housing remains compatible with
the surrounding uses."
The other Commissioners agreed.
Commr. Cross said he did not have a problem with Policy 1.27.4 which prohibited
walled-off enclaves, but felt it conflicted with the draft LUE.
P.C. Minutes
December 1, 1993
Page 8
Commr. Hoffman suggested 1.31.5 and 1.31.6 be deleted from the document.
Commr. Sigurdson felt programs that dealt with where homes should not be built were
appropriate so that the City could protect its current level of fire service.
The Commission agreed to retain Program 1.31.6 and to delete 1.31.5.
Commr. Senn expressed concern about the office policies, particularly those
addressed in Programs 1.23.8, 1.23.9 and 1.23.10. He said the table on page 61 of
the Housing Element showed that there were only 1.9 acres of vacant, office zoned
land and around 300 acres of residentially zoned land. He said there were residential
dwellings in several downtown blocks that had been rezoned Office. He explained that
N someone purchased a residence in the downtown office zone and wanted to convert
it to an office, that person would have to substitute another residential housing unit to
replace the conversion under the no proposed "net housing loss" policy. He said the
policy would double the value of all office conversions currently downtown because no
new conversions would be economically possible. He said this policy also conflicted
with the zoning code which encouraged medical and professional offices in the
downtown area In addition, he felt the policy would encourage owners to let their
downtown residential property run down. He requested that 1.23.8, 1.23.9 and
1.23.10 be deleted.
Commr. Cross asked how the City could prevent more residences from being
converted into offices.
Commr. Senn said the City probably couldn't prevent those conversions.* He said
because one policy encourages offices downtown it would be inconsistent for another
policy to discourage offices downtown.
Commr. Cross felt there must be some kind of program or policy if the City wanted to
preserve housing stock downtown.
Commr. Senn believed the City could not say it didn't want any more office
conversions if it wanted to remain the County seat with activities centered around the
Courthouse. In answer to a question by Commr. Cross, Commr. Senn told him which
downtown streets were zoned office.
Commr. Cross'said he needed addition information on downtown areas zoned office
and on land use policies.
P.C. Minutes
December 1, 1993
Page 7
probably not be available before 1997, and it was unlikely that exempting moderate
income housing from growth limits would have a noticeable effect on the number or
rate of residential construction. He added that using the City's criteria for affordability,
a moderate cost detached house would be about $35,000 below current average
market value.
Commr. Hoffman felt that Program 1.28.8 should be changed to provide incentives for
builders to retrofit plumbing free of charge to low income households so that it would
not be done at a cost to the City. He said when a new residence was constructed,
the builder could be directed by the City to an existing low income residence that
needed to be retrofitted.
Commr. Cross said the way the program was written, low income homeowners could
call a plumber for retrofitting and bill the City.
Commr. Hoffman agreed with Commr. Cross.
Commr. Senn agreed with Commr. Hoffman that Program 1.29.8 should be modified
so that low income homeowners are assisted by private developers in getting free
retrofitting.
Commr. Kadeskint said that other things have been.found to be at least as effect in
saving energy as solar hot water heating.
Jeff Hook said savings from using special light fixtures, insulation and energy efficient
appliances were determined to be equivalent to energy savings from solar hot water
heating for the Villa Rosa project. He said this program would not prohibit the City
Council from accepting alternatives to solar water heating.
In answer to a question by Commr. Cross, Jeff Hook explained that in Policy 1.30.1
"housing market area° meant San Luis Obispo County.
John Mandeville said this policy would direct the City to review its land uses when the
County completes its Land Use document, and for the City to analyze both documents
together.
The Commission decided to change the words "housing market area" to "County' in
Policy 1.30.1.
Commrs. Hoffman and Karleskint questioned why Program 1.31.5 was part of the
document. They felt it had nothing to do with housing.
P.C. Minutes
December 1, 1993
Page 10
Commr. Cross felt uses allowed in the C-N zone need to be examined.
Commr. Cross expressed concern about Policy 1.22.1 and said Mr. John French had
also expressed concern. He asked if this policy created a long term lease and he
asked how property increased in value.
Commr. Hoffman said property increased in value but could only be sold at an
increase in proportion.to the discount at which it was purchased. He said if the buyer
stayed and paid off the home, he would own it.
Commr. Williams felt 50 years was an excessive amount of time to require that a
dwelling remain affordable.
Commr. Senn said property wasn't being provided for profit, but for someone to have
a nice place to live at a price he could afford.
In answer to a question by Commr. Senn, Jeff Hook said the entire City Council had
reviewed the Draft Housing Element. He said the Mayor had initially suggested most
of the changes, and then the City Council had reviewed and concurred with the
changes.
Commr. Senn moved to forward the draft Housing Element dated November 1993 to
the City Council with modifications as discussed at this meeting.
VOTING: AYES - Commrs. Senn, Hoffman, Whittlesey, Williams, Cross,
Sigurdson, and Karleskint
NOES - None
ABSENT - None
The motion passed.
P.C. Minutes
December 1, 1993
Page 9
Commr. Sigurdson asked staff if eliminating Programs 1.23.8, 1.23.9 and 1.23.10
would affect state certification.
Jeff Hook explained that HCD was more concerned with total numbers than with the
specific amount of office-zoned land or whether or not the City had adopted a no net
loss of housing policy.
Commr. Sigurdson felt offices enhanced downtown and it would not be appropriate to
discourage them. She suggested some type of incentive be explored to maintain
residences downtown, perhaps through the retrofit program.
Commr. Cross felt residential uses were as important as office uses in the downtown
area.
