HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-20-2015 PH1 Housing Element UpdateY a
16 0
Council Agenda Report
FROM: Derek Johnson, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Tyler Corey, Housing Programs Manager
SUBJECT: HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Planning Commission:
Meeting Date: 01/20/2015
Item Number: PH1
Adopt a Resolution (Attachment 6) approving updates to the City's Housing Element;
and
2. Adopt the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact.
REPORT IN BRIEF
The Housing Element is a state required element of the General Plan that must be updated every
five years. Updating the Housing Element is a key step in the City's efforts to expand affordable
housing opportunities and is required by California Government Code Section 65580- 65589.8.
Once adopted, the Draft Housing Element will replace the current Housing Element adopted and
certified by the State in 2010 and guide City housing actions through 2019. The update process is
a tool to modify housing policies and programs to reflect the changing needs, resources and
conditions in the community, and to respond to changes in state and federal housing law.
The Housing Element has been updated in response to input received through 12 public
workshops and meetings as well as other correspondence over the past year. Staff has
summarized input from those forums and now presents a Housing Element to the City Council
for consideration. On November 12, 2014, the Planning Commission recommended the City
Council approve the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and adopt the proposed
Housing Element (Attachment 1). A complete version of the Draft Housing Element can be
found on the City's Splash Page at the following link: www.slocity.org.
DISCUSSION
Regional Housing Needs Allocation
The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) produced by the State Department of Housing
and Community Development (HCD) identifies the projected housing needs in the region as part
of the periodic updating of local housing elements of the General Plan. The San Luis Obispo
Council of Governments (SLOCOG) is responsible for working with the state - mandated RHNA
and distributing the allocation between the cities and the unincorporated County areas. For this
housing element cycle, the City has been assigned 1,144 units (28% of 4,090 for the County as a
whole) for the upcoming planning period. The City is not required to construct housing, but to
demonstrate that it can accommodate this requirement through a variety of programs as well as
having appropriate land use and zoning capacity.
PH1 -1
Housing Element Update Page 2
The 1,144 unit allocation is substantially lower than the previous planning period requirement of
1,589, and the City currently has the land use and zoning capacity to accommodate this
allocation without the need to rezone property. The table below shows the City's regional
housing need for new housing construction for January 1, 2014 through June 30, 2019. It
includes City construction objectives for detached single - family and attached multi - family
housing types, both rental and for -sale units.
Income Category (% of County Median
Income)
Regional Housing Need Allocation
SFH
MFH3
Total
Extremely Low (< 30 %)1
0
142
142
Very Low (30 -50 %)1
0
143
143
Low (51 -80 %)
72
107
179
Moderate (81 -120 %)
80
121
202
Above Moderate (> 120 %)
191
287
478
TOTAL UNITS
343
800
1,144
`Given the deep subsidies needed to construct extremely low and very -low income single - family
units, most housing for these income groups is expected to be multi - family units.
2SFH refers to single - family detached housing.
3MFH refers to attached multi - family housing.
Residential Development Capacity
As part of the Housing Element update process, jurisdictions must document their residential
land capacity to show how their RHNA can be met. The City has completed this analysis and has
approximately 725 acres of vacant, underutilized or deteriorated property that can accommodate
approximately 3,477 dwelling units. A substantial portion of this residential development
capacity is located in the Margarita and Orcutt Area Specific Plans. The City's residential
capacity exceeds the 1,144 unit RHNA, and therefore, a property rezoning program will not be
required with the Housing Element update.
Public Outreach
Over the past year, the City conducted outreach to identify housing needs, issues and
opportunities in the community. The primary goals of the outreach effort were to:
• Actively engage the diverse populations of the City in discussions about housing needs.
• Ensure that affected residents, housing providers, homeless services providers, and
funding entities have opportunities to be actively involved in the process.
Workshops and Meetings
Staff facilitated public workshops and meetings (total of 12) over the past year. This included
community workshops on November 14, 2013, and July 16, 2014, and meetings with the
following groups and organizations:
• Workforce Housing Coalition — January 9, 2014
• Planning Commission — February 12, 2014
• Association of Realtors — March 4, 2014
• Economic Vitality Corporation — March 18, 2014
• Chamber of Commerce — April 3, 2014
PH1 -2
Housing Element Update Page 3
• Home Builders Association — April 10, 2014
• Residents for Quality Neighborhoods — April 16, 2014
• Workforce Housing Summit — May 28, 2014
• Planning Commission — July 23, 2014
• Planning Commission — November 12, 2014
Staff compiled feedback from these workshops and meetings as well as other correspondence
into three categories of criteria: needs, issues and opportunities. These categories were used
throughout the public outreach process for consistency. The following overview of public
feedback summarizes comments received in each category. These comments informed updated
policy and program recommendations:
Needs
• Affordable and workforce housing
• Senior and veteran housing
• Transitional housing for children out of foster care and those with mental health issues
• Small apartments and efficiency units for seniors and homeless
• Increased owner - occupied housing
Issues
• Financing for affordable housing production
• Preservation and rehabilitation of existing housing stock
• High property cost and low incomes
• Development fees proportional to impact
• Affordable housing units comparable in size and quality to market -rate units
Opportunities
• Incentives for single room occupancy (SRO) and secondary dwelling units
• Increase residential densities where appropriate
• Allow greater building height to accommodate housing
• Creatively utilize existing housing resources
HCD's Role
HCD's role in the update process is to review and certify, if compliant with Federal and State
Housing Laws, revised housing elements. This includes determining the RHNA by income
category for SLOCOG; ensuring local governments have plans in place to meet existing and
projected housing needs for all economic segments of the community; and reviewing housing
elements for compliance with State law.
The City submitted the Draft Housing Element to HCD for review and comment on September
12th. On October 28th, staff met with HCD staff to discuss the agency's initial comments and
suggested edits. Overall, HCD was very supportive of the document and suggested relatively
minor language changes in several proposed programs. HCD staff recommendations are shown
highlighted in yellow in Attachment 3. Staff updated the document accordingly and resubmitted
the Draft to HCD to confirm direction for final approval and certification. On November 12,
2014, the City received a formal letter from HCD stating that our revised Draft Housing Element
meets State law and will be certified upon adoption by the City Council (Attachment 5). This is
a critical and important step in the process.
PH1 -3
Housing Element Update Page 4
Draft Policies and Programs
The Housing Element appendices (on file with the Community Development Department)
include updated demographic and residential capacity information. The latter is important
because it demonstrates the City is able to accommodate its RHNA allocation of 1,144 dwelling
units for the planning period without the need to rezone property. The core of the element,
however, is the policies and programs that provide the direction for how the City will achieve its
housing goals. Chapter 3 of the element contains the updated policy and program language and
is shown in legislative draft for Council review.
Council should review the proposed changes to Chapter 3 (Attachment 3) in response to
community input, Planning Commission direction, and HCD comments and provide any
additional comments or direction as appropriate. Attachment 3 shows changes that reflect
Planning Commission comments highlighted in green; and changes that reflect HCD comments
highlighted in yellow. Proposed changes are shown in legislative draft format with strikeouts
indicating deleted text and underlining indicating added text. Many of the policies and programs
in the 2010 Housing Element are being carried forward because they are effective and need to be
continued or because the City has yet to implement some of the programs.
A brief description may be found below which summarizes where substantive changes or new
policies or programs are proposed, and explains how the modification or addition better achieves
housing goals or state requirements.
1.6 Program — Safety. This is an existing program in the 2010 Housing Element that provides for
a rental inspection program to improve the condition of the City's housing stock. The Planning
Commission recommendation includes removal of this program since it was their
recommendation that the City has other remedies available to address substandard housing. The
Commission thought a rental inspection program would be intrusive to homeowners and renters
as well as have the potential to increase housing costs.
4.6 Program — Mixed - Income Housing. This program was recommended by the Task Force for
the Land Use and Circulation Elements update (TF -LUCE) based on community input to
implement Policy 4.2 by amending the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and Affordable Housing
Incentives to require deed restricted affordable housing units in a development project be
comparable in size, appearance and basic quality to the market -rate units. Staff modified
program language based on Planning Commission comments. This program seeks to address
concerns that residential development projects offer the smallest and least desirable units in a
project to meet their affordable housing obligations.
6.8 Policy & 6.13 Program — Housing Production. This policy and program modification were
recommended by the TF -LUCE based on community input to incentivize the development of
smaller apartments and efficiency units in the Downtown Core (C -D Zone) where appropriate.
The intent of the policy is to increase the production of smaller, higher density dwelling units on
the presumption that this would lower housing costs; and to remove barriers to density when
projects can meet development standards (i.e. floor area ratios, parking, height, etc.).
6.9 Policy — Housing Production. This program was recommended by the Planning Commission
to encourage and support employer /employee financing programs and partnerships to increase
housing opportunities targeted toward the local workforce. This policy supports recent
I■ d
Housing Element Update Page 5
community sentiment regarding the need to increase the production and financing opportunities
for workforce housing.
6.10 Policy — Housing Production. HCD recommended this program become a policy. The
intent of the policy is to support residential infill development and higher density where
appropriate and consistent with recently adopted LUCE policies regarding neighborhood
compatibility.
6.31 Program — Housing Production. This program was recommended by community input to
consider modifying the City's residential development impact fee schedule to be based on the
size, number of bedrooms and room counts in a dwelling unit. Currently, the City charges
development impact fees based on housing type (i.e. single - family residential, multi - family
residential, SDU, etc.). The proposed program would review alternatives to this approach that
would be proportional to the impacts associated with the dwelling unit being proposed.
6.32 Program — Housing Production. This program addition was recommended by HCD as
support for the City's existing practice to submit annual Housing Element progress reports by
April 1 st of each year.
7.8 Policy — Neighborhood Quality. The Planning Commission recommended language changes
to proposed program 7.13. HCD recommended this program become a policy. Staff modified
policy language based on Commission comments. It should be noted that during the Housing
Element public outreach process, staff received several comments related to the need to increase
long -term residency and stabilization in neighborhoods. The proposed policy encourages
strategies and programs that would further this goal.
7.13 Program — Neighborhood Quality. This program supports existing Neighborhood Service
and Proactive Code Enforcement Programs. These programs have proven successful in
improving the wellness and desirability of many of the City's neighborhoods. This program was
based on community input in response to the Cal Poly dorm project proposed at Slack and
Grand.
8.11 Policy & 8.23 Program — Special Housing Needs. One legislative change that was adopted
during the past housing element cycle that must be addressed in the current update is Senate Bill
812. This bill requires housing elements include an analysis of the special housing needs of the
disabled, including persons with developmental disabilities. The proposed policy encourages
amendments to regulations that support the special housing needs of disabled persons. The
proposed program directs the City to seek grant opportunities for housing construction and
rehabilitation specifically targeted for persons with developmental disabilities.
8.12 Policy & 8.24 & 8.25 Programs — Special Housing Needs. The City has been a long
standing supporter of service provision to those who are experiencing homelessness.
Implementing strategies and programs that help transition people out of homelessness has been a
regional effort. The City has partnered with the County, other cities, and nonprofit entities to
provide programs that advance goals outlined in the San Luis Obispo Countywide 10 -year Plan
to End Homelessness (10 -Year Plan).
The City adopted the following Major City Goal as a top priority in the 2013 -15 Financial Plan:
Implement Comprehensive Strategies to Address Homelessness. The listed objectives and
I7
Housing Element Update Page 6
associated work plan for this goal include encouraging improved and expanded services and
programs in conjunction with the City's partner organizations. The proposed policy and
programs further the 10 -Year Plan and the City's Major City Goal to address homelessness.
8.13 Program — Special Housing Needs. This program was modified to include language for
support of the Housing First and Rapid Re- housing models of supportive housing. These
programs help people to quickly re- access permanent housing, thus minimizing the physical and
emotional damage caused by homelessness and putting them in a position to recover more
quickly. The housing provided is linked with intensive case management, treatment and wrap-
around services.
8.20 Program — Special Housing Needs. HCD requested that program language be modified to
clearly indicate that transitional and supportive housing is allowed in all zoning districts where
residential uses are allowed, as required by State law.
9.6 Policy & 9.13 Program — Sustainable Housing, Site, and Neighborhood Design. This policy
and program support goals outlined in the City's Climate Action Plan by seeking to improve the
energy efficiency of the City's housing stock. The proposed program considers financing options
for sustainable home improvements such as solar panels, heating and cooling systems, water
conservation and windows.
9.12 Program — Sustainable Housing, Site, and Neighborhood Design. This program was
recommended by community input to allow dwelling units to be constructed at their smallest
allowable size. The California Building Code (CBC) includes a minimum size of 260 s.f. for a
studio apartment, unless modified by local ordinance. The Zoning Regulations do not specify a
minimum size for dwelling units. This program seeks to identify incentives for projects that
propose smaller apartments and efficiency units, such as reduced impact fees and property
development standards, as well as consideration for adoption of a local ordinance that would
allow apartments smaller than the CBC's requirement.
Planning Commission Action
On November 12, 2014, the Planning Commission unanimously (Dandekar absent)
recommended the City Council adopt a resolution approving updates to the City's Housing
Element and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact with several minor revisions
(Attachments 1 & 2). The Planning Commission also unanimously recommended that Program
1.6 be removed from the Housing Element. One member of the public spoke on the item.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
On November 12, 2014, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council adopt a
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for the Housing Element update (Attachment 4).
The Initial Study of Environmental Impact does not identify any impacts that are considered
significant and unavoidable.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Council may modify the proposed Housing Element. Specific direction should be
given to staff regarding any modifications.
PH1 -6
Housing Element Update Page 7
2. The Council may continue action, if more information is needed. Direction should be
given to staff regarding additional information to prepare the item for further
consideration and decision.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 5617 -14
2. Draft Planning Commission minutes from the November 12, 2014, meeting
3. Chapter 3 of the Housing Element (Legislative Draft with PC and HCD edits highlighted)
4. Initial Study of Environmental Impact
5. HCD Letter
6. Draft Council Resolution
T: \Council Agenda Reports\2015\2015- 01- 20\Housing Element Update (Johnson- Corey)\PH2 - Housing Element Update.docx
PH1 -7
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. PC- 5617 -14
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND AMENDMENTS TO THE
HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN
(GPI/ER 15 -14)
WHEREAS, State law requires cities and counties to adopt a general plan. The general plan
includes seven required elements, one of which is the housing element. The housing element must
be updated every five (5) years or as otherwise provided by State law; and
WHEREAS, the City's General Plan Housing Element was last updated on June 1, 2010, in
compliance with State law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
November 12, 2014, for the purpose of considering the Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact and amendments to the Housing Element to address the changing needs, resources and
conditions in the Community, as required by State law; and
WHEREAS, the draft Housing Element was transmitted to the State Department of Housing
and Community Development (HCD) for review, and modifications have been made to address
HCD comments; and
WHEREAS, said public hearing was for the purpose of formulating and forwarding
recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the project; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required
by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the
testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff,
presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San
Luis Obispo as follows:
Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following
findings:
1. The proposed amendments included in the draft Housing Element are consistent with other
land use goals and policies of the General Plan.
2. The proposed amendments are appropriate and necessary to ensure that the City's Housing
Element meets State law and the changing needs, resources, and conditions in the community.
3. Achieving Housing Element State certification will promote affordable housing opportunities
and help achieve adopted housing goals by making the City eligible for various housing
PH1 -8
M
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC- 5617 -14
GPI /ER 15 -14 (Housing Element)
Page 2
Attachment 1
grants and financial incentives, and will foster cooperation among local and state agencies in
addressing an urgent need for affordable housing in the City.
Section 2. Environmental Determination. The Planning Commission does hereby
recommend the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact.
Section 3. Recommendation. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend the
City Council adopt the proposed amendments to the Housing Element as modified at their
November 12, 2014, meeting, which is incorporated herein by reference.
On motion by Commissioner Draze, seconded by Commissioner Malak, and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commr, Draze, Malak, Fowler, Larson, Multari, and Riggs
NOES: None
REFRAIN: None
ABSENT: Commr. Dandekar
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 12th day of November, 2014.
"'x"
Doug Davidson, Secretary
Planning Commission
PH1 -9
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
November 12, 2014
CALL TO ORDER /PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Commissioners Michael
Riggs, Vice - Chairperson
Larson
Attachment 2
Draze, John Fowler, Ronald Malak, William
Michael Multari, and Chairperson John
Absent: Commissioner Hemalata Dandekar
Staff: Deputy Community Development Directors Doug Davidson and Kim
Murry, Assistant Planner Erik Berg- Johansen, Assistant Planner Walter
Oetzell, Housing Programs Manager Tyler Corey, Assistant City
Attorney Jon Ansolabehere, and Recording Secretary Diane Clement
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented.
