HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/21/1998, 5 - PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO ESTABLISH AN AD HOC COMMITTEE ON INCLUSIONARY HOUSING. council c °m q
Agenda REpo12t h®N� S_
CITY OF SAN LU IS OBISPO
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Direct4�i�
Prepared By: Jeff Hook,Associate Planr��
SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIOTO ESTABLISH AN AD HOC
COMMITTEE ON INCLUSIONARY HOUSING.
CAO RECOMMENDATION: Direct the Planning Commission to appoint a subcommittee of its
members to hold special public meetings to review the draft Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and to
solicit community input, using such community resources as are available to assist them in this task.
DISCUSSION
Situation. On June 10`h,the Planning Commission considered the draft Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance, one of several affordable housing programs in the Housing Element. After lengthy
discussion,the Commission continued the item to it June 24th meeting. At the City Council's June
Wh meeting,the subject of appointing an ad hoc committee on inclusionary housing was raised under
Council communications. Council members favored a subcommittee of Planning Commission
members,as the formation of ad-hoc committees on community issues is the prerogative of the City
Council. Then,at the subsequent Planning Commission meeting,Commissioners voted 5-0
(Commissioners Ready and Ashbaugh absent)to recommend that the City Council establish a seven-
member,ad hoc committee to provide input on the proposed ordinance,and agreed that Commissioners
would submit names of possible nominees to the City Council. At the Commission's retreat on June
30'',Commissioners endorsed the names of several possible candidates,knowledgeable in housing
issues,who might serve on the committee.The suggested nominees are Steven Nelson,Robert Griffin,
John French,John Rosetti,Betty Woolslayer, Scott Smith,and Commission member Mary Whittlesey.
Background—The idea for an ad hoc committee grew out of the Planning Commission's June 10,
1998 meeting at which staff introduced a drift ordinance to implement the Affordable Housing
Requirement of the General Plan,an adopted policy since 1994. Audience members and commissioners
raised several questions dealing with implementation procedures and the ordinance's potential effects.
Due to the complexity of the affordable housing issue and the Commission's desire to engage various
viewpoints in the review of the draft ordinance, commissioners supported the establishment of an ad hoc
committee. An audience member, Steve Nelson,volunteered to report back on possible committee
nominees and possible review strategies. Mr.Nelson's suggested nominees were discussed and endorsed
at the Planning Commission's retreat.
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance The City's Affordable Housing Requirement became adopted
City policy when the Land Use and Housing Elements were updated in 1994. Housing Element
programs 1.22.10 and 1.22.11 set an affordable housing requirement and called for the establishment of
a housing trust fund(excerpt attached). Before the Affordable Housing Requirement and trust fund can
be implemented,the City needs to adopt an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance which spells out
implementation procedures. Table 1 of the Housing Element sets the basic Affordable Housing
Requirement. It requires that new development projects include affordable housing units with
guarantees that they remain affordable for at least 30 years,or pay an in-lieu fee to assist in the
i
Council Agenda Report-Ad Hoc Committee on Inclusionary Housing
Page 2
development of affordable housing. The housing mist fund would work in concert with the affordable
housing requirement to help develop affordable housing and acquire land for affordable housing
projects. In-lieu housing fees would be placed in this fund.
Subcommittee or Ad Hoc Committee? Council members have previously supported creation
of ad hoc committees where there was a need for special expertise which did not exist on any standing
advisory body or on City staff. The 12-member Environmental Quality Task Force was an example
of such a specialized,ad hoc committee, formed to address a broad range of environmental issues. By
contrast,the draft Inclusionary Housing Ordinance is a focused measure intended to implement
adopted City policy. It involves land use and housing issues in which the Planning Commission and
City Council generally are well versed. Expert technical analysis has been provided by the firm of
Mundie and Associates. According to the Advisory Body Handbook,the Planning Commission
regularly reviews and makes decisions and recommendations to the City Council in five areas:
General Plan,Zoning, Subdivisions, Capital Improvement Program, and City Services and Resources.