Commr. Senn said these properties had been zoned office for about 15 years and he
did not believe everyone would suddenly be converting residences to offices because
the market did not warrant that. He said generally speaking, offices were maintained
better than residences.
Commr. Cross felt homes now rented out as residences should be retained to
maintain the character of downtown. He felt that office conversions were not in the
best interest of the City. He said losing residences downtown would have a
detrimental effect on the downtown area. He said if the City needed offices, more
offices should be built, but he felt the conversion process should be stopped.
Commr. Karleskint felt Programs, 1.23.8, 1.23.9 and 1.23.10, created problems.
Commr. Hoffman agreed that Programs 1.23.8 and 1.23.10 should be deleted, but he
felt 1.23.9 should be left in the document.
All of the Commissioners except for Commr. Cross agreed to recommend that
Programs 1.23.8 and 1.23.10 be eliminated.
Commr. Senn said the last sentence in Program 1.26.8, "Allowed uses in the zone
should be reviewed to preclude commercial uses incompatible with housing," should
be deleted. He believed it did not make sense to discourage commercial use in a
commercially zoned area.
All of the Commissioners except for Commr. Cross agreed to recommend the last
sentence in Program 1.26.8. be deleted
y-,ZO
City Council Meeting Page 5
Tuesday, October 5, 1993-7:00 P.M.
Council discussed the purchase price of a home for a family with a medium income.
Moved by Pinard/Roalman to leave the low and very-low income housing exemption in the draft and
not to include moderate income housing; motion carried (3-2,Council Members Rappa and Romero
voting no).
Moved by Romero/Roalman to stipulate that additional R-4 areas would be included in potential
expansion and annexation areas; motion carried (5-0).
Moved by Pinard/Settleto use Mundie&Associates numbers(approximately 30%inclusionary zoning)
where appropriate; motion carried (5-0).
Moved by Pinard/Roalman to use most optimistic estimates on Table 11 (and other tables as needed),
note unlimited' for low and very-low income categories; motion carried (5-0).
Moved by Raopa/Romero to send a revised draft to the Planning Commission and the State
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review at the same time; motion
carried (5-0).
Moved by Pinard/Roalman to revise wording of the Mayor's letter as proposed by Mayor Pinard;
motion carried (general consent).
9:00 PM Mayor Pinard declared a recess
9:25 PM Council reconvened; all Council embers present.
BUSI ITEMS
3. AIRPORT AREA AND MARGARITA EXPANSION EA ANNEXATION UPDATE (File No. 440)
A. Status report on Council Subcommittee on the Atrp it Area annexation.
Council Members Roalman and Romero reported o heir weekly meetings and stated that they
expected LAFCo to grant CSA 22 water and sew ervices in March regardless of the City's action.
They stated they supported processing the M arita Area with the Airport Area, providing that either
area could split off when they needed to.
Moved by Romeroaooa to receive the re ort, concur with direction, and direct staff to return with
comprehensive report on 11/2/93; motion ca (5-0).
B. Status report on the Margarita Expansion Area.
Ken Hamoian. Assistant City Administrative Officer, re sewed the benefits of proceeding with
concurrent process for the Airport and Margarita Areas rovided they were crafted to breakout at a
later time.
Moved by Ranoa/Romero to direct staff to to at a coordinated approach for processing the
Margarita Expansion Area and the Airport Area with separate distinctions for each area); motion
carried (5-0).
City Council Meeting Page 4
Tuesday, October 5, 1993 - 7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL LI ON REPORTS
L1. PROPOSITION 172
Council considered a recommendati by the Council Legislative Action Committee to support
Proposition 172
Council expressed concerns about t e by
financial situation and control over municipal funding
and take-aways.
Moved by Rapoa/Romero to direct staff raft a resolution in support of Proposition 172; motion
carried (4-1, Mayor Pinard voting no).
PUBLIC HEARI S
1. SIGN APPEAL-THE CROSSROADS (File No. 407)
Council held a public hearing to consider an appeal by Steve C rpuel of an Architectural Review
Commission decision to deny approval of an exterior neon sign fo a business (Cool Cat Cafe) in The
Crossroads at the intersection of Broad Street and Orcutt Road ate No. ARC 123-93).
Amold Jonas. Community Development Director, briefly r Owed the appeal.
Steve Corouel.3165 Broad Street and owner of Cool at Cafe, stated he needed the sign to make his
building more visible.
Bill Portzel. 3165 Broad Street and owner f The Crossroads Center, spoke in favor of the sign
proposal
Council discussed the approved sign prog for the center.
Moved by Rapoa/Pinard to adopt resolution denying th ppeal and concurring with the ARC's action;
motion carried (4-1, Council Member Settle voting no).
2 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT (File No. 462)
Council held a public hearing to consider the revised Draft Housing Element
Amold Jonas.Community Development Director,reviewed the draft and stated there were three areas
of potential conflict with the state: 1) appropriately zoned land; 2) growth management ordinance;
and 3) magnitude of industrial zoning.
Council discussed the impact of Cal Poly housing,a study done by Mundie and Associates regarding
inclusionary zoning and various state requirements.
Mayor Pinard declared the public hearing open.
No one spoke for or against the Rem.
Mayor Pinard declared the public hearing closed.
Although your Council has made major compromises in order
to work with the State, such as exempting all low and very low
income housing from our City' s growth management policies, the
State continues to be uncompromising in its demand that the City
put in writing in its general plan that it will plan for -and
allow the city to double its population in approximately 14
years. Given the erroneously high State Housing Quota and the
State's unyeilding demands that we change our local plan to
"accept the unacceptable" , non compliance may be the only
reasonable action by the elected representatives of residents.