MINUTES: Minutes of October 22, 2014, were approved as amended.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON - AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. City -Wide. GPI /ER 15 -14: Housing Element Update: Planning Commission
recommendation to City Council to approve the Housing Element Update and
proposed Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; City of San Luis Obispo —
Community Development Dept., applicant. (Tyler Corey)
Housing Programs Manager Corey presented the staff report, recommending adoption
of the resolution which recommends that the City Council approve the Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact and adopt the 2014 Housing Element.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Steve Delmartini, SLO, made the following comments about the Housing Element:
a. He noted that Policy 2.1 does not make any reference to workforce housing,
and he encouraged the City to develop policies for this.
b. He stated that the Moylan Terrace development achieved Goal 4.6 with the
only difference between the affordable and market rate units being white vs.
stainless appliances.
c. He encouraged placing housing near employment centers (Goal 5.3)and noted
that the Broad Street /Tank Farm area needs this type of housing, whether for
sale or for rent.
PH1 -10
Attachment 2
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
November 12, 2014
Page 2
d. He stated that Policy 7.1 which deals with neighborhood character is a tough
policy to meet where single - family detached housing is adjacent to higher
density housing or non - residential areas.
e. He stated that he is not sure how Policy 7.8 Neighborhood Stabilization can be
achieved.
f. He supports allowing PD zoning on less than an acre. He also noted that
Policies 11.2 and 11.3 may pose challenges for existing manufacturing uses in
areas such as the Broad Street corridor.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Multari complimented staff on the Housing Element Update and noted that the
California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) approval
process is difficult and does not take into account local community issues. He added
that the City has not been allowed to account for Cal Poly housing in meeting the local
housing needs allocation despite its impact on housing availability. He suggested
changing the wording of Program 1.4 to clearly state rehabilitation objectives He stated
he will not support the update if Policy 1.6 remains in place and added that he has
expressed concern before about this residential inspection program which he thinks
should be oriented only to life safety issues. He noted that this policy, as presented, will
result in the creation of a bureaucracy with new staff that, after dealing with the most
egregious violations, will be incentivized to find less and less egregious problems. He
stated that this policy is not necessary because the City already has other ways to
protect housing stock and the program will be intrusive, expensive, and not a good way
to spend community resources. He noted that the City's Neighborhood Wellness
Program already takes action on issues. He supported removing Policy 1.6
Commr. Multari stated that the HCD requires the monitoring and tracking in Program
3.12 without consideration for the City's budget. He asked staff if they are comfortable
that "basic quality' in Program 4.6 clearly indicates that basic does not mean equal.
Housing Programs Manager Corey responded that 4.6 is a program that will come back
to the Commission for further discussion regarding how "basic quality" is applied.
Commr. Multari noted that he has previously expressed his displeasure with the
proactive enforcement in Program 7.13 because it has diminished, not increased,
neighborliness. He ended his comments by repeating that his biggest concern is Policy
1.6, which he would like to remove from the Housing Element Update.
Commr. Larson asked if Policy 1.6, enacting a rental inspection program, is the same as
proactive code enforcement or does it envision something above and beyond that.
Housing Programs Manager Corey responded that it was above and beyond that and
will be up for consideration by the City Council. Deputy Director Murry added that the
City Council had directed that the Residential Inspection Program is part of a Council-
PH1 -11
Attachment 2
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
November 12, 2014
Page 3
identified Major City Goal and that staff is bringing forward a study session in order to
receive direction from the Council regarding the parameters of the program.
Commr. Riggs asked if there are pieces of the Housing Element that have been made
consistent with the updated General Plan and asked what the path forward will be for
that.
Deputy Director Murry responded that the Housing Element is about how to achieve the
housing goals in the General Plan and that the element is consistent with both the
existing and proposed Land Use Element.
Commr. Riggs stated that, in that case, the path for this goes forward whether or not the
LUCE Update gets approved.
Deputy Director Murry stated that the Housing Element can stand on its own and noted
that the opportunity sites pursued in the LUCE Update could still come in individually for
consideration if the LUCE Update is not approved.
Commr. Riggs complimented staff for their work on the Housing Element Update. He
noted that he is concerned by Policy 1.6 and supports removing it from the Housing
Element. He agreed with Mr. Delmartini's comments except on Program 4.6. He stated
that the language in this program is appropriate and that there is a basic human right to
housing. He referred to Policy 7.1 as being overly restrictive and suggested that the
word "respect" would be more appropriate than the word "preserve" when referring to
neighborhood character.
Commr. Draze noted that HCD did allow the City to count Cal Poly housing in 2004.
He stated that he knows the City Council wants the Rental Inspection Program in Policy
1.6 and asked staff if this program could still be developed if it was removed from the
Housing Element Update.
Housing Programs Manager Corey stated that Policy 1.6 exists in the current Housing
Element and that the Council may enact a rental inspection program regardless of
whether the policy is included in the updated Housing Element.
Commr. Draze supported removing Policy 1.6 since removing it does not stop Council
action from happening. In reference to Program 4.6, he stated that, since affordable
housing is not housing as an investment, it is not important to have the same quality as
non - restricted units. He suggested striking "size" and "amenities" while retaining
"number of bedrooms." He noted that Program 6.11 was originally included because
the City did not want to see developers design large properties with large lots in
residential expansion areas. He stated that he does not like removing the last
sentence entirely but would prefer it be edited to capture the concept of not supporting
proposals that propose densities "significantly less than" those planned for in the
specific plans.
Deputy Director Murry stated that the sentence in Program 6.11 was removed because
the previous Resolution that set up phasing plans for the specific plans was rescinded
PH1 -12
Attachment 2
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
November 12, 2014
Page 4
and was replaced by a reference to the Land Use Element Table which shows the
anticipated 1 % growth allowed under growth management.
Commr. Draze responded that he wanted to ensure that density in the expansion areas
would not be reduced and stated that he is supportive of the rest of the update and
complimented staff on their work.
Commr. Fowler asked whether the goal of Policy 1.6 is to get into every house or just
into the rental units that need attention.
Deputy Director Murry responded that the study session with City Council is intended to
obtain direction regarding the parameters of the inspection program.
Commr. Larson stated there was at least one project in the last year with an egregious
violation of the number of sleeping rooms in a rental unit and his guess is that the City is
looking for a proactive way to get ahead this and not have gross code violations occur.
Commr. Fowler stated that he wants further discussion on Policy 1.6 and noted that the
City does have other ways to get into troubled properties. He stated he is struggling
with Program 4.6 and noted that affordable housing tends to be put in the worst
locations, which troubles him. He stated that he likes the trend to integrate these units
within development projects. He added that he is torn over the issue of size because
home buyers who cannot afford the bells and whistles would find it hard to afford the
same size and quality as non - restricted units. He emphasized his concern about not
relegating affordable housing to the least desirable areas of land.
Commr. Malak complimented staff on their work and stated he agrees with Commr.
Multari about Policy 1.6 because the City has enough laws to do this. He added that he
almost agrees with Commr. Draze about Program 4.6 but would also like to take out
"number of bedrooms." He noted that he has seen developments that have affordable
duplexes on corners that look just like adjacent single - family homes. He added that this
program stifles the creativity of the developers because they cannot meet all the criteria.
He supported amending this policy to require that affordable units "be of similar
character and basic quality' as the non - restricted units.
After a discussion, Commr. Malak supported adding "location" to his suggested wording
for Policy 1.6. He asked staff if Program 6.22 is in place now.
Housing Programs Manager Corey responded that it is in place now and is a benefit to
smaller projects because it is a less costly and more expeditious review process.
Commr. Malak suggested adding "and Green Point Rated programs" just after "LEED
program" in Policy 9.1.(1) so two environmental checklists would be mandatory.
Commr. Riggs stated that LEED is not associated with the environmental process and is
not a requirement so it may be better to use "or" rather than "and."
PH1 -13
Attachment 2
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
November 12, 2014
Page 5
Deputy Director Murry indicated that Commr. Riggs was correct and Commr. Malak
agreed to the change.
Commr. Multari stated that the intent of Program 4.6 is in line with the comment by
Commr. Riggs that the City should be providing housing as a right and it should be
comparable to the non - restricted units. He noted that requiring the same size is going
overboard, but that the intent is to force those affordable units to be similar, and that
"amenities" could be taken out if "basic quality' is included. He added that the City
should avoid segregation of affordable units and should not allow them to be put in the
worst locations, which is a common problem. He summarized by suggesting that "size"
and "amenities" be removed from Program 4.6 and "location" be added to avoid
segregation. In response to a question from Commr. Malak, he stated that he wanted to
leave "similar number of bedrooms" in.
Commr. Malak stated that, if you look at the needs of seniors and handicapped in the
community, a development with only 3 -4 bedroom units would not be appealing so a
portion of the community would be excluded from that development. He supported
wording that stated the affordable units shall have at least one bedroom.
Commr. Draze stated that the word "similar'' deals with this and he wants to see
bedrooms and a reference to location included.
Commr. Malak stated that he is concerned that if the same number of bedrooms is
required, it will result in three -story town homes which will eliminate the handicapped
and possibly seniors.
Commr. Draze stated that requiring the same number of bedrooms does not preclude
those with limited abilities because projects can be designed to deal with those issues.
Commr. Riggs noted that these are really complex important issues, but that Program
4.6 is really just a suggestion to consider amending a policy so perhaps this
conversation is a little premature.
Commr. Malak stated he would prefer to finalize Program 4.6 now, rather than later.
Commr. Draze suggested striking "devoted to automobiles" from Program 9.9.
At this point Commr. Draze made a motion to strike Policy 1.6 that was seconded by
Commr. Malak and discussion ensued.
Commr. Fowler stated he would like to hear from staff before striking Policy 1.6.
Deputy Director Murry responded that in a community with older housing stock and with
a high percentage of rentals vs. owner - occupied housing, the concern is the
degradation and safety of the housing. She added that Neighborhood Wellness efforts
can address exterior conditions but getting inside the dwelling allows for safety
inspection. She noted that currently, if a complaint is received, staff can get inside if
consent is obtained from the owner or resident, but a rental inspection program would
PH1 -14
Attachment 2
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
November 12, 2014
Page 6
provide a regular way to do that. She asked that Assistant City Attorney Ansolabehere
add any additional information.
Commr. Draze noted that he is not saying he would vote against this program if it came
up as code, but that there is just not enough information about it now and it does not
need to be in the Housing Element Update.
Assistant City Attorney Ansolabehere stated that if there is an imminent threat to safety,
consent is not needed to enter a house, but otherwise consent and probable cause are
required. He added that, if this program is in place, probable cause would not be
needed and, if consent is not given, then staff is able to get an inspection warrant.
Commr. Fowler stated that trying to beef up enforcement is one thing but having a
policy that means getting into each and every house is something he cannot support.
Assistant City Attorney Ansolabehere stated that when a complaint is received, consent
to enter can come from either the occupant or the owner.
Commr. Multari stated that an educational program for tenants about safety violations
would be better and that Policy 1.6 will make housing more expensive, increase costs,
hassle, and the potential that the problems discovered will not be about life /safety
shortly after the program is in place.
Commr. Malak stated that after hearing the Assistant City Attorney, he wants Policy 1.6
out totally. He noted he does not want someone coming to his door with a court order.
On motion by Commr. Draze, seconded by Commr. Malak, to strike Program 1.6 from
the Housing Element Update.
AYES: Commrs. Draze, Fowler, Larson, Malak, Multari, and Riggs
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Dandekar
The motion passed on a 6:0 vote.
On motion by Commr. Multari, seconded by Commr. Riggs, to adopt the resolution
which recommends that the City Council approve the Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact and adopt the 2014 Housing Element with the following
amendments:
a. Restate language for 1.4 to clarify rehabilitation objectives.
b. Amend Program 4.6 to remove "size" and "amenities" and add "in locations that
avoid segregation of such units ".
c. Change "preserves" to "respects" in Policy 7.1.
d. Include "or GreenPoint " just after "LEED" in Policy 9.1(1)
e. Replace "paving devoted to automobiles" in Policy 9.9 with "impermeable
surface ".
PH1 -15
Attachment 2
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
November 12, 2014
Page 7
AYES: Commrs. Draze, Fowler, Larson, Malak, Multari, and Riggs
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Dandekar
The motion passed on a 6:0 vote.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
PH1 -16
CHAPTER 3
GOALS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
3.10 Overview
This chapter includes the Housing Implementation Plan for the period January 2014 to June
2019. The following goals, policies and programs are based on an assessment of the City's
needs, opportunities and constraints; and an evaluation of its existing policies and programs.
3.20 Goals, Policies and Programs.
This chapter describes the City's housing goals, policies and programs, which together form the
blueprint for housing actions during the Housing Element's planning period. Goals, policies and
programs are listed in top -to -bottom order, with goals at the top and being the most general
statements, working down to programs, the most specific statements of intent. Here is how the
three policy levels differ:
❑ Goals are the desired results that the City will attempt to reach over the long term. They
are general expressions of community values or preferred end states, and therefore, are
abstract in nature and are rarely fully attained. While it may not be possible to attain all
goals during this Element's planning period, they will, nonetheless, be the basis for City
policies and actions during this period.
❑ Policies are specific statements that will guide decision - making. Policies serve as the
directives to developers, builders, design professionals, decision makers and others who
will initiate or review new development projects. Some policies stand alone as
directives, but others require that additional actions be taken. These additional actions
are listed under "programs" below. Most policies have a time frame that fits within this
Element's planning period. In this context, "shall" means the policy is mandatory;
"should" or "will" indicate the policy should be followed unless there are compelling or
contradictory reasons to do otherwise.
❑ Programs are the core of the City's housing strategy. These include on -going programs,
procedural changes, general plan changes, rezonings or other actions that help achieve
housing goals. Programs translate goals and policies into actions.
PH1 -17
GOAL 1: SAFETY
Provide safe, decent shelter for all residents.
Policies
1.1 Assist those citizens unable to obtain safe shelter on their own.
1.2 Support and inform the public about fair housing laws and programs that allow equal
housing access for all city residents.
1.3 Maintain a level of housing code enforcement sufficient to correct unsafe, unsanitary or
illegal conditions and to preserve the inventory of safe housing.
Programs
1.4 Rehabilitate using FedefF.Wate and local
housing funds, such as Community Development Block Grant Funds with the objectives
of extremely low, Nxo , pow, 1 ^ «, and moderate itwome homeowners enter- for- the
r-eha ilia do ^r 30 single- family, 75 multi - family, 10 historic and 20 mobile homes for
extremely low, very low, low and moderate income homeowners and renters during the
planning` period.
1.5 Continue code enforcement to expedite the removal of illegal or unsafe dwellings, to
eliminate hazardous site or property conditions, and resolve chronic building safety
problems.
1.6 Enaet a Rental Inspeetion to improve the health and eendition of
1.67 Continue to support local and regional solutions to homelessness by funding programs
such as the Maxine Lewis Memorial Shelter and The Prado Day Center.
1.78 Create an educational campaign for owners of older residences informing them of ways
to reduce the seismic hazards commonly found in such structures, and encouraging them
to undertake seismic upgrades.
GOAL 2: AFFORDABILITY
Accommodate affordable housing production that helps meet the City's quantified
objectives.
Policies
2.1 Income Levels For Affordable Housing households. For purposes of this Housing
PH1 -18
Element, affordable housing is that which is obtainable by a household with a particular
income level, as further described in the City's Affordable Housing Standards. Housing
affordable to Extremely Low, Very Low, Low, and Moderate income persons or
households shall be considered "affordable housing." Income levels are defined as
follows:
Extremely low 30% or less of County median household income
Very low: 31 to 50% of County median household income.
Low: 51 % to 80% of County median household income.
Moderate: 81 % to 120% of County median household income.
Above moderate: 121% or more of County median household income.
2.2 Index of Affordability. The Index of Affordability shall be whether the monthly cost of
housing fits within the following limits:
❑ For extremely low income households, not more than 25% of monthly income.
❑ For very low- and low- income households, not more than 25% of monthly
income.
❑ For moderate income households, not more than 30% of monthly income.