Advising the City Council on inclusionary housing is part of the Commission's General Plan
advisory role in the areas of long-range planning, land use and housing.
Creating a Planning Commission subcommittee,instead of an ad hoc committee,would allow the
Planning Commission to engage various points of view in reviewing and possibly,recommending
changes to the draft ordinance. Under this approach,the Commission's subcommittee would hold
special public meetings where interested parties could participate in discussions and comment on the
draft ordinance. This course of action would simply require the Planning Commission to select a
subcommittee of three of its members(less than a quorum), set up special public meeting dates, and
proceed with its review. Staff believes this to be the preferable strategy, since it is a simple approach,
consistent with how the City has handled other General Plan issues,would allow a wide range of
community input, and underscores the Planning Commission's primary role as advisor to the City
Council on matters related to land use and housing.
While commissioners may feel they lack expertise on development economics, an expert was hired to
provide an analysis of the proposed requirements. Mundie and Associates,a land use and fiscal
planning consultant,updated their 1991 analysis of the effects of affordable housing requirements on
the feasibility and cost of development in San Luis Obispo. That analysis is available to assist the
Commission with its review of the draft ordinance. Questions raised during the review process could
be researched by staff or referred to the consultant.
The City Charter grants the City Council authority to establish temporary ad hoc citizen committees.
Committee meetings are subject to the Brown Act,requiring that all meetings,discussion,and
deliberation be public,fully noticed,and agendized. If the Council supports this approach,the ad hoc
committee would review the draft Inclusionary Housing Ordinance,take public testimony,and could
recommend changes or additions for Planning Commission and City Council consideration to address
citizens' concerns. The Commission suggested that such a committee be limited to 7 members and that
the committee's work be focused and of short duration—not longer than six months—followed by
formal Commission hearings. Commissioners noted that with several large annexations pending,the
City was entering a critical period for implementing affordable housing programs. They wanted to
encourage a wide range of community interests in developing the program,thereby allowing a balanced,
carefully crafted ordinance to be brought forward to the City Council as soon as possible,probably by
early 1999. It is anticipated that the Community Development Department would staff the committee,
5—L
Council Agenda Report- Ad Hoc Committee on Inclusionary Housing
Page 3
with assistance from the Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo and Mundie and Associates,
as necessary.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Create an ad hoc committee. Adopt a resolution establishing an Inclusionary Housing Task Force
as an ad hoc committee for six months,and by motion,appoint the Commission-recommended
members to serve on the task force. (Draft resolution attached.)
Staff does not recommend this approach,since it may: 1)delay implementation of the Affordable
Housing Requirement at a time when several large annexations are pending,2)detract from the
Planning Commission's role in advising the City Council on General Plan land use and housing
matters,and 3)could be viewed as setting an undesirable precedent for appointing an ad hoc
committee to advise an advisory body on its own area of expertise. In short, staff supports the goal
of encouraging public input and believes this goal is best served by utilizing the existing commission
and public hearing process,without creating a new advisory body.
2. Direct the Planning Commission to proceed with its review of the draft ordinance following
normal hearing procedures. Under this approach,the Commission would focus on issues raised at
the June 10th meeting and could request additional information or recommend ordinance changes as
needed,without establishing an ad hoc committee,special subcommittee or workshops. The
Commission's recommendation would then be forwarded to the City Council.
3. Continue consideration of the Commission's recommendation to allow additional discussion of
the committee's membership and purpose. The City Council may choose to select one or more of
the committee members,or may modify the number of committee members or other aspects of the
committee's service.
Attachments:
-Draft Council Resolution
-Letter from Steven Nelson
-Housing Element excerpt: Affordable Housing Requirement
-Planning Commission minutes
jh/L:inclhsp2.ccpt .