As of this year, approximately $800,000 in CDBG funds are
available per year to the City .(5) . The good news is that S.L.O.
City will no longer be solely dependent on State Funds. Funding
of The COUNTY Women's Shelter could be sought by another agency,
such as the county, or CDBG funds could be sought for The Women's
Shelter. Agreeing to obligate city residents to tens of millions
of dollars in new costs to meet the State Housing Quota, in
order to get The Women' s Shelter grant, simply does not seem to
make good economic sense, especially when other possible funding.
sources exist. I agree with the Telegram Tribune editorial which
stated, "The City Council was right on the money in refusing to
comply with a bureaucratic order that makes no sense at all. It
took the proper course in sticking with its 1 percent growth
rate, the equivalent of 184 new homes a year. " (6)
Sincerely,
Carla Sanders
MEFnN4 GENDA
DA. - S— I
oUNCIL JEIRECDIR
R
�O
C, 0 IEF
LYATTORNEY
To: Honorable Members of The City Council WIZERWORIG CHF
From: Carla Sanders ❑ IAGMT TEAM Subject: Housing Element ,'t, ❑ CREADFI3'�,E R
The primary problem is a "State Housing Quota" which has .
erroneously high numbers. The State's own updated May 1993;
Department of Finance figures, project a less than 2% growth rate
( 1) , and the City' s REAL growth rate in this period confirms this
(2) . Apparently, the State' s position is that because it has no
mechanism to correct the earlier, erroneously high figure of 5$,
it will hold San Luis Obispo to the erroneously high State
Housing Quota of 5%. A 5% growth rate would double the city' s
population in approximately fourteen years, and cost residerrts
tens of millions of dollars in new infrastructure costs and be "A
major departure from citizen preference on community grdwth" (3) .
In contrast, the City' s conservative 1% growth rate would double
the population in approximately seventy years. A seventy year
time frame allows time for the gradual and rational building of
needed infrastructure and services, and allows the city the
ability to maintain its relatively high levels of services and
air quality for existing residents. A five year time framelJAZ
obviously does not. \ �1
In a letter to the State on the City' s behalf, Assemblywoman
Seastrand stated, "As I have indicated to you before, the
practice of holding Community Development Block Grants hostage
in order to extract local housing elements which meet with your
agency' s approval seems to be becoming commonplace" . . . .: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" . ( 3)
Faced with what many cities consider very unreasonable demands by
the State, approximately 80% of all cities in California have
Housing Elements which are NOT "in compliance" . Atascadero has
stated publicly that they would try to work with the State but
they were not prepared to make drastic revisions to the city' s
plan. (4)
RECENED
FIEB 14 1994
CITY COUNCIL
SAN LUIS OBISPO,W;
u � � •
0P. o 0
cis p' u �, u 1 .v S L
Ci I
1 . 1 1 • 1 `'i
1 • I W 1 N PAONon Nnd.lwq q s d•Af hN P qN O 1 1 e 1 • S NOON OAI.• v
i
P?le NMVIA P1 N • ddN ONri AA SN V A I 1 f • J i NIe♦ i N nN Nw ON=• i•S J! A •�
N • • • • . p• d d r N M N• !P H A N! . ry • < • A r O O J N d d MI j d N N q• N d a Q r.l o•
I .A i W i dOOOrrp lO.i p.•IAO V Ntrld �'NA 1 ; ♦ I W d Nww N f NNNNN MNw O.�l00 NOr •Nj
1 1 Irq IVV 1 1 r i e s N'♦r.r rrr r•♦Mwrrrw M r d NN
1 I I 1 1 I A
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
r I I I I 1 1
• 1 1 1 1' 1 1
1 1 W I AqqP OIANM d • OO PN • OIlNhO .1 IINN W i wh • eSO w.} • NlA dl Nd rA qN r d qN p • .
} I J 1 N 0'O! V O N w w s A w N N n O e�lpp N A!• 1 1 >• I J I p V O N i ! q n yy O N N f V NPM q P r MI
J 1 O h p N t N N A N N• O d P M N N rl N A N 11 J 1 1 M !N d O N IV!N+f r N N d
1 1 1 • • • • ♦ ♦ • ♦ ♦ • • • • • • ♦ •d I 1 1 I • ♦ ♦ • ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ • ♦ • • • r N N N o
1 1 MP• grwy�n~j rqj m ApOj^POMd NNN NNpq • • � r • .y NNN f A A a dA••1 NNr a 00 V d i ttyy H 1�
1 1 1 •� A A 1 1 I 1 HAM A r A w r A A A A A A A A S M f
I O I J I r M g N s N /VYYY� < • 1 .
1NV S e 1pp} Irk O w O N rV O 1 J 1 /I A
1 ~ 1 1<•• I ANDA AAf aA'4N 0%0 e,ON Pr V OPd !N ppO PqP APA+rIN �� wAA
Nd0 1 f. 1 < 1 11pNNN PerIOO NA►7PANN
• • • • • • ♦ • • ♦ • • • ♦ • ♦ • • A l O I
L ►. 1 d N A N^l V N O O r • s p N N P O•O N N ! Iq iJl L 1 h• 1 M N f d O N N N .0 N V N N N r; z4,q O;f N' P N
± M f '
i �IIA1 i . OrrrN NNNNN N Nrrn •� ! M• y1 r . fJ N NN w NH NNH NNN •� IN
4p .