❑ For above - moderate income households, no index.
These indices may be modified or expanded if the State of California modifies or expands
its definition of affordability for these income groups.
2.3 For housing to qualify as "affordable" under the provisions of this Element, guarantees
must be presented that ownership or rental housing units will remain affordable for the
longest period allowed by State law, or for a shorter period under an equity- sharing or
housing rehabilitation agreement with the City.
2.4 Encourage housing production for all financial strata of the City's population, in the
proportions shown in the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, for the 2014 - 20197
204-4 planning period. These proportions are: extremely low income, 124- percent, very
low income, 12 percent; low income, 16 percent; moderate income, 118 percent; and
above moderate income, 42 percent.
Programs
2.5 Continue to manage the Affordable Housing Fund so that the fund serves as a sustainable
PH1 -19
resource for supporting affordable housing development. The fund shall serve as a
source of both grant funding and below- market financing for affordable housing projects;
and funds shall be used to support a wide variety of housing types at the following
income levels: extremely low, very low, low, and moderate, but with a focus on
production efficiency to maximize housing benefits for the City's financial investment,
and to support high - quality housing projects that would not be feasible without
Affordable Housing Fund support.
2.6 Continue to review existing and proposed building, planning, engineering and fire
policies and standards as housing developments are reviewed to determine whether
changes are possible that could assist the production of affordable housing, or that would
encourage preservation of housing rather than conversion to non - residential uses,
provided such changes would not conflict with other General Plan policies. Such
periodic reviews will seek to remove regulations that have been superseded, are
redundant or are no longer needed.
2.7 Continue to implement existing procedures that speed up the processing of applications,
construction permits, and water and sewer service priorities for affordable housing
projects. City staff and commissions shall give such projects priority in allocating work
assignments, scheduling, conferences and hearings, and in preparing and issuing reports
and water and sewer service allocations.
2.8 Continue to pursue outside funding sources for the payment of City impact fees so that
new dwellings that meet the City's affordable housing standards can mitigate their
facility and service impacts without adversely affecting housing affordability.
2.9 To the extent outside funding sources can be identified to offset impacts on City funds,
exempt dwellings that meet the moderate income, Affordable Housing Standards from
planning, building and engineering development review and permit fees, including water
meter installation fee. Maintain exemptions for extremely -low, very -low and low- income
households.
2.10 Continue to coordinate public and private sector actions to encourage the development of
housing that meets the City's housing needs.
2.11 Continue to assist with the issuance of bonds, tax credit financing, loan underwriting or
other financial tools to help develop or preserve affordable units through various
programs, including, but not limited to: (1) below- market financing through the SLO
County Housing Trust Fund and (2) subsidized mortgages for extremely low, very -low,
low- and moderate income persons and first -time home buyers, and (3) self -help or
"sweat equity" homeowner housing.
2.12 Amend Aff-or-dable Hatising Standards to establish a methodology for- adjwA-i-fig
affeele housing standards and seeufe Gotmeil -a Consider incorporating HOA
fees and a standard allowance for utilities in the calculation for affordable rents and home
sales prices.
PH1 -20
2.13 In conjunction with the Housing Authority and other local housing agencies, continue to
provide on -going technical assistance and education to tenants, property owners and the
community at large on the need to preserve at -risk units as well as the available tools to
help them do so.
2.14 In conjunction with local housing providers and the local residential design community,
continue to provide technical assistance as requested by ta-the public, builders, design
professionals and developers regarding design strategies to achieve affordable housing.
2.15 Evaluate the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requirements and the effect of Table 2A on
the City's ability to provide affordable housing in the proportions shown in the Regional
Housing Needs Allocation, per Policy 2.4.
2.16 The City will evaluate and consider including a workforce level of affordability in its
Affordable Housing Standards to increase housing options in the City for those making
between 1210 percent and 160 percent of the San Luis Obispo County median income.
This affordability category cannot be used to meet inclusionary housing ordinance
requirements and is not eligible for City Affordable Housing Funds.
2.17 Evaluate - andContinue to consider increasing residential densities above state density
bonus allowances for projects that provide en— appr�pnat sites for--housing a
tofor low, very low and extremely low income households.
GOAL 3: HOUSING CONSERVATION'
Conserve existing housing and prevent the loss of safe housing and the displacement of
current occupants.
Policies
3.1 Continue to Eencourage the rehabilitation, remodeling or relocation of sound or
rehabitable housing rather than demolition. Demolition of non - historic housing may be
permitted where conservation of existing housing would preclude the achievement of
other housing objectives or adopted City goals.
3.2 Discourage the removal or replacement of housing affordable to extremely low, very -
low, low- and moderate income households, and avoid permit approvals, private
development, municipal actions or public projects that remove or adversely impact such
housing unless such actions are necessary to achieve General Plan objectives and: (1) it
can be demonstrated that rehabilitation of lower -cost units at risk of replacement is
financially or physically infeasible, or (2) an equivalent number of new units comparable
or better in affordability and amenities to those being replaced is provided, or (3) the
project will correct substandard, blighted or unsafe housing; and (4) removal or
replacement will not adversely affect housing which is already designated, or is
determined to qualify for designation as a historic resource.
PH1 -21
3.3 Encourage seismic upgrades of older dwellings to reduce the risk of bodily harm and the
loss of housing in an earthquake.
3.4 Encourage the construction, preservation, rehabilitation or expansion of residential hotels,
group homes, integrated community apartments, and single -room occupancy dwellings.
3.5 Preserve historic homes and other types of historic residential buildings, historic districts
and unique or landmark neighborhood features.
3.6 Preserve the fabric, amenities, yards (i.e. setbacks), and overall character and quality of
life of established neighborhoods.
3.7 Encourage and Ssupport creative strategies for the rehabilitation and adaptation and reuse
of residential, commercial, and industrial structures for housing.
Programs
3.8 Adopt an ordinance that implements policy 3.2 to discourage removal or replacement of
affordable housing.
3.9 Correct unsafe, unsanitary or illegal housing conditions, improve accessibility and energy
efficiency and improve neighborhoods by collaborating with agencies offering
rehabilitation programs. City will use State or Federal grants or other housing funds to
implement the program and provide services such as home weatherization, repair and
universal access improvements.
3.10 Continue to encourage the creationPr-esenw llllllllllllllllllllllll of dwellings in the Downtown
Core (C -D Zone) and the Downtown Planning Area by continuing the "no net housing
loss" nroaram.
3.11 Continue to lidentify residential properties and districts eligible for local, State or Federal
historic listing and accordance with guidelines and standards to help property
owners repair, rehabilitate and improve properties in a historically and architecturally
sensitive manner.
3.123 Establish a manitefing and eafly wafning system to 4ae Continue to monitor and track
affordable housing units at -risk of being converted to market rate housing annually.
Provide resources to support the Housing Authority and local housing agencies purchase
and manage at -risk units.
PH 1 -22
3.134 Working with non - profit organizations, faith -based organizations, or the Housing
Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo, the City will encourage rehabilitation of
residential, commercial or industrial buildings to expand extremely low, very -low, low or
moderate income rental housing opportunities.
GOAL 4: MIXED - INCOME HOUSING
Preserve and accommodate existing and new mixed - income neighborhoods and seek to
prevent neighborhoods or housing types that are segregated by economic status.
Policies
4.1 Within newly developed neighborhoods, housing that is affordable to various economic
strata should be intermixed rather than segregated into separate enclaves. The mix should
be comparable to the relative percentages of extremely low, very -low, low, moderate and
above - moderate income households in the City's quantified objectives.
4.2 Include both market -rate and affordable units in apartment and residential condominium
projects and intermix the types of units. Affordable units should be comparable in size,
appearance and basic quality to market -rate units.
4.3 Extremely -low and very low- income housing, such as that developed by the Housing
Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo or other housing providers, may be located in
any zone that allows housing, and should be dispersed throughout the City rather than
concentrated in one neighborhood or zone. m general, 23 dwellings should
Ria-ximum ffwnber- of extfemely low or-,vei=y le i kits developed en any one site.
4.4 In its discretionary actions, housing programs and activities, the City shall affirmatively
further fair housing and promote equal housing opportunities for persons of all economic
segments of the community.
Programs
4.5 Review new development proposals for compliance with City regulations and revise
projects or establish conditions of approval as needed to implement the mixed - income
policies.
4.6
Incentives to require that affordable units in a development be of similar = number of
bedrooms, amenities character and basic quality as the non - restricted units, in to
that avoid segregation of such unit:
GOAL 5: HOUSING VARIETY AND TENURF
Provide variety in the location, type, size, tenure, and style of dwellings.
PH1 -23
Policies
5.1 Encourage the integration of appropriately scaled, special needs housing into
developments or neighborhoods of conventional housing.
5.2 Encourage mixed -use residential /commercial projects to include live -work and work -live
units where housing and offices or other commercial uses are compatible.
5.3 Encourage the development of housing above ground -level retail stores and offices to
provide housing opportunities close to activity centers and to use land efficiently.
5.4 In general, housing developments of twenty (20) or more units should provide a variety
of dwelling types, sizes or forms of tenure.
Program
5.5 Review new developments for compliance with City regulations and revise projects or
establish conditions of approval as needed to implement the housing variety and tenure
policies.
GOAL 6: HOUSING PRODUCTION
Plan for new housing to meet the full range of community housing needs.
Policies
6.1 Consistent with the growth management portion of its Land Use Element and the
availability of adequate resources, the City will plan to accommodate up to 1,144
dwelling units between January 2014 and June 2019 in accordance with the assigned
Regional Housing Needs Allocation.
6.2 New commercial developments in the Downtown Core (C -D Zone) shall include housing,
unless the City makes one of the following findings:
A) Housing is likely to jeopardize the health, safety or welfare of residents or employees;
or
B) The property's shape, size, topography or other physical factor makes construction of
new dwellings infeasible.
6.3 If City services must be rationed to development projects, residential projects will be
given priority over non - residential projects. As required by SB 1087, housing affordable
to lower income households will be given first priority.
6.4 City costs of providing services to housing development will be minimized. Other than
for existing housing programs encouraging housing affordable to extremely low, very -
low and low income persons, the City will not make new housing more affordable by
shifting costs to existing residents.
P H 1 -24
6.5 When sold, purchased or redeveloped for public or private uses, City -owned properties
within the urban reserve shall include housing as either a freestanding project or part of a
mixed -use development where land is suitable and appropriate for housing.
6.6 Property located behind the former County General Hospital shall be designated a
"Special Considerations" zone and may be considered suitable for residential
development after further analysis and environmental review, provided that development
be limited to site areas with average slopes of less than 20 percent, that approximately
one -half of the total site area be dedicated for open space and/or public use, and that an
additional water tank be provided if determined necessary to serve new development.
6.7 Support the redevelopment of excess public and private utility properties for housing
where appropriately located and consistent with the General Plan.
6.8 Consistent with the City's goal to stimulate higher density infill where appropriate in the
Downtown Core (C -D Zone, ), the City shall consider changes to the Zoning Regulations
that would allow for the development of smaller apartments and efficiency
6.9
increase housing onnortunities specifically targeted towards the local
6.10 To help meet the Quantified Objectives, the City will support residential infill
development and promote higher residential density where appropriate.
Programs
6.110 Maintain the General Plan and Residential Growth Management Regulations (SLOMC
17.88) exemption for new housing in the Downtown Core (C -D zone), and new housing
in other zones that is enforceably restricted for extremely -low, very low, low- and
moderate income households, pursuant to the Affordable Housing Standards. 1*
__ ___9 .___ ., . __. __ __�___ __ .,_ w____.... ___ . ____ . _- ___ ______ _ ____ -rr_ -- . _ -
6.12 Continue to
allow flexible parking regulations for housing development, especially in the Downtown
Core (C -D Zone), including the possibilities of flexible use of city parking facilities by
Downtown residents, where appropriate, and reduced or no parking requirements where
appropriate guarantees limit occupancies to persons without motor vehicles or who
provide proof of reserved, off -site parking. Such developments may be subject to
requirements for parking use fees, use limitations and enforcement provisions.
6.132 Continue to develop incentives to encourage additional housing in the Downtown Core
(C -D Zone), particularly in mixed -use developments. Density based on average unit size
in a project should be explored to encourage the development of smaller efficiency
PH1 -25
6.143 Specific plans for any new expansion area identified shall
include R -3 and R -4 zoned land to ensure sufficient land is designated at appropriate
densities to accommodate the development of extremely low, very -low and low income
dwellings. These plans shall include sites suitable for subsidized rental housing and
affordable rental and owner- occupied dwellings, and programs to support the
construction of dwellings rather than payment of in -lieu housing fees. Such sites shall be
integrated within neighborhoods of market -rate housing and shall be architecturally
compatible with the neighborhood.
6.15 Consider General Plan amendments to rezone commercial, manufacturing or public
facility zoned areas for higher- density, infill or mixed use housing where land
development patterns are suitable and where impact to Low - Density Residential areas is
minimal. For example, areas to be considered for possible rezoning include, but are not
limited to the following sites (shown in Figure 1 and further described in Appendix D,
Table D -2):
A) Portions of South Broad Street Corridor and Little Italy area
B) 1499 San Luis Drive (rezone vacant and underutilized School District property)
C) 1642 Johnson Avenue (vacant School District property)
D) 4325 South Higuera Street (former P.G. &E. yard)
E) 4355 Vachell Lane (vehicle storage)
F) 173 Buckley Road (Avila Ranch)
G) 2143 Johnson Avenue (adjacent to County Health Department)
H) 3710 Broad Street (Plumbers and Steamfitters Union)
I) 11950 Los Osos Valley Road (Pacific Beach High School)
J) 2500 Block of Boulevard Del Campo (adjacent to Sinsheimer Park)
K) 12165 Los Osos Valley Road (adjacent to Home Depot)
PH1 -26
1
Figure 1
Areas to be Considered for Possible Rezoning
�■.r; fig.. .. - - -;� #.,�' �` - -
4 .■rA ■�■■� r7■; -, ,,,Tai 4�'.�'r. __
� *�� � ■r■■r■uri■rrF ,
�y
1 1
■
% k
*Ilk 4m
r
�� *u► It
ir
a
11„ a�tii# �.a■. ■a�■e.s■�
i,
4
g�-
1r ■ ■rr City Limits
Passible Rezoning Areas
0.5
1 Miles
PH1 -27
6.165 Continue to provide resources thate support the SLO County Housing Trust fund's efforts
to provide below- market financing and technical assistance to affordable housing
developers as a way to increase affordable housing production in the City of San Luis
Obispo.
6.176 Encourage residential development through infill development and densification within
City Limits and in designated expansion areas over new annexation of land.
6.185 Seek opportunities with other public agencies and public utilities to identify, assemble,
develop, redevelop and recycle surplus land for housing, and to convert vacant or
underutilized public, utility or institutional buildings to housing.
6-.496 ,
well integrated, higher- density housing. Continue to incentivize affordable housing
development with Deg =elopfnen4s that fneet these standards shall be eligible z
streamlined level of planning and development review. Developments that inelude
: rg3if4Etn �E6t�er�t9— a ra £ble housing be l to
zcv°ive density
bonuses, parking reductions and other development incentives, including City financial
assistance.
6.20478 Continue to F_frnancially assist in the development of housing affordable to extremely
low, very -low, low- or moderate income households during the planning period using
State, Federal and local funding sources, with funding priority given to projects that
result in the maximum housing benefits for the lowest household income levels.
6.2141 Actively seek new revenue sources, including State, Federal and private /non - profit
sources, and financing mechanisms to assist affordable housing development for
extremely low, very low and low or moderate income households and first- time
homebuyers.
6.229 Update the Conununity Design Geidelines and amend SLOW Chapter 2.48 to exemp
the eons*..,,etion, r °lead Continue to exempt the rehabilitation or remodeling of up to
4 dwellings of up to 1200 square feet each from Architectural Review Commission
review. New multi -unit housing may be allowed with "Minor or Incidental" or staff level
architectural review, unless the dwellings are located on a sensitive or historically
sensitive site.
6.231 Assist in the production of long tefaffordable housing by identifying vacant or
underutilized City -owned property suitable for housing, and dedicate public property,
where feasible and appropriate; for such purposes, as development projects are proposed.
6.242 Community Development staff will prepzare- "pr-epeeity profiles" deser-ibing -proactively
provide information for properties suitable for housing as identified in the Land Use and
PH1 -28
Housing Elements.
develepmen4 and make this infefmmion p4liely available.