S 3
RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ESTABLISHING THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING TASK FORCE
WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes the need to assemble citizens with a wide range
of views and expertise to assist the City in implementing affordable housing requirements in San
Luis Obispo; and
WHEREAS, after reviewing the Draft Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and considering
public testimony, the Planning Commission has recommended that the City Council establish a
seven-member, ad hoc committee for the purpose of reviewing the General Plan Affordable
Housing Requirement and advising the City on its implementation; and
WHEREAS, Section 1201 of the City Charter grants the City Council the authority to
establish by resolution any temporary or"ad hod' citizen committees with limited lifespan and
clearly defined objectives specified in such a resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
SECTION 1. Ad Hoc Committee Established. An ad hoc, special purpose committee,
to be known as the Inclusionary Housing Task Force, is hereby established. The committee
members shall be appointed by the City Council and serve at the discretion of the Council.
SECTION 2. Purposes of the Ad Hoc Committee. The Inclusionary Housing Task
Force shall perform the following principal functions:
a) Review and take public testimony on the Draft Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.
b) Develop a recommended strategy to implement the Affordable Housing Requirement of the
General Plan(Housing Element Program 1.22.10), including possible changes or additions to
the Draft Inclusionary Housing Ordinance prepared by City staff.
c) Undertake specific tasks as may be referred by the Planning Commission.
d) Complete its work and transmit the Draft Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, including any
recommended changes or additions, to the Planning Commission in a completed draft form
by February 16, 1999.
s- �
Council Resolution No. (1998 Series)
Page 2
On motion of seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 1998.
ATTEST: Mayor Allen Settle
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
J g n, �cy Attorney
A/L.:i=Ihsg.ccres
5
S�
Jul-02-98 13:54 HOUSI' - AUTH OF SLO 805 =43 4992 P_01
VVI.,YI aJJV �V.VV VVVV�V • .r.r —•......•. ..��
30 1998
fi77Y
June
Charlie Senn
Planning Commission
City San Luis Obispo Sent via Fax:: 781-6099
re: Affordable Housing Requirement Committee
Dear Charlie:
It is my hope that the com rd=be relatively small,such as only seven members at the most. I
talked to George Moylan at the Housing Authority and he has given me his input for manes
which an included m this fax. George feels strongly that staff,like himself, should not be a
member of the committee. He does agree that he and Jeff Hook would be good resources and
could be the"staff'to the committee which effectively accomplishes the same goal as having
them an the cormmitum itself.
I would hope we could have a broad based committee so that the decisions will represent the
wishes of the community and will lend credibility to the work the committee docs. Below are
some names that I would suggest after having talked to many people for'
John Prench: As a developer,he would represent the development community well:
John Rossetti: As a Commercial Real Estate Broker,John would give insights into
that part of the community.
Steve Nelson: I am esseutiaDy a rcaidential real estate broker and have also served on
the Housing Authority Commission for 20 years. I think I can see both
the question before the comnattee from several different perspee.
Robert Gdffin: Robert is a former member of the City Council and is the Assistant
Director of the Cal Poly Foundation.
Betty Woolslaye: She tuns a social service agency and has had exper=c with the
Chicago Housing Authority.
Scott Smith. He is the Assistant Director of People's Self Help Rousing and world be
- and invaluable resource.
With the above members,the committee would have a broad cross-section from the community
represented. I Would hope that whoever is on die committee and whatever their viewpoint,that
they would work well with the other cornrntuea members and not become a divisive influence.
Please contact we when I can be of help.
Sincerely
/V
S e elson 346-1990
S- (o
crcy of san tins oBispo
N �
HODS I Gr . .
ELEMENT
September 1994
gi
{ � . .
.
� .�' a.*..Y. y_wj
rn- yK.�u'7.�'-" - ryr _Tk`sy(��yY' MAN
r ~ ~ �y r_•' � °' /..: s '•ry...^` fir..- ..e�.+� ��.�,.