I 1 1 I l O I I
I 1 1 1 1 Q I I
1 y 1 I 1 1 1 1
� 1 1 y 1 1
7 1 V O•S! �I lttPdP .� I SP Ir .} O ..f/ + i i i i d P d P C O. 0. P S,PJ
I J ; W I ArNNMi II S SNN V dNh q d iQ 1 1 J I I r wNN111 r'If d �N./d A A q w V �ly
J 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • I ♦ A I N 1 I W 1 J 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I r ♦ I O
{� 1 JO NOMOul eNe NON ONOJI ON 0 W 1 1 Z` I Y I Je Ne NOy11�1ON a V10 N 0 'A O M
i i < 1 < A.♦ NNIINf dNNid A N00 V r A L i i N i < j < AANN1A IAf flflNiiNhO q V r4
1 1 1
i 1u
W I N N f O r N! N N gq N O q A w •/ O V O N N O I I O 1 W 1 O N N A N r M A !d N d d P w N N V d q
jj�
t 1J I N A N P d d N II N N w e O N N N P r d A I I 1 100
aa pp
X 1 1 g N N O V P O e d N P !P w A J q Il N e V A O P N P e N
t 1 >� 1 ♦ • ♦ . . • . O NN OdNA 1 1 N NO O ! NM rN O OON M Nd P A10 P eN.f
iNN NN PPN q OP N N f.( Nf Mqr Il 1 r ( W I N OeNd P P 4F
^ A•..•II • I 1 1F I •,I I I I I l P N A N d d i N A P w f w r M V I 1 1 V r N N .4AU N N g P N N O S r N q A•O e • A V N w V N N S N e NO O O d N O N N N N N q n 0yNqOZ� nINN O A • I r 1 O r A w w r A w w A A n n n A d N1 /{ 1 1 1 • N r
L 1 I 1
1 1 1 1
1 I 1 LI • 1
1 J 1 1
1 1 < 1 1
1 1
O I J I P O h O N w d S A d S g N N O h N O N N O J I N M N A N N N ry y n A N O O N N q q O A:., gap, MN• ry N 0
I i O i NNOI�gNN Dn NO PI1nN SO/Pld J P N :., gap,a NA M` ~ i ti Olf IA eAA 2P •f PNn ogadpA 1
. ♦ .N 111yy p 1 O 1 . . ♦ ♦ . ♦ . ♦ . P
1 1 1•• I N N V V D N g D P P P d w !P ! O N t h h n A `Y I'` I f I d N N N V PSN1A t S w A N r O h r D r N o N
r N 1 I dwA.♦N NrNnwrnw N iA y l I PNA/N N NN NN NN N N N N N wwn 0 .110
p
O I
1 1 I
1 y 1 1 r 1 1 1
• r J 1 rrlL* N13iA •� i � Nd dhN � •� < • I 7 1 1 iPS P .J P i ! .}P � P1 ! S P .{ O S S < 1
■ 1 S W I J 1 11 . 11 1 I r r q n � � � J • • .+ ..I M1/ N•A lqf S Ni dNN O r d J Ir
� r 2 Y r J O N e M 0 vl O N O N e N e N O N O N O • J ' ' ' r l • I l l r l r
f l r q W 1 • j I {p I J O N O N O N O N e N O N O N e N 0 N O W
1 1 < i < AI'INNN1� JdN Ndd AN OO V •-1 A L • 1 t < • < raw NNMIN JSNN V dNA • to V •+ A S
1 - -------------------------------------------------------
N
-------------r-rr---N N N r H N S S P P d A O d 0 n j N P i • s . ♦I O N d N q APA wi V w w N N A w N S N r N A
P 1 J 1 N gq O O M ♦♦ S • yy N < w 1S � i d N b N d i f � � e ' J ' r N w n A O n N A • rn N ♦ N n. Y w
1 O d0 d e p.rNNJ ! ♦♦ qp tt
I r r 1 ♦ . . r I 1 P N O N V O w w N J N w N N P r N 1♦ O d
r 1 r d d N d N P N P g N N N In • , N W w PPP • N s e r a P D a w D • N d N S N d f
1
.� 1 r r N d n r r • T W I N r w J r w r .� w w w A e III
1 1 1 1 1 ^I 1 • '1 r
• 1 1 I 1
1 1 1 1 1 I t
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
A N g N N N N A i •ANO S
1 } 1 I Aq !d 0 N h N A op N= A g A q d A j N o V I } r J • P n N N 0 0 P O i w j a O.r .O P 4 a, n
1 1 I N a N S A P N N w .Y N A N A N .a J O J a i+ ; ; ; ; ; P a i ;e P : ♦O ;N N•AAAA e N P P P a r r II
1 I 1
I 1 I N N A V O N O O O g N j A j j IA N w N S A A l l 1 1 I P O O O N • • • • • . • . .
1 1 w w.♦w M d A A N w e w O e P N S N N N S • A
1 I r N h w 1 I r N 1.414 n n w A w w w w n w w A w N
1 1 1 I 1 1 w ly
I I 1 �V� I 1
J • 0:
1 < 1 1 J 1 f
I O 1 J r ONd O NNPNq •-IAN OOM d d p 1�1._ ~ I I
i i OA .y A O wPA q OPNO
1 �•• 1 < O d N 0 �} w p O w N O b A d w N 0 r < 1 • N d
IN A A h d S NPN N N O j h d 10 N d 6-1
N
I � 1 C r NIIAf N OO •II o i qA P NNNO dA •� NP� 1FFFFF""''' r I O : j IArNPwq NO N fNOw.. AP r ••� w NPe .