6.253 Evaluate and consider amending the General Plan to designate the 46 acres associated
with the former County General Hospital as a "Special Considerations" zone, suitable for
housing development on areas of the site of less than 20 percent average slope, provided
that open space dedication and public improvements are part of the project.
6.264 Continue to Uupdate the Affordable Housing Incentives (Chapter 17.90, SLOMC) and
Zoning Regulations to ensure density bonus incentives are consistent with State Law.
6.275 Evaluate and consider increasing the residential density allowed in the Neighborhood -
Commercial (CN), Office (0) and Downtown Commercial (CD) zoning districts. The
City will evaluate allowing up to 24 units per acre in the CN and O zones, and up to 72
units per acre in the CD zone, twice the current density allowed in these areas.
6.286 Evaluate how under-lying lot patterns (i.e. size, shape, slope) in the City's multi - family
zones affect the City's ability to meet housing production policies. If warranted, consider
setting a minimum number of dwellings on each legal lot in the R -2, R -3 and R -4 zones,
regardless of lot size, when other property development standards, such as parking,
height limits and setbacks can be met.
6.298 per Continue to pursue incentives to encourage development of
Secondary Dwelling Units (SDUs). Possible incentives include SDU design templates,
flexible development standards, fee reductions or deferrals, or other measures to
encourage the construction of SDUs where allowed by zoning.
6.3029 Evaluate and consider adopting Subdivision and Zoning Regulations changes to support
small lot subdivisions, ownership bungalow court development_; Eeliminatgifig the one
acre minimum lot area for PD overlay zoning, and other alternatives to conventional
subdivision design.
6.31 Consider scaling development impact fees for residential development based on size,
number of bedrooms, and room counts.
6.32 Continue to submit annual Housing Element progress reports to the State Department of
Housing and Community Development per Government Code Section 65400.
GOAL 7: NEIGHBORHOOD QUALIT)
Maintain, preserve and enhance the quality of neighborhoods, encourage neighborhood
stability and owner occupancy, and improve neighborhood appearance, function and sense
of community.
PH1 -29
Policies
7.1 Within established neighborhoods, new residential development shall be of a character,
size, density and quality that pr-eseves -res a the neighborhood character and maintains
the quality of life for existing and future residents.
7.2 Higher density housing should maintain high quality standards for unit design, privacy,
security, on -site amenities, and public and private open space. Such standards should be
flexible enough to allow innovative design solutions in special circumstances, e.g. in
developing mixed -use developments or in housing in the Downtown Core.
7.3 Within established neighborhoods, housing should not be located on sites designated in
the General Plan for parks or open space.
7.4 Within expansion areas, new residential development should be an integral part of an
existing neighborhood or should establish a new neighborhood, with pedestrian and
bicycle linkages that provide direct, convenient and safe access to adjacent
neighborhoods, schools and shopping areas.
7.5 The creation of walled -off residential enclaves, or of separate, unconnected tracts, is
discouraged because physical separations prevent the formation of safe, walkable, and
enjoyable neighborhoods.
7.6 Housing shall be sited to enhance safety along neighborhood streets and in other public
and semi - public areas.
7_7 The physical design of neighborhoods and dwellings should promote walking and
bicycling and preserve open spaces and views.
7.8 Encourage evaltiate strategies and programs that increase
Opp g -tam residency and stabilization in neighborhoods.
Programs
7.98 Continue to i1mplement varied strategies, such as early notification through electronic
media, website improvements, neighborhood outreach meetings, etc., to ensure residents
are aware of and able to participate in planning decisions affecting their neighborhoods
early in the planning process.
X103 Continue to work directly with neighborhood groups and individuals to address concerns.
Identify specific neighborhood needs, problems, trends and opportunities for
improvements.
address eoneems.
7.110 Continue to fund neighborhood improvements, including sidewalks, traffic calming
devices, crosswalks, parkways, street trees and street lighting to improve aesthetics,
safety and accessibility.
PH 1 -30
7.121 Continue to develop and implement neighborhood parking strategies, including parking
districts, to address the lack of on- and off - street parking in residential areas.
7.13 Continue the City's Neighborhood Services and proactive enforcement programs to
support neighborhood wellness.
GOAL 8: SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS
Encourage the creation and maintenance of housing for those with special housing needs.
Policies
8.1 Encourage housing development that meets a variety of special needs, including large
families, single parents, disabled persons, the elderly, students, veterans, the homeless, or
those seeking congregate care, group housing, single -room occupancy or co- housing
accommodations, utilizing universal design.
8.2 Preserve manufactured housing or mobile home parks and support changes in these forms
of tenure only if such changes provide residents with greater long -term security or
comparable housing in terms of quality, cost, and livability.
18.3 Encourage manufactured homes in Exp w4e*-S2ecific Plan Areas by:
A) When the City considers adopting new specific plans, including policies that support
owner- occupied manufactured home parks with amenities such as greenbelts,
recreation facilities, and shopping services within a master planned community
setting. Such parks could be specifically designed to help address the needs of those
with mobility and transportation limitations.
B) Establishing lot sizes, setback, and parking guidelines that allow for relatively dense
placement of manufactured homes within the master planned neighborhood.
C) Locating manufactured home parks near public transit facilities or provide public
transportation services to the manufactured home parks to minimize the need for
residents to own automobiles.
8.4 Encourage Cal Poly University to continue to develop on- campus student housing to
meet existing and fixture needs and to lessen pressure on City housing supply and
transportation systems.
8.5 Strengthen the role of on- campus housing by encouraging Cal Poly University to require
I entering freshmen and sophomore students to live on campus.
8.6 Locate fraternities and sororities on the Cal Poly University campus. Until that is
possible, they should be located in Medium -High and High Density residential zones near
PH1 -31
the campus.
8.7 Encourage Cal Poly University to develop and maintain faculty and staff housing,
consistent with the General Plan.
8.8 Disperse special needs living facilities throughout the City where public transit and
commercial services are available, rather than concentrating them in one district.
8.9 Support continued efforts to implement the document "The Path Home: San Luis Obispo
County's 10 Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness ".
8.10 Encourage a variety of housing types that accommodate persons with disabilities and
promote aging in place, including a goal of "visitability" in new residential units, with an
emphasis on first -floor accessibility to the maximum extent feasible.
8.11 Encourage changes to City regulations that would support the special housing needs of
disabled persons, including persons with developmental disabilities.
8.12 Assist the homeless and those at risk of becoming homeless by supporting shelters,
temporary housing, transitional housing, any facilitating_ general housing assistance.
Programs
8.13 As funding "uws. eContinue to provide resources that support local and regional
solutions to meeting the needs of the homeless and continue to support, jointly with other
agencies, shelters and programs, such as Housing First and Rapid Rehousing, for the
homeless and for displaced women and children_.
8.142 Continue the mobile home rent stabilization program to minimize increases in the cost of
mobile home park rents.
8.153 identify sites in speeified ° easContinue to look for opportunities in specific
plan areas suitable for tenant -owned mobile -home parks, cooperative or limited equity
housing, manufactured housing, self -help housing, or other types of housing that meet
special needs.
8.164 Advocate developing more housing and refurbishing campus housing at Cal Poly
University.
8.176 Work with Cal Poly University Administration to secure designation of on- campus
fraternity /sorority living groups.
8.186 Jointly develop and implement a student housing plan and continue to support "good
neighbor programs" with Cal Poly State University, Cuesta College and City residents.
The programs would should continue to improve communication and cooperation
between the City and the schools, set on- campus student housing objectives and establish
P H 1 -32
clear, effective standards for student housing in residential neighborhoods.
8.197 Provide public educational information at the Community Development Department
public counter on universal design concepts (i.e. aging in place) for new and existing
residential dwellings.
rsr• :rs . - I--
&20 Transitional Housing and Supportive Housing: Continue to allow the establishment of
transitional and supportive housing in all zoning districts where residential uses are
allowed. that funetions as residential uses in residential zones eensistent with sifflil
r-esiden4ial uses.
8.21 Continue to look for opportunities (land, retail or commercial space,
motels, apartments, housing units, mobile home parks) that can be acquired and
converted to affordable permanent housing and permanent supportive housing for
homeless persons and families.
PH 1 -33
Mo
&20 Transitional Housing and Supportive Housing: Continue to allow the establishment of
transitional and supportive housing in all zoning districts where residential uses are
allowed. that funetions as residential uses in residential zones eensistent with sifflil
r-esiden4ial uses.
8.21 Continue to look for opportunities (land, retail or commercial space,
motels, apartments, housing units, mobile home parks) that can be acquired and
converted to affordable permanent housing and permanent supportive housing for
homeless persons and families.
PH 1 -33
WON
�/l4�lif nlll %lllZlT
8.224 Consider addition of an overlay zone to existing and future mobile home and trailer park
sites to provide constructive notice that additional requirements, such as rent stabilization
and a mobile home park conversion ordinance may apply.
8.23 Encourage the creation of housing for persons with developmental disabilities. The CitX
will seek rag nt opportunities for housing construction and rehabilitation specifically
targeted for persons with developmental disabilities.
8.24 Continue to coordinate with the County, social services providers and non - profit
organizations for delivery of existing, improved and expanded services, including case
management, drug, alcohol, detoxification, and mental health services.
8.25 Continue to engage the Homeless Services Oversight Council (HSOC) and Friends of
Prado Day Center (FPDC) to identify, evaluate, and implement strategies to reduce the
impacts of homelessness on the City-
GOAL 9: SUSTAINABLE HOUSING, SITE, AND NEIGHBORHOOD
DESIGN
maintninin2 environmental quality, the City Encourage housing that is resource -
conserving, healthful, economical to live in, environmentally benign, and recyclable when
Policies
9.1 Residential developments should promote sustainability in their design, placement, and
use. Sustainability can be promoted through a variety of housing strategies, including the
following:
A) Maximize use of renewable, recycled- content, and recycled materials, and minimize
use of building materials that require high levels of energy to produce or that cause
significant, adverse environmental impacts.
B) Incorporate renewable energy features into new homes, including passive solar
design, solar hot water, solar power, and natural ventilation and cooling.
C) Minimize thermal island effects through reduction of heat - absorbing pavement and
increased tree shading.
D) Avoid building materials that may contribute to health problems through the release
of gasses or glass fibers into indoor air.
PH 1 -34
E) Design dwellings for quiet, indoors and out, for both the mental and physical health
of residents.
F) Design dwellings economical to live in because of reduced utility bills, low cost
maintenance and operation, and improved occupant health.
G) Use construction materials and methods that maximize the recyclability of a
building's parts.
H) Educate public, staff, and builders to the advantages and approaches to sustainable
design, and thereby develop consumer demand for sustainable housing.
I) City will continue to refer to a sustainable development rating
system, such as the LEED program when evaluating new
development proposals.
9.2 Residential site, subdivision, and neighborhood designs should be coordinated to make
residential sustainability work. Some ways to do this include:
A) Design subdivisions to maximize solar access for each dwelling and site.
B) Design sites so residents have usable outdoor space with access to both sun and
shade.
C) Streets and access ways should minimize pavement devoted to vehicular use.
D) Use neighborhood retention basins to purify street runoff prior to its entering creeks.
Retention basins should be designed to be visually attractive as well as functional.
Fenced -off retention basins should be avoided.
E) Encourage cluster development with dwellings grouped around significantly- sized,
shared open space in return for City approval of smaller individual lots.
F) Treat public streets as landscaped parkways, using continuous plantings at least six
feet wide and where feasible, median planters to enhance, define, and to buffer
residential neighborhoods of all densities from the effects of vehicle traffic.
9.3 Preserve the physical neighborhood qualities in the Downtown Planning Area that
contribute to sustainability. Some ways to do this include:
A) Maintain the overall scale, density and architectural character of older neighborhoods
surrounding the Downtown Core.
B) Encourage the maintenance and rehabilitation of historically designated housing
stock.
9.4 To promote energy conservation and a cleaner environment, encourage the development
of dwellings with energy - efficient designs, utilizing passive and active solar features, and
the use of energy- saving techniques that exceed minimums prescribed by State law.
9.5 Actively promote water conservation through housing and site design to help moderate
the cost of housing.
9.6 Support programs that provide financing for sustainable home upgrade . projects such as
installation of solar panels, heating and cooling systems, dater conservatioU and windows
to improve tnergy efficiency of the existing housing stock.
Programs
PH 1 -35
9.76 Continue to Beducate planning and building staff and citizen review bodies on energy
conservation issues, including the City's energy conservation policies and Climate Action
Plan. a*d-Staff shall instf et that the work with applicants to achieve the City's energy
conservation goals.hE ' „^ ^ °'° that
9.87 Continue to provide
assurance of long -term solar access for new or remodeled housing and for adjacent
properties, consistent with historic preservation guidelines, and revise regulations found
to be inadequate.
9.98 Adopt Low impaet Development (LID) Continue to implement the Water
Quality Control Board's "Post- Construction Stormwater Management Requirements for
Development Projects in the Central Coast Region”, to, ineh ding street and aeeess way
*.,ndar-ds th reduce the amount of apermeable surfacp1pwing deveted to at4emebiles.
9.10 9 Adopt an nee with eguirements and inoentivs Implement Climate Action Plan
programs that to increases the production of "green" housing units and projects and
require use of sustainable and /or renewable materials, water and energy technologies
(such as, but not limited to solar, wind, or thermal).
9.110 Continue to promote building materials reuse and recycling in site development and
residential construction, including flexible standards for use of salvaged, recycled, and
"green" building materials. Continue the City's construction and demolition debris
recycling program as described in Chapter 8.05 of the Municipal Code. To help
aeeomplish this, the City will implement a eenstFuetion and demolition debris F-eeye4ng
program (as deser-ibed in Chapter- 8.05 of the San Luis Obispo Mtmieipal Code)-.
9.12 Consider incentivizing dwelling units to a minimum size of 150 square feet, consistent
with the California Building Code, by reduced impact fees and property development
standards.
9.13 Consider 0 financings programs for sustainable home improvements such as
solar panels, heating and cooling systems, water conservation and energy efficient
winclnwc_
GOAL 10: LOCAL PREFERENCE
Maximize affordable housing opportunities for those who live or work in San Luis Obispo
while seeking to balance job growth and housing supply.
Policies
10.1 Administer City housing programs and benefits, such as First Time Homebuyer
Assistance or affordable housing lotteries, to give preference to: 1) persons living or
working in the City or within the City's Urban Reserve, and 2) persons living in San Luis
PH 1 -36
Obispo County.
10.2 Cal Poly State University and Cuesta College should actively work with the City and
community organizations to create positive environments around the Cal Poly Campus
by:
A) Establishing standards for appropriate student densities in neighborhoods near
Campus;
B) Promoting homeownership for academic faculty and staff in Low - Density Residential
neighborhoods in the northern part of the City; and
C) Encouraging and participating in the revitalization of degraded neighborhoods.
Programs
10.3 Continue to Wwork with the County of San Luis Obispo for any land use decisions that
create significant expansion of
employment in the unincorporated areas adjacent to the City to mitigate housing impacts
on the City. Stieh mitigation might inelude, for example,
suppet4 for- inelusionar-y Housing Programs.
10.4 Encouraize residential developers to or rentpA their
10.5 "av,,eate the establish °H* of a link ork with Cal Poly to address the link
between enrollment and the expansion of campus housing programs at Cal Poly
University to reduce pressure on the City's housing supply.
10.6 Work with other jurisdictions to advocate for State legislation that would: 1) provide
funding to help Cal Poly University provide adequate on- campus student housing, and 2)
allow greater flexibility for State universities and community colleges to enter into
public - private partnerships to construct student housing.
GOAL 1 1: SUITABILITY
Develop and retain housing on sites that are suitable for that purpose.
Policies
11.1 Where property is equally suited for commercial or residential uses, give preference to
residential use. Changes in land use designation from residential to non - residential
should be discouraged.
11.2 Prevent new housing development on sites that should be preserved as dedicated open
space or parks, on sites subject to natural hazards such as unmitigatable geological or
flood risks, or wild fire dangers, and on sites subject to unacceptable levels of man -made
hazards or nuisances, including severe soil contamination, airport noise or hazards, traffic
noise or hazards, odors or incompatible neighboring uses.
PH 1 -37
Program
The City will adopt . - continue to ensure the ability of legal, eenfarming
tion esidentia non- conforming uses to continue where new development is proposed.
housing is proposed on adjaeent or- nemby sites.