�.fix•--+'. :.-. e.r�'a..W+. a p `k �,:.yn y.Ys"�� +.•..�;
v.�'t' rl',K".�'-fs.-..a.-{ Y y r..C•�L� ..� 'L. e" j!••`
C > ^<`
I..
ra
6
• `iw
(Ay A�
54.00 I
r
ograms f
1.22.10 The City will amend its regulations to require that new development projects
include affordable housing units, with guarantees that they remain affordable, as
required by City Affordable Housing Standards (SLOMC Ch. 17.90),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'
Type of Development Project
Residential Commercial
Build 3% low or 5% moderate Build 1 ADU per acre,but not
cost Affordable Dwelling Units less than 1 ADU per projec :
(ADUA but not less than 1 ADU
per project: or
In City or pay in-lieu fee equal to 5% of
building valuation.
pay in-lieu fee equal to 5% of
Location building valuatiod
Build 10% low-and 20% Build 1 ADU per acre,but not
moderate-cost ADUs,but not less less than 1 ADU per project;
than 1 ADU per project;
In Expansion or
Area or
pay in-lieu fee equal to 5% of
pay in-lieu fee equal to 15% of building valuation.
building valuation.
'Developer may Guild affordable housing in'the required amounts, or pay in-lieu fee based on
the above formula.
2Affordable Dwelling Units must meet City affordability criteria listed in Goal 1.22.
'"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.
14
�0
r'
1.22.11 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.`
1.22.12 The will periodi y review its building and planning regulations to see if there
are changes possible-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.
1.22.13 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
give such projects priority in allocating work assignments, scheduling, conferences
and hearings, and in preparing and issuing reports.
.1.22.14 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.
1.22.15 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 other public or private entities which
guarantee permanent.affordability for low-and moderate income households, should
be eligible to seek exemption from such fees.
1.22.16 The City will revise its condominium conversion regulations to discourage or prevent
the conversion of affordable rental units to condominiums unless permanent
affordability guarantees, such as deed restrictions, are incorporated into the
conversion:
1.22.17 The City will help coordinate public sector and private sector actions to encourage
the development of housing affordable to low and moderate income households.
1.22.18 The City will enable issuance of mortgage revenue bonds to help develop or preserve
assisted units through: (1) below market financing and (2) subsidized mortgages for
low-income and moderate income, first-time home buyers.
15
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING NMVMS
JUNE 109 1998
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:10 p.m. on
Wednesday, June 10, 1998, in Council Chambers of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners John Ewan, Paul Ready,Jan Howell Marx,John Ashbaugh,
Mary Whittlesey,and Chairman Charles Senn
Absent: Commissioner David Jeffrey
Staff
Present: Development Review Manager Ron Whisenand,Recording Secretary Leaha
Magee,Associate Planners Jeff Hook and John Shoals, Long Range
Planning Manager John Mandeville,and Assistant City Attorney Gilbert
Trujillo.
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:
The agenda was accepted as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no public comments.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. Citywide: TA 88-98: Consideration of affordable housing requirements to
implement General Plan policy; City of San Luis Obispo,applicant.
Associate Planner Hook presented the staff report and recommended a Planning
Commission recommendation to City Council to introduce the Inclusionary Housing
Minutes
Planning Commission Meeting
June 10, 1998 _
Page 2
Ordinance to print, with or without changes, and initiating an amendment to the Housing
Element, if needed,to maintain consistency.
Commissioner Ashbaugh asked for comment on smaller development exemptions.
Associate Planner Hook stated residential projects of up to four units would be exempt
and would not require inclusionary housing.
Commissioner Ashbaugh asked how developers and the city would deal with unknowns
in the estimation of home values.
Associate Planner Hook stated in a subdivision where no homes are proposed, the in-lieu
fee option wouldn't apply. It would have to be land dedication or a certain number of
buildings would be set aside to be built as affordable housing. The in-lieu fee only works
if there is an estimate of construction costs.
Associate Planner Hook explained that the current inclusionary housing requirement has
no exemptions. The proposed ordinance goes beyond the original concept and includes
land dedication. In some cases for some developments it may be more financially
desirable to dedicate land to the city or a nonprofit agency. This ordinance allows this
option. The inclusionary housing program does increase costs, as described in the
Mundie report, to the developer,to the home buyer,even to the renter. For developments
of five units and above there are incentives allowed for affordable housing, including
25% density bonuses for projects which include moderate- or low-income housing.