• r • P S S N a H n P P N O O N P O g y Ij ry Q e p II H i r e P HAA .�•�r e N O ♦e d O N O N J N MI
w i r Nwwrw N.-Iw.lww w i SA N . NNNw N NNNN N N NN NNww h d
i $ � • n i i 10 i � A N ,
1 I i 1 1 p r
• M I
w w m N Il A S i N •A V d N N q n i V •y I I Jr 1 t P i P 1 P S P S P j P P i
1 1 W r J I 1 1 1 . r 1 I 1 I . r • r A w N N 1r1 II S I N N•a d N N
1 1 (� I J O • N O N O N O M O N D N o N 1 Q 1 I �j I W r J I I I r 1 I I 1 • I I I r I . O
r ♦ •
N o
t i < wrNNAN f dNNdd NNgO V r A = <O NwINiNNIAI INI dd M111d d NA 00 V, n A L
ul 20,1993 02:07PM F SLOCOG TC 29872 r J P-01
PROJECTED TOTAL POPULATION
OF .',:
CALIFORNIA COUNTIES
Post-it'brand fax transmittal memo 7671 s of peg" . )
To F
CAL �S
Dept. Phone•
Frr■
Fax 0
� er
r
v
i k-
r
1`l lM
State of California
Ivy. :it'' '
De; ,. ogrd,phzc•
,. .
. ch
Department of Finance
915 L Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 322.4651
May 1993
co1+llmErs:
_APrtDL D�+ee �l5 5 E Ytt AGRICULTURE
STATE CAPITOL CONSUMER PROTECTION.
SACRAMENTO.GA 95015 19alifuruia Tegislature AND NEW
ME C NOLO GENCY
:BIS!uST,?S AND NEW TEOMNOLpGY
Fu.:9t 61 7=5•SStO WAYS AND MEANS
YpISER
ANDREA SEASTRAND . GURAL CAUC:IS
I DISTRICT OFFICE ASSEMBLYWOMAN,THIRTY-THIRD DISTRICT S .ECTCOMMITTEE
MMITTEEON
MARIESOURCES
573 NIGUERA STREETASSISTANT REPUBLICAN LEADER
SAN LUIS OSISPO.CA 9301
�0051550.1T91
9u 1901559.3100 MEETING AGENDA
DATE 16 s--93 REM #=
October 1, 1993
COUNCIL CDD DIR
�AO �7'FFN DIR
Timothy Coyle, Director ACAO O FIRE CHIEF
Departmient of Housing l�ATTORN*1' �P1vDlr.•
and Community Development (OP dCLE.°LVCP.!G o POLICE CHF
180o Third Street, Suite 450 .O MGNTTEAM 0 ReCDIH
Sacrament CA 95814 : O�/C�RREAADFFI�ILE 0 UTILc;R
O PERS DIR
Dear Mr. e:
As you may be 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 i
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. �
t
As I have indicated to you before, the practice of holding
Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) hostage in order to
i .
extract local housing elements which :-feet with .your agency ' s
approval seems to be becoming ce.^.Lnonplace. I ,•understand clearly
the legal requirements :'.CD is charged to uphold and do no qk_
fCT 51993
CITY CouvciL . /
- . _ Sk4 LUIS OB:SPO,
• G � dao 3sa81ep; .�.,ae3t pP�aq�taq
{j 8aotaa tTyn+a4 a8e3traata ++{2.q TM TL&Bao(esoq st aogran6 aqj,
ql sees nuoppw oos zel of aseara 'spaa aotssasar stn sages ase8e do
a 3cao+ad rs 9A=03 apsia"!d dtm g3ma,z8 RFUom. SF.M aq
U 'Pro We 'Wgsgvp atn fo amos pandmos
todat aq3 'oo0'TST m oo6'BTT mo.q oqm tosrejq agog ragdzaomaQ
aaosad Z•0T rCq BUMTO UI 1661 u - 'MVP rag30 mart to 8trrnom Mtn
-> 4mw 8armaffi msef s,algs aqf sees ;no 8arpeaq are ardoad atom lwm&
4ZadmT'ieaT M asatg aosstd a3e}s JgSM qs W4 .so3 -MOPmors aqT lo= .
%au a fo 8araado am a; anp Iml noam 6a;am st no,ssamaa ertuom
J l,� q sTmp!m OWZ mag BiMgnoP+m+13 Ina= aq7 PPS R=Bo a3e3S
aom U61 In= gytso�ab�ttaarad -we"
�-� satr8rq aq3 Peq d3mtoo Mpadmi m =M Wei aq3 BmztP RY+satB partrpap
udim fo A munaoo wasap aqy fo paap 9;0 UW an ACLL'6e6T aotgs
�J .I aogtgndod a{ as =tq 3sopum aq3
UP
wasaidas amq=u aqf 'aP�e33
�. setoaar astraorr
-:�; _r;.: F . ' stead Feng snomead aqs -nup pae s=mTp=[ogoo'sdNlooq
g VA 2394 3aq,L 7aawwad Z le Z66T
q T66T�Crn mogd3Rmw aR3 m tpmo�. '�! ► sv tPw serosas no Paseo
a a3emgsa ae sf aopiim ttogaptdod
+oga(a Pa3emgsa +J3o iii tme ag3 'snsaas ate alga .
o 3aau4mdaQ ales lkmnsga3 QT
~2. : -4#. 004`SZZ sem faunae,fo se 9 T o-
$ `..