PH1 -38
Attachment 4
I Y
CITY OF
�rt 1
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For ER # 15 -14
1. Project Title: General Plan Housing Element Update
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Tyler Corey, Housing Programs Manager
(805) 781 -7169
4. Project Location:
Citywide, City of San Luis Obispo
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
6. General Plan Designation:
N/A
7. Zoning:
N/A
PH1 -39
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
2014 General Plan Housing Element Update (ER # 15 -14)
Issues
with
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
8. Description of the Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later
phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its
implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
The project consists of the September 2014 Draft Housing Element Update, a five -year plan
which explains the City's housing goals, policies, and programs. It updates the current Housing
Element which was adopted in 2010. Once adopted, the Housing Element becomes part of the
General Plan, which guides public and private decisions regarding housing, development review,
land use, City budgets and capital improvement programs. The Draft includes policies and
programs intended to increase housing opportunities for extremely low, very -low, low- and
moderate - income households, while accommodating growth in a manner consistent with goals
and policies contained in the Land Use Element and other elements of the General Plan. The
content of housing elements is prescribed under State housing law, and this draft has been
prepared to include the required sections and information.
This draft update addresses changes in State housing law and in regional housing needs. State,
regional and local housing costs, supply and needs have changed since 2010, as evidenced by
current information on real estate prices, affordable housing, and the widening "gap" between
rental and purchase housing costs and consumers' incomes. Although the update retains many of
the same policies and programs in the 2010 Housing Element, there are also new policies and
programs that address these changing conditions.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings (Briefly describe the project's surroundings):
Citywide
10. Project Entitlements Requested:
General Plan Amendments approving the 2014 Housing Element.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.):
The 2014 Draft Housing Element Update must be referred to the California Department of
Housing and Community Development (HCD) for a determination of consistency with State
housing law.
PH1 -40
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Agriculture Resources
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
2014 General Plan Housing Element Update (ER # 15 -14)
Air Quality
Issues
with
Mitigation
Impact
Recreation
Biological Resources
Incorporated
Transportation / Traffic
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following
pages.
FISH AND GAME FEES
Aesthetics
X
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Population / Housing
Agriculture Resources
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Public Services
Air Quality
Hydrology / Water Quality
Recreation
Biological Resources
Land Use / Planning
Transportation / Traffic
Cultural Resources
Mineral Resources
Utilities / Service Systems
Geology / Soils
Noise
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
FISH AND GAME FEES
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more
X State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
PH1 -41
The Department of Fish and Wildlife has reviewed the CEQA document and written no effect
X
determination request and has determined that the project will not have a potential effect on fish, wildlife,
or habitat (see attached determination).
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
and Wildlife fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Wildlife Code. This initial study has
been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more
X State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
PH1 -41
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
2014 General Plan Housing Element Update (ER # 15 -14)
Issues
with
Mitigation
Impact
significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has
Incorporated
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
DETERMINATION kTo be completed by the Lead Agency):
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
X
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made, by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" impact(s) or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed prcject, nothing further is required.
Signature
V4 M HL) 1`�
Printed Name
10 3o 114
Date
Kim Murry
Deputy Community Development Director
PH1 -42
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
2014 General Plan Housing Element Update (ER # 15 -14)
Issues
with
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects
like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained
where it is based on project - specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project - specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well
as project - level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must
indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant.
"Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If
there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact."
The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than
significant level (mitigation measures from Section 19, "Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, may be cross -
referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15063 (c) (3) (D)). In this case, a brief
discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects
were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe
the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they
addressed site - specific conditions for the project.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion.
8. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
PH1 -43
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
sources
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
2014 General Plan Housing Element Update (ER # 15 -14)
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic
Issues
with
Mitigation
Impact
buildings within a local or state scenic highway?
Incorporated
1. AESTHETICS. Would the r2ject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
2
X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
14, 15
X
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic
buildings within a local or state scenic highway?
6
X
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
the site and its surroundings?
7
X
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect da or nighttime views in the area?
Evaluation
a)b) Policies in the Draft Housing Element Update encourage the development of housing in urbanized areas and in
expansion areas planned and phased to accommodate residential growth. It follows Land Use Element (LUE) policies in
directing growth into those areas and sites that can accommodate residential development based on size, shape, topography,
zoning and environmental sensitivity. New residential development would be guided by existing development standards
regarding building height, creek and property line setbacks, and avoidance of important site and environmental features such
as historic features or buildings, rock outcroppings, open space, and heritage trees.
c) The General Plan contains goals and policies that address the visual character and quality of new development. Within the
Community Design Guidelines, General Principle 2. 1, Site Design, states that each project should be designed with careful
consideration of the site character and constraints and minimize changes to natural features rather than altering a site to
accommodate a stock building plan. The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) uses this policy, among others, to
determine if new development is acceptable as proposed or needs modification. The Community Design Guidelines include
other principles that require new development to be designed in a manner that is consistent with its surrounding structures
and environment. The ARC and the development review process ensure, through required project modifications, conditions
of approval or mitigation measures, that development plans are consistent with visual character and quality guidelines prior to
project approvals.
d) Residential development projects are subject to the Night Sky Ordinance, which includes operational and development
standards that mitigate light or glare impacts to a less than significant level.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
2
X
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use?
23
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
1
X
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland
to non-agricultural use?
Evaluation
a)c) The City of San Luis Obispo is in the central portion of the County's coastal agricultural region. The City is, for the most
part, urbanized with only a few small areas still engaged in agricultural production. Land Use Element Policy 1.8.1 calls for
the preservation of economically viable agricultural operations and land within the Urban Reserve and City limits. The
Housing Element follows the Land Use Element in terms of where housing should be developed and promotes compact urban
form to reduce urban sprawl and loss of productive agricultural lands outside the Urban Reserve. Agricultural and
Conservation/Open Space designated lands allow limited residential use at very low densities of one dwelling per five or
more acres, which is only suitable for rural housing. The Draft Housing Element Update will not result in the conversion of
prime or unique farmland or involve other changes that would lead to conversion of farmland to non - agricultural uses
because it does not identify any new land that is subject to urbanization, rezoning from agricultural use to residential use or
expansion of the City's Urban Reserve Line beyond that already anticipated in the General Plan.
P H 1 -44
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
2014 General Plan Housing Element Update (ER # 15 -14)
Issues
with
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
A residential development capacity inventory completed with the 2014 Housing Element Update identified approximately
144 acres of vacant or underutilized Open Space within City limits, with a potential development capacity of 6 density units.
Of the 144 acres approximately 45 acres were farmed in 2014. This includes the 25 acre Sunset Drive -in property, and two
parcels totaling about 20 acres between Los Verdes Residential Condominiums and San Luis Obispo Creek (off Los Osos
Valley Road). These parcels are located within a 100 -year flood zone and are not suitable for residential development until
the flood hazard is mitigated without significant harm to San Luis Obispo Creek. Development of Interim Open Space
requires approval of a development plan or specific plan, showing how these flood hazards would be mitigated.
b) The City has established an Agricultural land use designation (AG) in its General Plan to help preserve important
agricultural land. No land within the current City limits is designated AG. The General Plan has allocated sufficient land for
urban uses to achieve housing goals and meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation without expanding the current Urban
Reserve Line into agricultural lands in the unincorporated County area. Draft Housing Element Policy 6.16 states the City
will encourage residential development focused on infill development and densification within City Limits and designated
expansion areas over new annexation of residential land to maximize housing potential in the City. There are no properties
within City limits under Williamson Act contracts.
Conclusion: No impact.
3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or
air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the llowing determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air 1, 2, 4 X
quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an 4 X
existing or projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria 4 X
pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 6,1 X
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of X
Fvninatinn
a)d) The Draft Housing Element Update will not conflict or obstruct implementation of the San Luis Obispo County 2001
Clean Air Plan (CAP). The CAP calls for building compact communities to limit urban sprawl, mix complementary land
uses, such as commercial services with higher density housing, increasing residential and commercial densities along transit
corridors, and increase pedestrian - friendly and interconnected streetscapes, helping to make alternative means of
transportation more convenient. The Draft Housing Element Update is consistent with this plan. Policies 9.1 through 9.6
promote sustainable development that will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Housing Element policies 7.4, 7.5, and 7.7
support walkable and bikeable neighborhoods, connected to shopping, schools and other neighborhoods. Community Design
Guidelines and Noise Element policies require setback buffers and HVAC systems for residences located along high traffic
corridors. These mitigations also serve to separate residences from potential exposure to vehicle - related pollutants.
b) The Draft Housing Element Update includes policies and programs to accommodate up to 1,144 in -city dwellings during
the planning period from January 2014 to June 2019. Of these, 666 units will be affordable to extremely low, very low, low
and moderate income households. As discussed under Population and Housing, Section 13, this level of growth is consistent
with the residential growth anticipated in the General Plan Land Use Element and evaluated in the 1994 General Plan Land
Use /Circulation final EIR. Based on the added number of in -city dwelling units and the average number of occupants per
household (2.29 persons), the City can anticipate an increase of 2,620 persons during this planning period. This anticipated
population number within the planning period, and the rate at which it is attained, is within growth projections of the Clean
Air Plan.
c) The project will not result in a significant impact to air quality. The Housing Element Update anticipates population and
PH1 -45
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
2014 General Plan Housing Element Update (ER # 15 -14)
Issues
with
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
housing growth consistent with the Land Use Element based on household size and dwelling unit potential for this planning
period. The Draft has numerous policies and programs designed to promote compact urban growth, encourage mixed use,
promote housing within walking or biking distance of employment, and encourage downtown housing close to jobs, services,
government, recreation and cultural opportunities.
e) New development within mixed -use projects may be subject to impacts from odors generated by restaurants and other,
similar business activities. The City routinely confers with the local Air Pollution Control District regarding the acceptability
of adjacent land uses and addresses compatibility of land uses in mixed -use developments. Limits on hours of operation also
reduce conflicts between residents and customers in mixed -use developments. The City's use permit requirement and
performance standards for mixed -use development reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through 1,2 X
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect, on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservationplan?
FvAnatirin
F
7 1 1 1 1 X
7 1 1 1 1 X
2 1 1 1 1 X
2 1 1 1 1 X
a)b)c) The General Plan Land Use and Conservation and Open Space Elements guide the preservation of biological
resources. These resources include creeks and adjacent riparian corridors, vernal pools, marshes, endangered species or
species of special concern, hillsides, open space and park areas, and Laguna Lake. General Plan Conservation and Open
Space Element Policy 7.3.3 says that wildlife habitat and corridors that provide continuous wildlife habitat shall be preserved.
The Draft Housing Element Update is consistent with those documents, and anticipates new dwellings only in those areas
suitable for residential development, with adequate guarantees to preserve natural and biological resources as part of new
development. It says housing should be prevented on sites that are unsuitable for development due to the presence of open
space resources, or natural or manmade hazards.
Individual development projects will be subject to development review by City staff and advisory bodies to ensure
compliance with pertinent creek and wetland policies. Zoning Regulation Section 17.16.025 (Creek Setbacks) says that
projects shall be consistent with the General Plan and require the protection of scenic resources, water quality and natural
creekside habitat including opportunities for wildlife habitation, rest and movement; therefore, all new residential
development must comply with the Creek Setback Ordinance and must avoid sensitive site resources. New projects are
evaluated for compliance with the Creek Setback Ordinance and modifications are required through the development review
PH1 -46
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources
potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
important corridors for wildlife movement and dispersal are protected. Important featured corridors include riparian
corridors, wetlands, lake shorelines, and protected natural areas with cover and water.
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
2014 General Plan Housing Element Update (ER # 15 -14)
Conclusion: No Im act.
Issues
with
Mitigation
Impact
X
Incorporated
14, 15
process, conditions of approval or mitigation measures, as appropriate to insure that any potential impacts are less than
significant.
d) Development projects will be subject to applicable City standards and guidelines, the State and Federal Endangered
Species Act (ESA), the Clean Water Act (CWA) and other local, state and federal regulatory programs to ensure significant
impacts have mandated mitigation measures. Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 7.7.8 ensures the protection of
wildlife corridors. The City conditions development permits in accordance with applicable mitigation measures to ensure that
important corridors for wildlife movement and dispersal are protected. Important featured corridors include riparian
corridors, wetlands, lake shorelines, and protected natural areas with cover and water.
e) Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 7.5.1 states that significant trees making substantial contributions to natural
habitat or to the urban landscape due to their species, size or rarity shall be protected and their removal will be subject to
specific criteria and mitigation requirements. Any housing projects proposed on sites with significant trees will be subject to
this policy and mitigation.
f) The Draft Housing Element does not conflict with any adopted Conservation Plan.
Conclusion: No Im act.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the ro'ect:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
1,2
X
historic resource as defined in § 15064.5.
14, 15
2, 13
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5)
2, 13
X
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature?
2, 13
X
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
Evaluation
a) Preservation of cultural resources is an important General Plan goal. Draft Housing Element Policy 3.1 encourages the
rehabilitation, remodeling or relocation of housing rather than demolition. Changes to historic buildings and development in
historic districts should reflect the design and materials of the original building and contribute to a neighborhood's historic
pattern of development and architectural character.
b) The City has established criteria to identify significant archeological resources and encourage the preservation of these
archaeological resources and sites. The City's Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines are used to determine
significant resources. These guidelines support General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 3.5.1 which says
the City shall protect known and potential archaeological resources. Meeting the community's housing needs is also a key
community goal, and the Draft Housing Element Update seeks to balance these sometime competing needs. It contains
policies addressing the need to rehabilitate rather than demolish housing, protect historic housing and residential districts,
ensure new residential development is compatible with designated historic resources, and encourage seismic safety upgrades.
According to the Guidelines, as new housing is developed, those features or characteristics that create or reinforce San Luis
Obispo's "sense of place" are to be preserved. Individual residential development projects will be evaluated for site - specific
cultural resources and where necessary, appropriate mitigation included to protect those resources.
b)c)d) The City's Archeological Resource Preservation Guidelines include specific criteria that address the discovery of
unique resources or human remains during construction excavation. Development that is proposed on sensitive sites, which
are mapped, requires a Phase I study to determine the likelihood of discovering resources during construction. These
existing measures, which are in place for development city -wide, are sufficient to prevent impacts to archeological or
paleontological resources, or any discovered human remains.
Conclusion: No Im act.
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the ro'ect:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse 1,2
PH1 -47
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
2014 General Plan Housing Element Update (ER # 15 -14)
Issues
with
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
effects, including the -risk of loss, injury or death involving:
I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
II. Strong seismic ground shaking?
III. Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction?
IV. Landslides?
36 1 1 1 X
W
IS
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 7
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that 36
would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially
result in on or off site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1802.3.2 of the 36
California Building Code (2007), creating substantial risks to
life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of waste water?
A/
X
X
X
X
X
0
Evaluation
a)b)c)d)e) San Luis Obispo County, including the City of San Luis Obispo, is located within the Coast Range Geomorphic
Province, which extends along the coastline from central California into Oregon. This region is characterized by extensive
folding, faulting, and fracturing of variable intensity. In general, the folds and faults of this province comprise the
pronounced northwest trending ridge- valley system of the central and northern coast of California.
Under the Alquist -Priolo Special Studies Zone Act, the State Geologist is required to delineate appropriately wide special
studies zones to encompass all potentially and recently- active fault traces deemed sufficiently active and well - defined as to
constitute a potential hazard to structures from surface faulting or fault creep. In San Luis Obispo County, the special Studies
Zone includes the San Andreas and Los Osos faults. The edge of this study area extends to the westerly city limit line, near
Los Osos Valley Road. The closest mapped active fault is the Los Osos Fault, which runs in a northwest direction and is
about one mile from the City's westerly boundary. Because portions of this fault have displaced sediments within a
geologically recent time (the last 10,000 years), portions of the Los Osos fault are considered "active ". Other active faults in
the region include: the San Andreas, located about 30 miles to the northeast, the Nacimiento, located approximately 12 miles
to the northeast, and the San Simeon -Hosgri fault zone, located approximately 12 miles to the west.