There's also the additional incentive of the Housing Trust Fund that the developer can
negotiate with the city. This fimd would be fimded in part by the payment of in-lieu fees
and
Community Development Block Grant money. While the developer costs may increase
as a result of the program they are partially offset by incentives.
Commissioner Marx questions the rationale of reducing the requirement of the Housing
Element if there is such a large need for affordable housing and the housing market is on
the rise.
Associate Planner Hook stated staff believes this is a critical time to adopt an ordinance
to implement the Affordable Housing Requirement. There are several major
development projects on the horizon.
Commissioner Marx is concerned that affordable housing alternatives will actually reduce
the amount of affordable housing. She's also concerned that only the Mundie study is
being used. She feels there is an assumption that an important social goal is to take
agricultural land and build houses on it. She doesn't want to encourage agricultural land
Minutes
Planning Commission Meeting
June 10, 1998
Page 3
to be converted over to suburban development. There are many social policies that are
important as to where affordable housing should be built. She feels the Mundie study is
narrowly construed and it focuses only on the question of how a developer can make a
profit. She's concerned the whole of the affordable housing element is somehow being
based on the Mundie study.
Associate Planner Hook stated the scope of the Mundie report is narrow because staff
asked them to look only at the economic effects of different scenarios and different
percentages in implementing an already established policy. It was taken as a given that
the City's policy is to pursue an inclusionary housing program. Staff wanted to know
what the effects would be of implementing the program given the changed economic
conditions since the original Mundie Report. Staff is coming into this believing that this
is the time to adopt a program. Staff isn't recommending reducing the Affordable
Housing Requirement at this time.
Commissioner Ewan asked for examples of moderate-or low-income housing in the City.
Manager Mandeville stated Morro Vista units sold in the moderate range.
Chairman Senn asked if other jurisdictions were contacted to find out what programs best
worked.
Associate Planner Hook contacted San Diego, Irvine, Salinas, and Monterey. Each
jurisdiction had different issues and approaches for solving the problem. He noted Irvine
didn't have the 30-year requirement that units remain affordable and many units have
gone back to the market rate. In addition, the research done for the ordinance examined
dozens of jurisdictions.
Chairman germ asked how commercial growth at one ADU/acre is interpreted.
Associate Planner Hook stated the calculation is based on net acres.
Chairman Senn noted a large number of the city's student population would be listed in
the low-or moderate-income categories.
There were no further questions/comments and the public comment session was opened.
PUBIC CONUKENTS:
John French, representing the Damon and Garcia families, believes affordable housing
should be an obligation of the whole community and costs associated with it should be
born broadly.
Minutes
Planning Commission Meeting
June 10, 1998
Page 4
Mr. French stated unit size determines affordability and yet under this draft ordinance
there is no reward for building smaller units that tend to be more affordable. There needs
to be a provision to give builders credit against the affordability requirement for building
smaller,more affordable housing.
Mr. French believes the four-unit minimum is wrong and that this is purely based on
politics. The price would ultimately be paid by the home buyer.
Mr. French believes the 30-year affordability restriction should decline over time so there
is an incentive for the owner to maintain/improve the unit. He suggested using the
formula of a second on the property where its value decreases the longer the property is
held. The owner could-have the opportunity to-buy his way out of the property and the
difference could flow into the trust fund. A 20-years restriction would be more
reasonable.
Mr. French believes information and ordinances from other jurisdictions may not apply to
our community because of high land costs and land use policies.
Steve Nelson, Housing Authority Commissioner, feels a community gives value to land
and there is justification for inclusionary zoning. The Housing Authority has concluded
that when they develop affordable housing they have to get the land free. Very little
affordable housing is really developed unless forced. He's concerned about the details of
implementation and not making development economically unfeasible. This community
needs affordable housing. We need to look at recapturing some of the profits that the
community is giving to private property owners and there has to be incentives for
developers. It's a delicate balancing act.
Commissioner Ready asked for comment on Mr. French's idea of credits associated with
building smaller units.