Bill:, togerrrdod pa3etagsa sfyanil'o?os-dw"- IM-Guo
S j :r-av a3tgs q 2mp Loose . oma J0 21ma m rmmo maa
,, m
CA f It 3 i T Jj On=ta ae Z66T ul aiddapsatrpa�y paseara t
$a s =-;=
$ Lappa r4unoo �4qo M un olar p;ea Spm trmmsaa asgdaa
7 5 . Y O0$ s. �`. I 1 �ot>rap s,O;W OCR`a[doad aogtita TTS
% V Y ♦pi a�pi fo Ielol Pa3amgsa esaa a o3 read 3sB{
♦ « ardood Ooo ols sq pasomm aogern
W g a ^ dod s at¢tofs�—O LNMKd2io�'S
C ] �Dal
oa 6u' J . .
v: E v�, U a o o sasµ»s sasau aancLu'L-mesaft
moos smol.s ojea 4jmoa�
Opp ss polio, uoiss83813
-.501 - Q ' o '8 Ori Ii.$1
_ .ems 'r(De-s? 'S �. t rig g 2
3 i b 2 to. e Vo dj cY
c �y C '�m 44�jt O� Yy r
d C 0 0 ..n �'' s.... xm
00
9L Jg
* dsf
o - 3Yp�$
gal
-3 y �
6 3 q
i
"Isss"I ON
IN
g a9ifil
yTj4 �C mi
a �, ojaO �
:=�`oo9� oce3 �
ni y� G 6Or1Y� q �•r
.�
Atascadero receives
criticism on housing _.�I
By C.H.Bolcom state, but I don't know how long we
_ Telegram-Tribune win go with that effort," said Senior;
Planner Doug Davidson.
ATASCADERO —The city's plan to "liese may be a point where we.
provide low-income housing lacks say`Hey,this is insurmamtable:'But,
"firm commitment both in intent and we haven't reached that poot yet
detail," according to state housing They're being helpful, and they want
officials. us to be successful."
Atascadero needs to describe the In their review, state housin
actions it intends to take to provide officials said they were concerned
low-income housing before the city's about Atascadero's zoning especially.
housing plan is approved, the state when it came to minimum
sizes.
said in a recent letter to the city. A typical housing
More than 88 percent of vacant land costs$85,000 in Atascadero,. Ste.
in Atascadero is zoned for residential concluded,and given the lads of sites
or suburban use,wrote Thomas Cook or ow-and moderate-income house-
deputy director for the state Depart- holds, the city should cnticides a
ment of Housing and Community smaller minimum lot size,2erha�
Development. I sr alms 6,o0�eet
With that designation, only one 7)a_�__aoero has rypr&(]y prided.
housing unit can be built on a piece of itself as a bedroom community with
land ranging in size between 244 acres large lots that provides plenty ot•
* and 10 acres. elbow room for its residents.
The city should look at this zoning The smallest lot size allowed by the.
in fight of the "need for ... develop- city right now is 21,780 square feet or-
ment of housing affordable to low-and one-half acre.
moderate-income households," Cook Engen said the city considered
te. a;lowing lots as small as lo,000 square
In response, Atascadero officials feet in 1985 and the public rejected.
aid Tuesday they would try to work the proposal.
th the state but they weren't City officials added they were
repared to make drastic revisions to looking at allowing 10,000 square-toot
e city's plan. lots in multifamily areas. The state,
"The state law. doesn't call for as however, appeared to oppose that
uch excruciating detail as they like idea '
pretend it does." said Henry With so little land set aside for
ngen,the city's community develop' multifamily
said. mallerg in the
es first
pshoulace;
ent director.
Absent more money from the state considered for single-family residen-
o implement its mandates. I don't tial areas.
hink (their response) will go very The city's zoning of multifamily
a areas also raises concerns,according
! Even if an agreement isn't reached, to the state.A more detailed descrip
city officials said they couldn't think of tion of this zoning is necessary
any penalties the state could impose. because it appears to be exclusionary
The city's housing plan is a list of to larger families,Cook wrote.
Atascadero's housing objectives for For example, because the size of
"the next three to five years. any multifamily unit is based on the
F" o
eceiving the state's approval number of bedrooms in Atascadero,3
ld be nice but it isn't necessary, developer can build more one•bedfficials said. room units than three-bedroom units
We will continue to work with the on a piece of property.
2 -qN
Mr. Timothy Coyle
October 11 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,
r
ANDREA SEASTRAND
AS:ed
cc: Mayor Peg Pinard, City of SLO *
00000
Larry Campbell, SLO*Women's Shelter
A-10 Th-ssday,August 6,2992
op• O
1111011 ;_ _-
MOS
State hou,sing rule
correctly _rejecte .
Sometimes you have to stand your ground when Big
' Brother starts breathing down your neck
That's exactly what the San Luis Obispo City Council did
Tuesday night when it voted to ignore a state edict that the .
city must add nearly 1,000 new homes to its residential
capacity every year through July 1997.
Here is state government on the brink of a financial
meltdown,here is San Luis Obispo with a terribly sluggish
real estate market and here is a whole nation in a serious .
economic decline and we are being told that this city must
build hundreds of new homes a year.
Where to put the new houses,where to get the water and
who will buy them?`What's your problem,"the state
Department of Housing and Community Development is
effectively telling us.
By law,the state plays an important role in keeping cities
and counties in line with state government policies.We agree,
communities cannot be allowed to operate as mavericks.They
need to be controlled.
But sometimes the requirements are so unrealistic,so
out of synch with the times,so illogical and so liable to destroy
a community's character that they must be changed.
No doubt,state housing personnel are trying to figure out
how they can bear down on the city and make it follow the
policies that they have tried to impose.
But 1,000 new houses a year?