The Draft Housing Element Update includes policies to prevent new housing on sites with natural hazards, such as geological
or seismic risks, including soil erosion, landslides, or liquefaction. Draft Housing Element Policy 3.3 encourages seismic
upgrades of older dwellings to reduce the risk of bodily harm and the loss of housing in an earthquake. Policy 11.2 states that
the City will prevent new housing development on sites subject to natural hazards such as unmitigable geological or flood
risks, or wild fire dangers. City policies and development standards encourage housing where appropriately zoned land exists
with the necessary public services and infrastructure (or can be served), and where the land is physically and environmentally
suited for residential development. Community Development Department (planning and building) review of projects will
ensure they are developed in a manner that is safe and consistent with City standards, guidelines and policies.
e) The City maintains a sewer system that has adequate capacity to meet current housing needs, plus residential growth
anticipated during the planning period.
Less than
7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the ro'ect:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, 2,35 X
that may have a significant impact on the environment?
PH1 -48
A en 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
2014 General Plan Housing Element Update (ER # 15 -14)
Issues
with
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted I 2, 35 I I I X
for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Evaluation:
a)b) Human activities, such as fossil fuel combustion and land use changes release carbon dioxide (CO2) and other
compounds, cumulatively termed greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. GHGs are effective in trapping infra -red radiation which
otherwise would have escaped the atmosphere, thereby warming the atmosphere, the oceans, and earth's surface. GHGs are
any gas that absorbs infrared radiation in the atmosphere. AB 32, the "California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006"
codifies the Statewide goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (essentially a 15% reduction below 2005
emission levels) and the adoption of regulations to require reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions. GHGs
include the following gases: CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons
(PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). In California, the main sources of GHG emissions are from the transportation and
energy sectors. Potential impacts of climate change in California may include loss in snow pack, sea level rise, more extreme
heat days per year, more high ozone days, more large forest fires, and more drought years (CalEPA, April 2010).
Senate Bill (SB) 97, signed in August 2007, acknowledges that climate change is an environmental issue that requires
analysis in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents. In March 2010, the California Resources Agency
adopted amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG
emissions. The adopted guidelines give lead agencies the discretion to set quantitative or qualitative thresholds for the
assessment and mitigation of GHGs and climate change impacts.
In 2008, the City conducted a baseline GHG emissions inventory, which was followed by adoption of a Climate Action Plan
(2012 CAP) for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The 2012 CAP includes a GHG emissions reduction target and
emissions reduction strategies designed to help the City achieve that target. The adopted target is a reduction of community-
wide emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, consistent with AB 32, The 2012 CAP identifies strategies to guide the development
and implementation of GHG reduction measures in the City and quantifies the emissions reductions that are anticipated to
result from these strategies. The GHG emissions forecast in the 2012 CAP shows that implementation of all of the strategies
in the 2012 CAP would achieve a 15% reduction from baseline levels by 2020, which would meet required AB 32 State
reduction goals. Having an adopted CAP allows the City to streamline the CEQA review process for certain development
projects and serves as the City's qualified GHG reduction plan.
As described in the 2012 CAP, State policies to reduce GHG emissions associated with energy use, including the Renewable
Portfolio Standard, Title 24 of the California Building Code, and the California Solar Initiative, would reduce anticipated
emissions associated with future development projects. In addition, the City's General Plan, Community Design Guidelines,
and Zoning Regulations include policies and standards that reduce energy use from buildings and equipment, including
design standards that maximize passive ventilation and cooling systems and use of natural lighting within buildings, and
energy efficiency performance standards for proposed buildings taller than 50 feet. Development projects within the Draft
Housing Element Update planning period would be required to comply with these existing policies and standards.
The Draft Housing Element Update would result in development consistent with the anticipated growth under the inventory
and assumptions of the 2012 CAP. The Draft includes policies and programs designed to promote compact urban growth,
encourage mixed use, promote housing within walking or biking distance of employment, and encourage downtown housing
close to jobs, services, government, recreation and cultural opportunities. Draft program 6.16 states the City will encourage
residential development focused on infill development and densification. Policies 9.1 through 9.6 promote sustainable
development that will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Policies 7.4, 7.5 and 7.7 support walkable and bikeable
neighborhoods, connected to shopping, schools and other neighborhoods.
Conclusion: Less than sienificant impact.
8: HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the pr o'ect:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 1, 2, X
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous 7,37
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment X
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
PH1 -49
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
environment?
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
2014 General Plan Housing Element Update (ER # 15 -14)
Issues
with
Mitigation
Impact
X
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter
Incorporated
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
X
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
37
X
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
8
X
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
X
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working
in the project area?
38
X
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
2,36
X
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of -loss, injury,
or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
Evaluation
a)b)c)d) The General Plan Land Use and Safety Elements are the primary policy documents addressing hazards and
hazardous materials. Within the Safety Element, Policy 5.2 states that new residential projects should minimize people's
exposure to hazardous materials and substances. Policy 5.3 says the City should avoid using hazardous materials in its own
operations to the greatest extent practical and will follow all established health and safety practices when they are used. In
addition, the City's 2014 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) addresses all hazards applicable to the City including:
earthquakes, wildland fires, adverse weather, hazardous materials events, floods, and landslides. The LHMP also addresses
mitigation strategies to best reduce negative effects from these identified hazards. The Draft Housing Element Update is
consistent with these documents.
e)f) Airport compatibility issues are of special concern because much of the City's vacant residential land is located in the
southern part of the City, near the San Luis Obispo County Airport. The Airport Land Use Commission adopted the San Luis
Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan to guide where and what types of land uses are compatible with airport operations.
Generally, residential development is not appropriate in flight approach and take -off areas, and where safety or noise
considerations dictate greater spacing between housing and airport activities. City Land Use policies are consistent with the
Airport Land Use Plan, and individual developments are evaluated for their consistency with the Plan. The anticipated
residential growth is located outside of airport hazard areas, or within areas where residential use is conditionally allowed
with appropriate design and safety considerations. There are no private airstrips within the City's Urban Reserve line.
g) Fire Code regulations, emergency response and evacuation plans are reviewed with any new residential development to
ensure the safety of the community.
h) Safety Element Policy 3.0 addresses adequate fire services and Policy 3.1 addresses housing and wildland fire safety. It
says that developments should be approved only when adequate fire suppression services and facilities are available.
Maintaining consistency with Fire Department standards will ensure the safety and well -being of the community and exclude
development from areas of "very high" wildland fire hazards. The 2013 California Fire Code, adopted by the City, states
development guidelines required for development throughout the State. In addition, Chapter 15.04. 100 of the City's Building
Code provides amendments to the California Fire Code stating specific development standards required for fire safety and
prevention within the City of San Luis Obispo.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
PH 1 -50
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
X
requirements?
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
2014 General Plan Housing Element Update (ER # 15 -14)
2,12
Issues
with
Mitigation
Impact
X
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
Incorporated
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER UALITY. Would the Project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
1, 2,
X
requirements?
2,12
X
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of pre- existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
39
X
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on or off site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
X
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site?
X
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
X
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on
31
X
a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map
or other flood hazard delineation map?
X
h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood flows?
X
i) Expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
X
Evaluation
a)b) Per Water and Wastewater Management Element (WWME) Policy A 2.2.1, the City utilizes multiple water resources to
meet its water supply needs. Having several sources of water avoids dependence on any one source that may not be available
during a drought or other water supply reduction or emergency. The City has five water sources, including Salinas & Whale
Rock Reservoirs, Nacimiento Reservoir, Recycled Water, and Groundwater, achieving the goal of diversifying its water
supply portfolio to meet current and future community needs. Per WWME Policy A 3.2.3, the City will continue to use
limited amounts of ground water for domestic purposes when available, but will not consider this source of supply as part of
its water resources availability due to limitations for the use of groundwater resources.
c)d)e)f)g)h)i)j) New development projects will be in accordance with Chapter 12.08 of the City's Municipal Code, which
includes Urban Stormwater Quality Management and Discharge Control, and State, and Federal standards relating to
drainage, runoff, water quality and flood zones. The City's development review process will ensure future residential
developments will be in accordance with applicable standards.
Conclusion: Less than si nificant impact.
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the r2ject:
a) Physically divide an established community?
1.2
X
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation
2
X
of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
PH1 -51
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
natural community conservation plan?
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
2014 General Plan Housing Element Update (ER # 15 -14)
a)b)c) The Draft Housing Element Update includes numerous programs to implement its goals and policies. For example,
Issues
with
Mitigation
Impact
Land Use Map and Zoning Map but do not involve activities that would conflict with a regulation adopted for the purpose of
avoiding an environmental effect. Sites that may be appropriate for multi - family housing are identified in the Draft, with
subsequent review and action needed to evaluate and implement the change, however, no circumstance can be envisioned
where an encouraged project would physically divide an established community. No Habitat Conservation Plans are in effect
Incorporated
Conclusion: No Impact.
11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
2
X
natural community conservation plan?
Evaluation
a)b)c) The Draft Housing Element Update includes numerous programs to implement its goals and policies. For example,
policies in the Draft encouraging higher density, infill housing close to jobs and employment centers are consistent with
existing policies in the Land Use Element that encourage compact urban form. A few programs that identify non - residential
sites as potential areas to consider residential zoning would be implemented, in part, through changes to the General Plan
Land Use Map and Zoning Map but do not involve activities that would conflict with a regulation adopted for the purpose of
avoiding an environmental effect. Sites that may be appropriate for multi - family housing are identified in the Draft, with
subsequent review and action needed to evaluate and implement the change, however, no circumstance can be envisioned
where an encouraged project would physically divide an established community. No Habitat Conservation Plans are in effect
on any of the sites identified in the Housing Element as suitable for residential development.
Conclusion: No Impact.
11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
1,2
X
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral
X
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan?
Evaluation
a)b) There are no known mineral resources of value to the region identified in the General Plan, specific plan or other land
use plan. The Draft Housing Element Update would not result in the loss of a locally- important mineral resource.
Conclusion: No impact.
12. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
1, 2,
X
standards established in the local general plan or noise
5,7
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
7
X
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
7
X
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
7
X
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
8
X
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
X
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
Evaluation
a)b)c)d) The General Plan Noise Element establishes standards and procedures for protecting noise - sensitive uses from
stationary and mobile noise sources. Noise attenuation measures identified in the General Plan include land use limitations,
separation between land uses (i.e. noise buffers), earth berms, and where appropriate and no other feasible measure exists,
sound attenuation walls. New residential development must be consistent with the Noise Element and Noise Ordinance
standards. Noise Element Policy 1.1 says that the City will work to minimize noise exposure based on the established
numerical noise standards, or thresholds, contained in the document. The Draft encourages the production of affordable
housing through the development of non - conventional housing, including mixed residential - commercial housing, "work- live"
and "live- work" housing, and high- density downtown housing above commercial uses. In these types of housing, special
P H 1 -52
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Extremely -Low (< 31 % of
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
2014 General Plan Housing Element Update (ER # 15 -14)
Issues
with
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
attention must be paid to use compatibility. The City routinely evaluates proposed development projects to ensure
compliance with applicable Noise Element policies and Noise Ordinance standards. The City also publishes a Noise
Guidebook, which includes prescriptive compliance techniques where noise attenuation through building design is
determined to be necessary.
e)f) The City's General Plan and Zoning Regulations are consistent with the standards contained in the San Luis Obispo
County Regional Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). The ALUP includes standards to insure that uses near the airport are
developed in a manner that is safe and compatible with aircraft operations. Noise levels are one of the key considerations in
the ALUP, and all development with the Plan area must be developed in a manner that eliminates noise exposure in excess of
the standards, including through the imposition of noise attenuation measures where necessary. There are no private airstrips
within the City's Urban Reserve line.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the ro'ect:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly 1,2 X
(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating 2 X
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the 2 X
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Evaluation
a) General Plan policies seek to achieve a sustainable level of growth through the City's planned buildout of 24,674
dwellings and 57,200 persons, anticipated to occur by 2029. Land Use Element Policy 1.10.2 says that the City's housing
supply should grow no faster than one percent per year, on average. This maximum average growth rate excludes dwellings
affordable to residents with extremely -low, very -low, low and moderate incomes as defined by the Housing Element. This
will assure population growth does not exceed the City's ability to assimilate new residents and ensure municipal services are
available for new and existing residents.
As required by State law, the Draft Housing Element Update includes Quantified Objectives showing the number of units the
City expects to accommodate in each income group during the planning period from January 1, 2014 to June 30, 2019.
Under the Draft, the City would expect to accommodate up to 1,144 new, in -city dwellings. Of the total, 58 %, or 666 units,
will be affordable to extremely -low, very -low, low and moderate income households. The remaining units can be
constructed within the allowed average residential growth rate of one percent per year and will be credited towards meeting
the City's Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) of 1,144 added units by 2019.
According to the Regional Housing Needs Plan adopted by the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments, San Luis Obispo's
RHNA during the planning period is 1,144 dwellings as shown in the table below. However, State housing law (Article 10.6,
Section 65583(b)(2) of the California Government Code) recognizes that total housing needs identified for a jurisdiction may
exceed available resources and the ability of the jurisdiction to satisfy this need within the context of State and local General
Plan requirements. Under these circumstances, a jurisdiction's quantified housing objectives need not be identical to the total
housing needs. The City's proposed Quantified Objectives are shown in Table 1, below.
Regional Housing Need Allocation, January 2014- June 2019
City of San Luis Obis o
PH 1 -53
New
Construction
Income Category
Need (RHNA)
Extremely -Low (< 31 % of
Area Median Income
142
PH 1 -53
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
sources
potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
b)c) San Luis Obispo has evaluated its ability to accommodate the RHNA number of 1,144 dwellings by June 2019 and
determined it has sufficient zoned land, water and infrastructure to accommodate its assigned RHNA. New State housing
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
2014 General Plan Housing Element Update (ER # 15 -14)
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
Issues
with
Mitigation
Impact
X
Incorporated
Very Low (31 -50% of AMI) 143
Low 51 -80% of AMI 179
Moderate (81 -120% of AMI) 202
Above Moderate ( >120% of 478
AMI
TOTAL RHNA UNITS 1,144
Source: City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department
b)c) San Luis Obispo has evaluated its ability to accommodate the RHNA number of 1,144 dwellings by June 2019 and
determined it has sufficient zoned land, water and infrastructure to accommodate its assigned RHNA. New State housing
laws have placed greater responsibility on local government to address housing needs in the face of reduced financial
resources. The Draft includes new information, policies and programs to address these legal requirements.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection?
2
X
b) Police protection?
X
c) Schools?
X
d) Parks?
X
X
e) Other public facilities?
Evaluation
a)b) Safety Element Policy 3.0 states that adequate facilities and services shall be in place before new development is
approved. City policy calls for new development to "pay its own way ", and for costs of new development not to be shifted to
existing residents.
c) The Draft Housing Element Update estimates that one, or possibly two, additional school sites will be needed to serve
planned residential growth in the southern part of the City. The Orcutt Area Specific Plan includes one potential elementary
school site. Development projects will be required to pay construction permit school fees to offset costs of developing new
schools.
d) The Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan requires new development areas to allocate 10 acres of developed
park land for every 1000 residents to ensure that sufficient parkland is developed along with new residential development.
Infill areas pay Quimby fees to capture 5 acres per 1000 residents or provide land for parks.
e) Draft Housing Element Update policies and programs call for the City to solicit new funding sources to assist in the
development of affordable housing. The City has an Affordable Housing Fund that can be used to offset costs and provide
infrastructure and services to affordable housing developments. This and other funding sources will be needed to meet the
Quantified Objectives. City utilities, parking and recreation facilities and programs, and public schools are funded by service
users and new development. City fees on new development, including water, wastewater, traffic, park, affordable housing,
and school are collected at the time of construction permit issuance to offset the costs borne by the City to meet the service
needs of new development.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
15. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or
1,2
X
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
P H 1 -54
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
X
establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
2014 General Plan Housing Element Update (ER # 15 -14)
the circulation system, taking into account all modes of
Issues
with
Mitigation
Impact
transportation including mass transit and non - motorized travel
Incorporated
be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the 1,2 X
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might
have an adverse nhvsical effect on the environment?
Evaluation
a) The General Plan Parks and Recreation Element Policy 3.13.1 says the City shall develop and maintain a park system at a
rate of 10 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The City monitors the adequacy of its recreational facilities and evaluates
each new residential development to determine if additional service capacity is needed. New development is responsible for
providing funding or facilities in proportion to the need generated by the development project. This will help to ensure
sufficient open space and recreational areas are allocated for the community.
b) Housing development, including recreational facilities required as a condition of that development, will be allowed only in
areas suitable for such development. Draft Housing Element Policy 11.2 states that the City will prevent new housing
development on sites that should be preserved as dedicated open space or parks.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact
16. TRANSPORTATION /TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
1,2
X
establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of
the circulation system, taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and non - motorized travel
and relevant components of the circulation system, including but
not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
2
X
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program,
including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel
demand measures, or other standards established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways?