Mr.Nelson feels a developer's solution to this would be to build condominiums.
Dave Watson, representing Richard DeBlauw and John King, believes a hastily
conceived program will not work. Responsible developers and housing advocates can
bring the necessary experience together to make a long-term program work. He feels
affordable housing has to be a nonprofit-based program. Land and infrastructure are key
cost components for the subdivider/developer. Economic incentives must be available to
proceed. There must be a distinction between low and very low in rental programs. And
low and moderate income should be geared towards purchase programs. He encourages a
reexamination of the General Plan. Implementing an affordable housing program with a
table that dictates formulas, sales prices, and percentages of development is difficult to
Minutes
Planning Commission Meeting
June 10, 1998
Page 5
administer. An ordinance approach with annual revisitation will give greater flexibility
than amending the General Plan to lower/raise a percentage rate, in-lieu fee, or an
element of the program. There is an obvious disproportionate burden on annexation areas
that may even be greater now then when the program was first conceived. Making
expansion areas pay for more of the solution is an issue. He suggests running General
Plan policies and the implementation ordinance concurrently.
Ronnie French, 3942 Hollyhock, has participated with the county's housing element
updated. The county has been discussing a trust fiord. She questions a four-unit
exemption. She believes the program should be broader based in terms of funding. She
disagrees with the city's use of block grant money for things that don't necessarily relate
to housing. Block grant money could be used for the mist fund. She feels all costs such
as title insurance, appraisal, recordation, et cetera, should also be included in the in-lieu
fee. She feels that 15% fee is very high when the goal is to build real homes. We really
do need housing for lower income citizens.
George Moylan, Housing Authority, feels it's difficult to build affordable housing in our
city because of high land costs and low median incomes. He suggested appointing a
group/committee comprised of the development community and affordable housing
advocates to deal with this situation. He supports implementing a broader based
program. He explained a sales tax generation of funds. He feels Cal Poly and Cuesta
students need to be taken into account. There is a need for three- and four-bedroom
family housing. We have to be careful of implementing programs that aren't workable.
Commissioner Marx asked if there have been discussions with Cal Poly about any co-
investment programs.
Mr.Moylan replied no.
Commissioner Ashbaugh agrees there is a need for three- and four-bedroom units. He
suggested the possibility of either group or student housing or a housing rehab.
Associate Planner Hook noted block grants have been used for housing and added that he
anticipates using this trust funds as one way to direct block grants into affordable
housing. The city is entering into a federally guaranteed loan for $1.65 million and $1
million of that is going directly to the Housing Authority to develop housing for very
low-income persons/families.
Chairman Senn asked Mr. Moylan if he would volunteer to form/lead a committee to help
with the city's affordable housing.
��7
Minutes
Planning Commission Meeting
June 10, 1998
Page 6
Mr. Moylan will not lead, but will be a member of this group. He suggested Steve
Nelson,chairman of the Housing Authority Board of Directors as a leader.
Chairman Senn asked for examples of the Housing Authority's affordable housing.
Mr. Moylan explained that the Housing Authority operates 169 units of pubic housing in
the city on 15 scattered sites, a Section 8 housing assistance payment program with 315
units within the city, and has developed many tax-credit units. These are all rental units.
With city and county funds, they have operated a down payment assistance program for
home buyers.
Commissioner Marx is concerned the draft ordinance does not take the need for
affordable housing into account.
Richard DeBlauw, Margarita expansion area. property owner, encouraged Commission
review of Mr. Watson and French's comments. Projected developers' costs are too high.
This ordinance will add costs to houses, not make them more affordable. Builders and
developers want to participate,but he feels these draft plans aren't going to work.
Seeing no further speakers come forward,the public comment session was closed.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commissioner Ashbaugh moved to request the City Council to direct staff to appoint a
committee to refine the draft ordinance in coniunction with the General Plan 1policies.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ewan.