Can't be done.Won't be done.And shouldn't have to be
done.
One way or the other,the state should change the rules.
The City Council was richt on the money in refusing to
comely with a bureaucratic order that Res no sse [sem all
hook the proper course in stic= wi
growth rage egiuvTen�0 84 new owes a year. v
- COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS (not to exceed 15 minutes)
Council Members report on conferences or other City activities. Time limit - 3 minutes.
PUBUC HEARING.
If'you have filled out a Speaker Slip, the Mayor will call you to the podium. Please speak
into the microphone and give your name and address for the record. Please limit your
. comment§ to three minutes; consultant and project presentations limited to 10 minutes. If
.you challenge any of the following issues in court, you may be limited to raising only those
_issues you or someone else raised at this public hearing as described below, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City before or during the public hearing.
1. TENTATIVE MAP- 953 ORCUTT (ORC_Urr 11) (JONAS/463 - 30 min.)
Public hearing to consider a planned development rezoning and tentative map to create an
office/industrial park on an 11.75 acre parcel of property located on the south side of Orc ut
Road, west of the SPRR tracks (953 Orcutt) (PD 220-92 & TR 220-92); Parkside Research
Center Association, applicant.
4 RECOMMENDATION: 1) Introduce an ordinance approving the planned development
overlay zoning and preliminary development plan with conditions as recommended by the
Planning Commission; and, 2) adopt a resolution approving the map with conditions as
recommended by the Planning Commission.
BUSINESS ITEMS
• 2. PROPOSED CDBG FUNDING ALLOCATIONS (JONAS/427 - 30 min.)
Consideration of candidate projects for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
funding under the First Year Plan of the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
(CHAS). (Continued from 8/3/93.)
4 RECOMMENDATION: Review the candidate projects and, by motion: 1) identify and
prioritize projects to receive approximately $800,000 in CDBG funds in the 1994-95 program
year; and 2) provide direction on appropriate funding levels. (Please use your agenda report
from the 8/3/93 meeting.)
• 4
DATE IIiV 1p. wi-dm t� /
��►Il��llllllllllllhlllllll������ ��� kllIIIIIiI I
� city
of sAn luis OBISPO
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
February 3, 1994
TO: City Council
FROM: Kurt Kupp Chairman - Environmental Quality Task Force
SUBJECT: General Plan Housing Element Update
At its meeting of January 27, 1994, the Environmental Quality Task
Force unanimously approved the following statement, and asked that
it be provided to the Council for consideration as part of the
Housing Element update.
"The Environmental Quality Task Force supports the position
that it is not good City policy to put in writing in the
General Plan that the City will accept the environmental and
economic impacts of a five percent growth rate, a growth rate
which would double the City's population in approximately 14
years. "
Please contact me or Carla Sanders if you have questions.
FATTORNEY
CDD DIR
❑ FIN DIR i
❑ FIRE CHIEF
Rr ❑ P:'!DGl
K; ❑ POLICE CHF
R 1 ❑ REC DIR
fLE LI UT!L DIR
i pI f/ ❑ ncRS DIP.OWNI
_..
V� The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410.
40 7y!
MEEI. ; v AGENDA �.
DATE '`�iTEM #
.W
Y
—rc�ATE OF CALffOR BUSINESS.TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AQENC PETE WILSON,Goremor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT '
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR r
lgoo THIItD 57AE> P.Sidle 4S0NCIL CDD DIR ��,
P.o.BOX 952051 ;CAO ❑ FlN DR
SACRAh�ENIO,CA 94252-2051 ACAO.
(916)445 4773 FAX(916)323-2815 ❑ Fl.
CHIEF
�ATTORNEY ❑ P:"{DIA
0 ` LERK�RIG D POLICE CHF
❑ MGN1T TEAIIL ❑ AEC DIR
�F FILE– ❑ UTIL DIR
❑ PER
D►R
July 27, 1992
ECrZIV
Ms. Susan Diaz Clawson FEB 2 21994
5515 Calle Ocho >
Carpinteria, CA 93013 CITY CLERK
Dear Ms. Clawson:
Senator Kenneth L. Maddy has referred your letter to me and
requested that the Department of Housing and Community
Development respond to your questions. tYou have asked about the
legality of a San Luis Obispo ordinance slimitingAhe number of
adults who can live in residential units without a special
Permit. You also expressed concern regarding the failure of the
City of San Luis Obispo to provide more affordable housing.
J have asked our Legal Affairs Division to review the
ordinance you provided (Chapter 17.93 of the City's ordinances,
relating to "High-Density Residential Use. Regulations") , and to
consider its legality in terms of State laws and court decisions,
including the recent decision in 8r.�iseflo v. City of Santa Ana, a
rawsuit in which the Department of Housing and Community
evelopment participated. There are two primary issues: 1)
Vther a standard of six adults as a trigger for "high density"
oliappropriate; 2) whether .the portions of the ordinance relating
to square footage per adult and ratiQ. of. one bathroom per three
Adults are in conflict with the State's residential codes.
*Te believe that the standard of "six adults" probably i
Ynconstitutional in that there is no-.rational relationship o
hat number to the end sought, and it may also interfere with
State constitutional rights of privacy. If the issue is parking,.
a family with several 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds -- if not
those between 18 and 20 -- have the same impact as six "adults. ".
A similar analogy applies to the use of government services, such
as water, sewer, etc. In general, local zoning laws may deal '
with uses; examples of these are prohibiting a single person or
household to have more than two vehicles parked on the property,
or limiting parking -to certain hours- or- number of hours_
However, these ordinances generally may not regulate the "users+'
.(e.g. , number of persons in a family, etc. ) .