8
X
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
2
X
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)?
2,7
X
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
2
X
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding
public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise
decrease the verformance or safetv of such facilities?
Evaluation
a) Circulation Element 16.1.4 states that the City will evaluate potential transportation impacts created by new development
projects. Development applications submitted to the City include displays of the project's interfaces with nearby
neighborhoods, and indicate expected significant qualitative transportation effects on the entire community. Traffic load and
circulation impacts must be mitigated prior to development plan approvals. This information is used by decision makers and
planners to ensure that appropriate mitigation measures, including required off -site improvements, are established as part of
any approved development project.
b) Circulation Element Policy 8.0.1 says that the City will manage the use of arterial streets and regional routes /highways to
accommodate increases in traffic levels limited to and permitted by the City's adopted growth management plan so levels of
traffic congestion do not exceed the peak hour level of service standards. To maintain levels of service, traffic management
plans will be established, alternative forms of transportation will be established and changes within existing roadways will be
made to improve pedestrian and bicycling safety while improving traffic flow.
PH1 -55
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
X
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
2014 General Plan Housing Element Update (ER # 15 -14)
12
Issues
with
Mitigation
Impact
X
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water
or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
Incorporated
c) The City's General Plan and Zoning Regulations are consistent with the standards contained in the San Luis Obispo
County Regional Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). The Draft Housing Element Update is a policy document that does not
include a rezoning program or target new sites for residential development.
d) The City evaluates proposed development projects to insure that hazards due to design features are reduced or eliminated.
The Draft will not change the City's process for evaluating new development projects to ensure that vehicle circulation is
accomplished without creating design hazards or conflicts with incompatible uses.
e) Emergency access to new development will be reviewed with through the development review process. Safety Element
Policy 10.1 and Program 10.3 states that the Fire Department has set a response -time objective of four (4) minutes. Safety
Element Policies 9.20 through 9.23 lists the precautionary measures the City will take when evaluating a development plan.
The City conducts safety inspections for fire safety, including enforcement of fire lanes, for multi - family residential
developments.
f) Using alternative means of transportation is a key way to minimize congestion, and reduce health and environmental
impacts. The City's General Plan discusses transportation with goals that are supported by specific policies to encourage
alternative modes of travel throughout the City. Circulation Element Policy 2.0.1 supports county wide and community
programs geared to substantially reduce the number of vehicle trips and parking demand. Through this and many other
transportation- related policies, transportation impacts due to level of service, road damage and traffic capacity can be
successfully mitigated.
Conclusion: No Impact.
17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
1,2
X
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
12
X
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water
or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
X
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
12
X
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and
expanded entitlements needed?
12
X
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to
the provider's existing commitments?
40
X
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
X
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
Evaluation
a)b) The Draft Housing Element Update includes Quantified Objectives that can be accommodated by existing and planned
water and wastewater, distribution and collection facilities.
c) New development projects will be in accordance with City, State, and Federal standards relating to storm water drainage
facilities. The City's development review process will ensure future residential developments will be in accordance with
applicable standards.
d) Per Water and Wastewater Management Element (WWME) Policy A 2.2.1, the City utilizes multiple water resources to
P H 1 -56
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
City's Utility Department, this is adequate capacity to meet current needs, plus residential growth anticipated during the
planning period.
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
2014 General Plan Housing Element Update (ER # 15 -14)
Conclusion: No Impact.
Issues
with
Mitigation
Impact
X
Incorporated
meet its water supply needs. Having several sources of water avoids dependence on any one source that may not be available
during a drought or other water supply reduction or emergency. The City's 2013 Water Resources Status Report states that
the City has approximately seven years of water supply until reservoir levels are drawn down to a minimum pool, assuming
the onset of an extended drought. With its multi- source water policy, the City has implemented a long -term strategy which
will ensure a reliable supply of water to meet the current and future needs of the community.
e) The City's current wastewater treatment facility has a design capacity of 5.1 million gallons per day. According to the
City's Utility Department, this is adequate capacity to meet current needs, plus residential growth anticipated during the
planning period.
f)g) City of San Luis Obispo's Municipal Code Chapter 8.05 states the City's Construction Debris Diversion and Recycling
Ordinance which requires that all new development include a recycling plan to reduce the amount of debris disposed of at the
Cold Canyon Landfill, which serves the City. The City's development review process will ensure future residential
developments will be in accordance with these standards. Cold Canyon Landfill has sufficient capacity to accommodate the
City's anticipated build -out population.
Conclusion: No Impact.
18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
X
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
rehistor ?
Individual development project impacts on natural and cultural resources will be evaluated and mitigated, consistent with
CEQA and with General Plan policies. The proposed Draft Housing Element Update will not affect City policies on
protecting and enhancing biological or cultural resources or preclude the City from achieving resource p rotection goal s.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
X
cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
The Draft Housing Element Update would accommodate up to 1,144 in -city dwelling units in a five year period. Over half of
these units are targeted to be affordable to extremely -low, very -low, low and moderate income households and are exempt
from the Residential Growth Management Regulations. The Draft is consistent with General Plan Land Use policies
regarding residential growth. Cumulative impacts of General Plan policies and anticipated growth are addressed and
mitigated in the Land Use Element Final EIR. It also identified significant, adverse impacts of cumulative growth factors,
despite mitigation, for which findings of overriding considerations were made with regard to conversion of agricultural land
to urban uses, accommodating a regional share of anticipated regional growth within the Urban Reserve line, and increases in
population, em loyment and housing.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
X
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirect! ?
The Draft Housing Element Update will meet the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation for the planning period. There is
no evidence that the Draft Element's policies and programs will have significant, adverse impacts on humans, either directly
or indirect! .
19. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion
PH1 -57
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
3.
2013 California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA Guidelines, American Council of Engineering Com anies
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
2014 General Plan Housing Element Update (ER # 15 -14)
Communit Desi gn Guidelines, City of San Luis Obispo, June 2010
Issues
with
Mitigation
Impact
San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan, May 2005
9.
Orcutt Area S ecific Plan, City of San Luis Obispo, March 2010
10.
Incorporated
11.
Municipal Code, City of San Luis Obispo
should identify the following items:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
Final Environmental Impact Report, Land Use and Circulation Element Updates; available at the Community Development
Department, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
See attached Resolution No-. 8332 (1994 Series), summarizing environmental impact, mitigation, monitoring and overriding
considerations from the 1994 Land Use Element update.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation
measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions of the prqiect.
The Draft Housing Element Update is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element and must also be guided by the
mitigation that applies to that document.
20. SOURCE
REFERENCES.
1.
Draft Housing Element Update, City of San Luis Obispo, September 2014
2.
General Plan, City of San Luis Obispo
3.
2013 California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA Guidelines, American Council of Engineering Com anies
4.
2001 Clean Air Plan, San Luis Obispo County, San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District
5.
Noise Guidebook, City of San Luis Obispo, May 1996
6.
Communit Desi gn Guidelines, City of San Luis Obispo, June 2010
7.
Zoning Regulations, City of San Luis Obispo, August 2014
8.
San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan, May 2005
9.
Orcutt Area S ecific Plan, City of San Luis Obispo, March 2010
10.
Mar arita Area Specific Plan, City of San Luis Obis o, October 2004
11.
Municipal Code, City of San Luis Obispo
12.
Water Resources Status Report, City of San Luis Obispo, 2013
13.
Archeological Resource Preservation Guidelines, Cit y of San Luis Obispo, October 2009
14.
Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, City of San Luis Obispo, November 2010
15.
Historic Preservation Ordinance, City of San Luis Obispo, December 2010
16.
Final EIR - San Luis Obispo General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element Updates, August 1994
17.
General Plan Annual Reports, 2010 -2013
18.
Workforce Housing Survey, Economic Vitality_Corporation, September 2013
19.
Regional Housing Needs Plan for San Luis Obis 2o Count X, SLOCOG, June 2013
20.
Housing Element Update Guidance, HCD, December 2012
21.
U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 & 2010
22,
American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau, 2009 -2012
23.
Agricultural Census, U.S. Department of Agriculture, May 2012
24.
ACTION for Healthy Communities: Indicators Report, San Luis Obispo Community Health Foundation, 2013
25.
T Cycle Data Packa e, HCD, Se tember 2014
26.
The 2012 Central Coast Economic Forecast, Beacon Economics, 2012
27.
San Luis Obispo County 2013 Economic Outlook, Beacon Economics, 2013
28,
Building Blocks for Effective Housing Elements, HCD, 2013
29,
General Plan Guidelines, State Governor's Office of Plannin and Research, 2014
30.
CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Air Pollution Control District, April 2012
31.
City of San Luis Obispo Land Use InventoLy and Geographic Information System, current database
32.
Path to a Home, San Luis Obispo Countywide 10 -Year Plan to End Homelessness, October 2008
33.
SLO County Homeless Point -In -Time Census & Survey Comprehensive Report, Applied Survey Research, 2013
34.
San Luis Obis o County Apartment Market Survey, Real Estate Consulting & Brokerage Services, March 2011
35,
Climate Action Plan, City of San Luis Obispo, August 2012
PH1 -58
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
39.
City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 12.08 — Storm Water
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
2014 General Plan Housing Element Update (ER # 15 -14)
Issues
with
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
36.
California Building Code
37.
2014 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
38.
City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 15.04 — Fire Code
39.
City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 12.08 — Storm Water
40.
City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 8.05- Recycling
Attachments:
1) Resolution No. 8332 (1994 Series) approving the Land Use /Circulation Element Update and summarizing environmental
impacts, mitigation and monitoring, and overriding considerations.
2) 2014 Draft Housing Element Update
PH1 -59
���a�iment 1
RESOLUTION NO. 8332 (1994 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
MAKING ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATIONS,
ADOPTING A REVISED LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN,
AND APPROVING A GUIDE TO ZONING CONSISTENCY
The Council of the City of San Luis Obispo resolves as follows:
1. Record of Proceedings
The City Council has reviewed and considered the Planning Commission
recommendation, the staff recommendation, correspondence, and public testimony concerning
the revised Land Use Element. Council also has received the Planning Commission
recommendation, the staff recommendation, and background material for the Circulation Element
update. The Council has reviewed.and considered the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR),
EIR Supplement, and comments and responses on them. These environmental documents
covered both the Land Use Element update and the Circulation Element update. These items
are on file in the office of the City Clerk.
The City Council conducted eleven public hearings during April through July 1994
concerning the Land Use Element update. The minutes of those hearings indicate Council
members' votes on particular components of the revised element which may differ from the vote
on this Resolution.
2. Public and Agency Review
Drafts of the revised Land Use Element have been widely available for review and
comment by interested agencies and individuals. Copies have been provided to the San Luis
Obispo City - County Library and the Cal Poly Library. Copies have been provided to agencies
whose jurisdiction is related to planning within the area, including the County of San Luis
Obispo, the County Airport Land Use Commission, the Local Agency Formation Commission,
the Council of Governments, and California Polytechnic State University.
3. Certification of Environmental Impact Report
A draft Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 92101006) and an EIR
Supplement have been prepared and circulated for public and agency comment, and responses
to substantial environmental issues have been prepared, all pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") and the State and City CEQA Guidelines.
R -8332
PH1 -60
Attachment 4
Resolution No. 8332 Page 2
The final EIR consists of the following parts:
A. The draft Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR "), January 1993;
B. Comments and responses. for the draft EIR, as presented to the Planning
Commission May 5, 1993, including evaluation of an alternative corresponding
with build -out of the previously adapted Land Use Element;
C. The draft Environmental Impact Report Supplement ( "Supplement "), September
1993, concerning certain land use alternatives;
D. Comments and responses for the draft EIR Supplement, as presented to the
Planning Commission December 1, 1993.
Council hereby finds that it was not necessary to recirculate the draft EIR with the
alternative of building out the adopted Land Use Element, because the impacts of that alternative
were of the same in kind, and within the range of severity, of impacts associated with other
alternatives evaluated in the draft EIR, as demonstrated in the response to comments.
Council has considered how changes to the Land Use Element proposed during the
hearings may affect the environ ment, and has.determined that further environmental review is
not needed because the adopted element corresponds with the project and alternatives evaluated
in the draft EIR and Supplement. Council finds that the final EIR addresses all potential
environmental impacts in sufficient detail. Mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to
a level of insignificance will be implemented, or overriding considerations exist which justify
approval of the project despite potentially significant impacts, as fully set forth in Part 4 below.
Council hereby certifies the final EIR. A copy of this Resolution, indicating the
approved mitigation and monitoring program, shall be published as part of the final EIR.
4. Status of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation and Monitoring, and Overriding Considerations
Council hereby determines that the status of impacts is as follows, for the Land Use
Element.
Council finds that certain standard mitigations, mainly in the form of adopted City
policies and standards, and the requirements of other agencies, will not be changed by adoption
of the revised Land Use Element, and will remain in effect to help reduce impacts resulting from
development consistent with the Land Use Element. These standard mitigations have been
summarized under the discussion of "regulatory environment" within the EIR.
PH1 -61
Attachment 4
Resolution No. 8332 Page 3
The draft EIR, Supplement, and comments and responses covered the Land Use Element
update and the Circulation Element update. The Circulation Element update is to be adopted
by separate Council action. When the revised Circulation Element is adopted, Council will
make additional determinations concerning that element. Any changes to the Circulation
Element, which would result in potentially significant impacts not adequately addressed in the
EIR hereby being certified, will require supplemental environmental review. Likewise, any
changes to the Circulation Element which would reduce the effectiveness of mitigation for
circulation - related impacts will require further determination by the City Council when that
element is adopted.
A. Not significant with project as proposed; no special monitoring of mitigation
measures required or proposed:
(1)
Street character;
(2)
Park land availability;
(3)
Wildland fire hazard;
(4)
Electrical power service;
(5)
Natural gas service;
B. Not significant with mitigation as recommended by the draft EIR or EIR
Supplement:
Note: Monitoring of approved mitigation measures will be provided through the
annual report on implementation of the General Plan, in addition to any other
reports noted below.
(1) Pedestrian obstruction by sound walls
Mitigation summary: Policy 2.2.12.H modified.
Monitoring: City will avoid noise walls in major expansion
areas, and review plans for sound walls in other
developments.
(2) Land use at Vachell Lane extension: Circulation. Element issue (extension
recommended to be eliminated).
(3) Land use at South Street extension: Circulation Element issue (Planning
Commission recommends extension be eliminated; Public Works
Department recommends that it be included; see item D.9 below).
PH1 -62
Attachment 4
Resolution No. 8332 Page 4
(4) Transit service not adequate for expansion areas
Mitigation summary: City will adopt, update, and
implement Long Range Transit Plan.
Monitoring: City will consider transit plan when preparing
specific'plans for expansion areas.
(5) Fire protection service demands and response time
Mitigation summary: City will make more efficient use of existing
resources than assumed in EIR, hire additional
personnel as needed, collect impact fees for new
facilities, add /relocate fire station if needed, obtain
County airport fire station (or reciprocal response
agreement).
Monitoring: City will consider progress on mitigations before
adopting budgets and specific plans.
(6) Police protection service demands
Mitigation summary: City will hire additional personnel as
needed, collect impact fees for new facilities, add
substation if warranted.
Monitoring: City will consider progress on mitigations before
adopting budgets and specific plans.
(7) General City governmental service demands (excluding utilities)
Mitigation summary: City will improve productivity, and hire
additional personnel as needed.
Monitoring: City will review service levels before adopting
budgets and specific plans.
(8) School facilities adequacy
Mitigation summary: School District will use "Measure A" bond
funds and impact fees, and specific plans for expansion
areas will provide for dedication of school sites.
Monitoring: City and School District will consider progress on
mitigations before adopting specific plans and
budgets.
PH1 -63
Attachment 4
Resolution No. 8332 Page 5
(9) Wastewater (sewage) collection and treatment demands
Mitigation summary: City will expand treatment capacity,
funded by impact fees; collection system will be
expanded, with developer installation, impact fees,
or special assessments.
Monitoring: City will consider progress on mitigations before
adopting specific plans and development approvals.