Commissioner Ashbaugh believes the burden needs to be broadened. Exemptions for
projects smaller than four units does leave out a major part of the market. A program
should include small projects. He believes there are projects within the current city limits
that maybe need to have a larger requirement than 30/o-5%. He's concerned about
meeting the on-site requirements associated with commercial developments and mixed-
use projects. He would like to see in-lieu fees options made available to subdividers. He
would like to see additional flexibility given to the trust fund relative to possible sources
of money. Uses of the trust fund need to be spelled out. He would like group and rehab
housing emphasized and more public participation. He questions the impacts of
supplying larger three- and four-bedroom units. He feels flexibility in the ordinance is
needed. He would like Table 1 out of the General Plan and into the ordinance.
Commissioner Ewan would like exploration of more incentive-based programs. The fees
that have been discussed are almost a disincentive. He would like to create a winning
Minutes
Planning Commission Meeting
June 10, 1998
Page 7
situation for the community and the developer. He concerned about the ratio of students
counted in low-income categories.
Commissioner Marx agrees with the concept of appointing a committee to refine the
ordinance and to broaden the base of the information. She's concerned about the time
and funds lost trying to implement this program. She feels there should be incentives for
infill within the city. The questions of where affordable housing is located is crucial.
This is an affordable housing program, not a developers' incentive program. Welfare is
being dismantled and the affordable housing need will increase.
Commissioner Whittlesey asked the Commission to consider a recommendation to
Council to consider the time the committee might take. She reiterated that this is an
incentive for affordable housing,not developers.'
Commissioner Ready questions the. timeline for this committee's
actions/recommendations and projects in the pipeline that could be affected by timely
implementation of this ordinance.
Chairman Senn asked Mr.Nelson if he would be receptive to chairing a committee.
Mr.Nelson nodded in the affirmative and stated a six-month period would be reasonable.
Chairman Senn feels it would be appropriate to continue this item to June 24 to allow Mr.
Nelson to come back with a recommendation and make up of this committee and then at
that time forward a recommendation to Council.
Commissioner Ashbaugh modified his motion to continue this item to June 24 to allow
Mr. Nelson to report back with recommendations regarding who's on the committee and
the committee's outlined approach for reviewing the draft ordinance and how to make an
inclusionary housing program effectively work. The motion modification was accepted
by Commissioner Ewan.
Commissioner Marx favors more time to review the material/issues.
Chairman Senn requested this item be heard first on the next agenda
The Commission complimented staff on their hard work.
AYES: Commissioners Ashbaugh, Ewan,Marx,Whittlesey, Ready,and.
Chairman Senn
NOES: None
REFRAIN: None
Minutes
Planning Commission Meeting
June 10, 1998
Page 8
The motion carried 6-0. Commissioner Jeffrey was absent.
2. 121 Penman Way: A 84-98: Request allow a reduced side yard from 5' to 1.5'
and a reduced rear yard from 5' to 3' fopla detached residential accessory structure; R-
1 Zone;Don Waller,applicant.
Associate Planner Shoals presented th staff report and recommended denying the
Administrative Use Permit with find' s and directing the applicant to bring the
accessory structure into compliance with Zoning Regulations.
Commissioner Ready asked why staff set July 1 the deadline date of application.
Associate Planner Shoals replied it is 30 days from oday and noted this in an ongoing
code enforcement case.
There were no further questions/comments and a public comment session was opened.
PUBIC CONENIENTS:
Donald Waller, owner, bought the roperty five years ago with the structure in the
backyard. The structure was used as art studio. He noticed the structure sagged on its
piers, leaked, and needed rewiring d safety improvements. He feels adding the
bathroom was an over enthusiastic mistake. a uses the structure as a home office. The
physical footprint of the building is the same before, except for the bathroom. He
would like to maintain the building in the same location. It would cost approximately
$7,500410,000 to move. There are no intend for anyone to live in this structure and
he's willing to sign a covenant restricting use.
Commissioner Ashbaugh asked ' more foundation work would be necessary if the
structure were moved.
Mr. Waller replied a perimeter concr foundation would be appropriate. Footings
would have to be hand dug.
Commissioner Marx asked the height of loft.