Ms. Susan Diaz Clawson
Page 2
Our Legal Affairs Division also has advised me that the
requirements of at least three hundred square feet of "gross
floor area" per adult, and at least one bathroom for every three
adult occupants, are explicitly contradictory to State housing
and building codes. These types of restrictions are the types
struck down by the Court of Appeals in Brisefio.
You also inquired about the City's apparent intent not to
provide additional affordable housing. Applicable State and
federal laws provide a number of means to encourage local
governments to provide adequate affordable housing for all
segments of the population. These are "housing elements"
required by State law, and a "Comprehensive Housing Assistance
Strategy" or "CHAS" required under federal law. The' City's -
housing.,.element currently. is: being .updAteu, with a due date of
July 1 , ' 1992. 1. wouid encourage you tn—rgvi ew--these documents-An
.order .to asc h the City has promised_ to do. The n,... ..in...__.._.
publici meed thee' forums,: you ma seek. compliance 'with the _
C LY s: commitments, W and to ,co�iHfefi o"n future. amen
documents
I hope that this adequately responds to your questions.
Please feel free to call Kenneth Kobrin, Chief Counsel/Deputy
Director of our Legal Affairs Division, directly at 323-7288 if
you have further questions.
Very sincerely yours,
Timothy L. yCb le
Director
cc: Honorable Kenneth L. Maddy
Traci Stevens, Deputy Director
dca OCIL .
.. E' �� P�� IF. AiEETIN" �"I' AGENDA
Cyd G �o �,QLI^_E CHF DATE e� '� ITEM #
U C D FAL L� UT�,DIR
HOUSING ELEMENT AND RESPONSE TO THE STATE
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT (HCD) W* )
It is time to adopt the Housing Element and retain our policy of having
growth management and local control in our general plan. It is
essential to
1. Tell the state HCD we will not become a suburb like that of Los
Angeles by dismantling our growth management policies, making
financial commitments beyond our ability to provide services and
initiating all annexations on a state timetable. We have seen the state
make a mess out of its affairs and I see no reason why we should
forever destroy our quality of life to satisfy a unelected and
unrepresentative bureaucratic state agency like HCD.
2. Over 70% of the cities in California have not been able or unwilling to
make these unrealistic standards imposed by HCD.
3. It is unfair to hold hostage grant funds for projects such as the
Womens' Shelter.
4. Once you state in a planning document you will attempt to achieve
the HCD standard it is more likely than not the city and its taxpayers
will be held to meet the standards. I rather be guilty of non feasance to
stay within our service capacity and the preference of a majority of the
community electorate rather than mal feasance for failure to meet a
standard. If you cannnot control your land use you cannot
control your budget.
4. The state policy is disfunctional and can be counterproductive in
terms of being financially feasible and well as to ironcially depress the
promotion of additional housing. . After the City Council has reviewed
the document four time, the HCD now wants the city to provide a plan
and timeline for the city to initiate pre-zoning and annexing of
expansion areas to guarantee the provision of over 5100 additional
housing units which is beyond the letter of the State Housing Law. It is
the city that is responsible to protect the health, safetey, and welfare in
the community.
FEB 22 1994
CITY CLERK
C.
5. If we comply with the state we essentially set the stage for the land
use element to commit to annexations of areas such as the airport
without a clear understanding of the service and financial consequences.
Therefore, we should adopt the November 1993 Draft Housing Element
with the following changes:
1. Accept Planning Commission recommendation that
Program 1.26.9 requiring downtown residential uses be modified to
allow greater flexibility and provide incentives for residential uses
above the ground floor, and that this be changed from a program to a
policy.
2. Deleate Program 1.31.5 since it did not relate to housing.
3. This adoption take place with this motion since the changes are not
sufficiently substantive to require it be brought back to the council for
futher revision.
iv.�Ji ING �O AGENDA
DATEfR-AITEM #=
ADDITIONAL CONCERNS PERTAINING TO THE SAN LUIS
OBISPO HOUSING ELEMENT ADOPTION
Submitted by Councilman Settle
1. HCD askes the city to comply with a 5% growth rate within a five year
period of time (1999) yet this, if adopted by the Council, will make us
inconsistent with the Land Use Element provision of development over
a 25 year period.
2. HDC also is now asking us to identify sites and a schedule of
annexations to achieve the 5000 plus housing units which is awkward
.and positions the city into outlining the sites without any real abiltity to
accomplish this objective or servicing these expansion areas.
3. The staff report fails to note that the Economic Task Force and
Planning Commission recommended against the 5% growth figure.
4. HCD will hold the city to what it says in the Housing Element
regardless of its financial or service ability to accomplish the goal.
5. HCD will not accept a number of 153,000 dollars to define moderate
housing for the purpose of getting the element approved and this
number is not indexed or adjusted for inflation and this is consistent
with HCD objecting to any reference to a one percent growth rate as part
of the cityh growth management policy.
b. Finally it is far less likely to experience litigation by remaining
within our abililty to provide services under our health, safety and
welfare obligation, which is a fundamental for a local government, than
to commit to what cannot be accomplished.
RECEIVED 6COUNCIL
IF
CJ CAO CDD DIR
FEB 2 2 1994 RfACAO ❑ FIN DIR
ATTORNEY ❑ FIRE CHIEF
CITY COUNCIL ❑ py��Din
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA "OLERWRIG 103 POLICE CHF
❑ MOMTTEAM 13REC DIR
❑ C READ FILE 103 13
DIR
J_
0 PERS DIR