Mr. Waller replied 3'. It's very comfortable. He would be happy to enclose the space
as storage.
s -/7
MEL
DATE &_jo AGENDA
ITEM # S
San Luis Obispo City Planning Commission
Charles L. Senn-Chair
Paul Ready- Vlce-Chair FAO
UNCIL •�
Mary Whittlesey David Jeffery
O G
John Ewan ORNEY ❑IJohn Ashbau h ❑f._._ . _.;F
9 p T TEAM ❑REC D12
Jan Howell Marx d� ❑uiTILER DIR
p ❑PERS DIR
Date: July 15, 1998
To: Mayor Allen Settle
Councilmember Bill Roalman
Councilmember David Romero
Councilmember Kathy Smith
Councilmember Dodie Williams
Re: Proposed Ordinance to Implement General Plan Affordable Housing
Dear Mayor Settle and City Councilmembers:
On June 10, 1998, this matter was considered by the Planning Commission and after the
testimony it was the Commission's unanimous decision that an ad hoc advisory
committee should be appointed because of the complex issues discussed below.
On June 24, the Commission was advised that it did not have the power to appoint a
committee. The Commission then unanimously decided to recommend appointment of a
committee to City Council. The Commission voted unanimously to submit
recommended committee members.
On June 30, at the Commission Retreat, the following individuals were unanimously
nominated by the Planning Commission:
Staff: Jeff Hook
George Moylan
Committee Members: Mary Whittlesey-Planning Commission Representative
Steve Nelson-Recommended Chair,20 yr. Board Member
of Housing Authority and Local Real Estate Broker
Scott Smith-Asst. Director of People's Self-Help Housing
Betsy Woolslayer-Social Service Agency Operator w/
Past Housing Authority Experience
John French-Long-term Resident; Housing Developer
Robert Griffin-Former City Council Member&Asst.
Director of Cal Poly Foundation
John Rossetti-Commercial and Industrial Real Estate
Broker
RECEIVED
.I!:� 1 7 1998
SLO CITY COUNCIL
The Commission requests that City Council appoint these persons as an ad hoc
advisory committee to the Planning Commission and, if necessary, City Council.
Affordable Housing has been a long-term city problem. Some of the major concerns that
surfaced at the public hearing were the following:
1.) The Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo questions whether this is a
proper and workable ordinance. They have not been consulted as to the
ordinance's contents and believe that as the chief supplier of low income housing
in the community, their Board should have input on adoption of a workable
ordinance. For that reason, as well as the desire to secure the support of all
segments of the communtiy, the Authority supports the formation of the
Committee.
2.) The Development Community has not been consulted.
3.) The Economic Director has not been consulted.
4.) The Environmental Director has not been consulted.
5.) The effect on the student population was not adequately considered.
6.) Approximately 130 jurisdictions have some type of Affordable Housing programs,
some successful and some with no success. Few have been consulted. The
committee has the manpower and opportunity to consult other jurisdictions.
7.) Can the ordinance provide market-driven incentives to accomplish the goals?
8.) Is a $150,000 per acre Affordable Housing contribution for commercial and
industrial annexations consistent with the general plan requirement of
encouraging local businesses to expand?
9.) Should the cost of Affordable Housing be absorbed by the entire community or
by new development? If the cost is to be absorbed only by new development, is
it reasonable to increase the cost $15,000 to $30,000 per house?
10.) Should there be any exemptions?
11.) How realistic is the Mundie Study?
12.) Why didn't the Mundie Study contact those persons referred to in #1-4 above?
13.) Are the economics used for analysis in the Mundie Study realistic?
There are numerous other issues not enumerated above. It is recommended that the
committee be appointed immediately with the responsibility to provide an initial report
and recommendation to the Planning Commission approximately February 1, 1999. The
extension of the committee should require council approval. Thanks for your
consideration.
Respectfully Submitted,
Charles L. Sen
Chairman of San Luis Obisp Planning Commission
xc: Planning Commissioners
Arnold Jonas
John Mandeville
Jeff Hook
George Moylan