(10) Construction noise
Mitigation summary: City will limit construction hours, require
equipment maintenance and operation limits, and
portable noise barriers.
Monitoring: City will establish or revise standard contract
provisions for its own projects and conditions of
approval for other projects.
(11) Traffic noise levels - existing and new streets
Mitigation summary: City will reduce traffic speeds through
limits or physical features, and require
developments to attenuate noise through setbacks,
berms, or walls.
Monitoring: City will conduct project -level environmental
assessments and check development plans.
(12) Stationary (commercial, industrial) noise sources [See also C(3) below]
Mitigation summary: City will require developments to
attenuate noise through site arrangement and
setbacks, walls, limits on hours of operations or
loading /delivery.
Monitoring: City will conduct project -level environmental
assessments and check development plans.
(13) Indoor noise levels frog► airport operations
Mitigation summary: City will require developments to
attenuate noise as provided in Noise Element design
standards.
Monitoring: City will conduct project -level environmental
assessments and check development plans.
P H 1 -64
Resolution No. 8332
Attachment 4
Page 6
(14) Construction air pollution
Mitigation summary: City and Air Pollution Control District
(APCD) will require developments to control dust
and combustion emissions.
Monitoring: City will conduct project -level environmental
assessments, check development plans, inspect work
in progress.
(15) Santa Rosa park carbon monoxide (CO), concentration
Mitigation sunimary: City will relocate existing play equipment
closer to parking area when it needs to be replaced.
Monitoring: City will request APCD to measure CO at proposed
play equipment location to verify acceptability
before relocating.
(16) Construction water quality impacts, and
(17) Oil /grease in urban runoff
Mitigation summary: Regional Water Quality Control Board
will administer permits for projects disturbing more
than five acres; City will require buffer along
waterways in expansion areas.
Monitoring: No separate monitoring required.
(18) Flooding in expansion areas
Mitigation summary: City will establish adequate creek
setbacks in expansion areas.
Monitoring: Adequate setbacks will be determined in specific
plans.
(19) Biological resources (excluding Sacramento Drive extension)
Mitigation summary: City will implement (1) "biological
resource protection program" for proposed
development sites, (2) riparian and wetland
mitigation, (3) sensitive flora taxa preservation, (4)
coastal sage scrub restoration and limited fire
hazard fuel modification, and (5) revised
landscaping guidelines to include native plants and
exclude invasive nonnative plants.
Monitoring: City will conduct CEQA project review and
implement Open Space Element; include tally of
habitat types and amounts lost or restored in annual
report on General Plan.
PH1 -65
Attachment 4
Resolution No. 8332 Page 7
(20) Aesthetics: noise walls, street facades, street & parking landscaping
Mitigation summary: City will revise architectural review
guidelines for public and private projects,
concerning noise walls, landscaping, and entry
presentation; specific plans will establish setbacks in
expansion areas.
Monitoring: General plan annual reports and Community
Development Department two -year work programs.
(21) High voltage power lines field exposure
Mitigation summary: City will establish program for notification
of owners within 250 feet of power transmission
line, and assure that specific plans for Margarita
and OrClltt areas show school site separation in
accordance with State standards.
Monitoring: General plan annual reports and environmental
determinations for expansion area specific plans.
(22) Growth inducement of road extensions in open space areas
Mitigation sumrriary: General: policy 1.7 and 1.8 modified;
Specific: some road extensions proposed to be
eliminated.
Monitoring: Project -level environmental review.
(23) Human health hazards - evacuation routes
Mitigation summary: County annual review and update of
emergency response plan will include evacuation
points and routes as development occurs in southern
part of City.
Monitoring: Environmental review and plan approval for specific
plans: Airport, Margarita, Orcutt.
(24) Seismic and other geological hazard exposure - warehouse store
merchandise in area of high ground shaking.
Mitigation summary: Assessment of shelf and merchandise
stability and restraint system recommendations at
time of building permit.
Monitoring: City plan check.
PH1 -66
Resolution No. 8332
Attachment 4
Page 8
C. Not significant with mitigation revised from that reco►rnniended by draft EI R
or Siipplement; revised mitigation measures are found to address the same
concerns to the same level as recommended, but in a manner more consistent with
other City policies:
(1) Water usage in San Luis Obispo area
Mitigation summary: Development of additional water supplies;
no net increase in water use from new development
until adequate supplemental supply is available (safe
yield basis for planning); water conservation
programs,
Monitoring: Annual water operations plan, quarterly and annual
water allocation /offset report; project -level
environmental review.
(2) Land use - airport safety and outdoor noise exposure
Mitigation summary: Changes reflected in adopted Land Use
Element Map; City will include protection in
Airport Area, Margarita Area specific plans.
Monitoring: Specific plan environmental review; project -level
environmental review, in case Airport Area Land
Use Plan changes.
(3) Noise exposure - commercial & industrial development
Mitigation summary: City will revise Zoning Regulations and
Architectural Review Guidelines, with reference to
Noise Element design standards.
Monitoring: City will conduct project -level environmental
assessments and check development plans.
(4) Water quality & flooding - natural drainage
Mitigation summary: Policy modified to reflect Open Space
Element.
Monitoring: Project - Ievel environmental review.
(5) Water quality & flooding - porous paving
Mitigation summary: Modified policy (6.4.7) added to Land Use
Element.
Monitoring: Project -level environmental review.
PH1 -67
Resolution No. 8332
Attachment 4
Page 9
(6) Cultural, archaeological resources
Mitigation summary: Modified policy (6.6.4) added to Land Use
Element.
Monitoring: Project -level environmental review.
(7) Aesthetics - scenic corridor standards
Mitigation summary: Adequately addressed by modified Land Use
Element policies (1.7.5, 1,.9.4, 6.0.3, 6.2.5)
Monitoring: Project -level environmental review.
(8) Aesthetics - downtown building heights
Mitigation summary: Policy of draft Land Use Element retained.
Monitoring: Project -level environmental review.
(9) Human health hazards - hazardous material routes
Mitigation summary: Modified policy (2.2.12.J) added to Land
Use Element.
Monitoring: Project -level environmental review.
(10) Utilities & resources - landfill capacity
Mitigation summary: Modified policy 1.15 added to Land Use
Element.
Monitoring: Project -level environmental review.
(11) Pedestrian safety
Mitigation summary: Draft Circulation Element policies revised
to address concern.
Monitoring: City will review development projects, design its
own facilities in conformance, and consider policies
during preparation of capital budget.
(12) Traffic - Highway 227 high occupancy vehicle lane
Mitigation summary: City will advocate that lanes added to
regional highways be for high occupancy vehicles.
Monitoring: City will participate in Regional Transportation Plan
updates.
(13) Land use conflicts
Mitigation summary: Changes to Land Use Element map to
minimize adjacency of residential and nonresidential
uses in the Airport Area.
Monitoring: General plan annual reports and environmental
determinations for expansion area specific plans.
PH1 -68
Attachment 4
Resolution No. 8332 Page 10
D. Significant, adverse impacts, despite proposed mitigation, for which findings
of ovevriding considerations are hereby made (numbered items below).
Throughout these findings, reference is made to "a reasonable share of anticipated
regional growth." The determination of a reasonable share is based on the
following facts. Determination of a reasonable share follows consideration of
sometimes conflicting State policies and mandates, including protection of air
quality and open space (including prime agricultural land), responding to the
Regional Housing Needs Assessment, and following the intent of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
Additional population and economic activity can have adverse
environmental impacts wherever they occur. Generally, those impacts are
less severe if the growth is within or adjacent to an existing urban area,
compared to growth in rural areas.
State and County populations are projected to increase between one
percent and two percent annually for the next thirty years, based on recent
trends. The City alone cannot change those trends.
The City's planned residential and nonresidential growth rates -- slightly
more than one percent -- are at the low end of the range projected for the
State and the County.
- The City's share of projected State and County growth is determined to
be reasonable because the increase is not significantly higher or lower than
the State or County increases. Growth rates which are higher or lower
than planned by the City could attract to San Luis Obispo, or deflect from
it, adverse environmental impacts associated with growth.
(1) Prime agricultural land conversion to urban use
Overriding consideration: Accommodating a reasonable share of
anticipated regional growth within the urban reserve line, contiguous to
existing development, while preserving land outside the urban reserve
line.
(2) Street widening land -use impact. Higuera Street, High to Marsh
Overriding consideration: Accommodating projected traffic levels (due
to reasonable share of anticipated regional growth), at acceptable level of
service, and providing a bike lane connection.
PH1 -69
Resolution No. 8332
Attachment 4
Page 11
(3) Street widening land -use impact: Santa Rosa Street, alive to Foothill
Overriding consideration: Accommodating projected traffic levels (due
to reasonable share of anticipated regional growth) at acceptable levels of
service.
(4) Statewide (cumulative) water usage increase
Overriding consideration: Accommodating a reasonable share of
anticipated regional growth within the urban reserve line.
(5) Aesthetics - change from rural to urban character
Overriding consideration: Accommodating a reasonable share of
anticipated regional growth within the urban reserve line.
(6) Traffic - unacceptable levels of service at certain major intersections and
along most arterial streets
Overriding consideration.. Accommodating projected traffic levels (due
to reasonable share of anticipated regional growth), while avoiding
significant land -use and aesthetic impacts that would follow from adding
or widening roadways and changing intersections, and the City's inability
to substantially change people's individual travel choices.
(7) Biological and aesthetic impacts in riparian area - Sacramento Drive
extension
Overriding consideration: Providing alternate traffic route (reduced
arterial roadway congestion) and emergency access in a location where
riparian impacts can largely be mitigated through on -site, in -kind
enhancement of degraded riparian area.
Note: Council previously approved road extension in concept
when acting on development plan for adjacent business park.
(8) Population, employment, and housing - number of workers likely to
increase more than number of residents, resulting in additional
commuting, with secondary impacts to energy consumption, air pollution,
and traffic levels of service.
PH1 -70
Attachment 4
Resolution No. 8332 Page 12
Overriding consideration: Maintaining San Luis Obispo's fiscal health
and hub role, and avoiding further expansion of residential development
into open space areas.
(9) Land use impacts at South Street extension
Overriding consideration: Providing emergency access to the Johnson
Avenue area if the main fire station is located at Broad and South Streets
and the Laurel Lane station is closed.
5. Internal Consistency
Council hereby determines that the revised Land Use Element and the proposed revision
of the Circulation Element are consistent with all elements of the General Plan.
6. Conformance with State Law and Guidelines
Council hereby determines that the revised Land Use Element conforms with
requirements of the California Government Code and the advisory General Plan Guidelines of
the State Office of Planning and Research,
7. Regional Housint Opportunities
Council hereby finds that the revised Land Use Element does not contain a policy or
program limiting the number of dwellings which may be constructed on an annual basis.
However, by phasing the development of residential expansion areas in conformity with growth
management goals, the revised Land Use Element may operate to limit the number of housing
units which may be constructed within a period of years. In fulfilling the intent of California
Government Code Section 65302.8, Council hereby makes the following findings:
A. Regional Housing Needs. The City has determined that approximately 5,300
additional dwellings can be accommodated by the land use designations and
allowed densities contained within the Land Use Element, and that the intended
growth rate will allow this capacity to be used within about twenty -five years.
The City has further determined that the "Regional Housing Needs Assessment"
assignment for San Luis Obispo of 5,128 dwellings by July 1, 1999, was based
on inaccurate data and is neither appropriate nor achievable within the identified
time frame.
PH1 -71
Resolution No. 8332
Attachment 4
Page 13
The rate of population growth on which regional housing need allocations were
based is not likely to be achieved, because of San Luis Obispo County's
recessionary economic conditions from 1991 through 1994, State population
projections, and resource constraints.
Through its General Plan, the City intends to manage residential and commercial
growth so that new development occurs in an orderly manner and can be
adequately served by utilities and public services like police, fire, schools, parks
and recreation, and general government for the health, safety and welfare of its
citizens. Modification of the Housing Element and Land Use Element policies
to accommodate State - mandated growth targets would represent a fundamental
policy shift, since both the previous and revised Land Use Elements encourage
gradual development outward from the City center. Accommodating the City's
assigned share of regional housing need by 1999 would exhaust the land and
water resources designated in the General Plan to meet the City's residential
needs over the next 25 years.
B. City Actions to Expand Housing Opportunities. The City is undertaking
programs and activities to expand housing opportunities for all income groups and
for those working within the City, as specified in the draft Housing Element
scheduled for adoption September 6, 1994. Further, the revised Land Use
Element contains policies and programs which will expand housing opportunities
for all income groups and for those working within the City, through provision
of sites for additional multifamily housing within identified expansion areas and
through density bonuses linked to transfer of development credits.
C. Public Health Safety, and Welfare. Adoption of the revised Land Use Element
will promote the public health, safety, and welfare by:
(1) Strengthening the City's long -term fiscal health so that the City can
provide adequate levels of service;
(2) Assuring that adequate resources and services needed for new
development will be made available concurrent with that development;
(3) Protecting the natural environment and air quality to the extent possible
within a region where population increase is expected;
(4) Maintaining or enhancing the relatively high level of services enjoyed by
City residents;
PH1 -72
Resolution No. 8332
Attachment 4
Page 14
(5) Assimilating new residents at a pace which preserves the community's
social fabric, safety, and established neighborhoods;
(6) Promoting residents' opportunities for direct participation in City
government and their sense of community.
D. United Local Resources. There are limited fiscal and environmental resources
available to the City which can be devoted to meeting demands of additional
residential development. Programs to remove or mitigate these constraints are
discussed in the Housing Element and the Water and Wastewater Management
Element. However, several constraints to housing production remain which
cannot feasibly be overcome within the time frame of the Regional Housing
Needs Assessment. These are:
(1) Availability of Water. The City's growth projections assume that
adequate resources and public services are available. Housing growth
beyond the relatively small number of dwellings which can be built
through the water offset (retrofit) program depends on successful City
efforts to secure additional water supplies.
(2) Public Facilities and Services. Schools, police and fire services, parks,
and general City administration are currently considered marginally
adequate to meet current needs, according to the EIR. To meet the City's
assigned share of regional housing need would require 15 additional fire
fighting personnel, 19 sworn police officers, and approximately 88 other
full -time City staff; would generate demand for an additional 76 acres of
neighborhood and district parks; and require additional faculty and
classroom space to accommodate 2,364 students, assuming services are
maintained at current levels. The capital costs of meeting these public
services needs under the plan would exceed the City's and school district's
financial resources, and result in significant financial hardship and public
safety impacts.
(3) Fn.vironmental Impacts. According to the EIR, significant adverse impacts
to circulation, agricultural land, and aesthetics are likely to result from
accommodating the proposed residential growth. Although growth
impacts cannot be entirely mitigated, the 25 -year planning time frame
allows development of additional mitigations or adjustments to the planned
development capacity if proposed mitigations prove to be inadequate.
Accommodating an equivalent amount of residential growth within the
compressed time frame of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment would
PH1 -73
Attachment 4
Resolution No. 8332 Page 15
result in significant adverse impacts and threaten public health and safety
due to inadequate public facilities and services.
(4) Local Conditions Affecting Land Use. Unique physical characteristics,
including steep topography, the need to preserve prime agricultural lands
within and adjacent to the City, and the unique visual qualities of the
City's volcanic morros and open spaces have guided the City's land use
and planning policies.
8. Repeal of Previous Element
The 1977 General Plan Urban Land Use and Growth Management Element, as amended,
is hereby repealed, on the effective date of the revised Land Use Element.
9. Adoption of Revised Element
The revised Land Use Element, consisting of a text and maps dated August 1994, on file
in the City Clerk's Office, is hereby adopted.
10. Publication and Availability
The Community Development Director shall cause the newly adopted element to be
published and provided to City officials, concerned agencies, and public libraries, and to be
made available to the public at a cost not to exceed the cost of reproduction.
11. Effective Date
The newly adopted element shall be effective on the thirtieth day after passage of this
Resolution.
12. Zoning Consisten4
The Council intends, within a reasonable time of adopting the revised Land Use Element,
to make the Zoning Regulations and the official zone map consistent with the revised element.
Because some names of land use districts are being added or changed, Council hereby approves
the following as a guide to zoning consistency, pending a comprehensive revision of the Zoning
Regulations and official zone map.
P H 1 -74
Attachment 4
Resolution No. 8332 Page 16
Land Use District Consistent Zones
Open Space Conservation /Open Space (C /OS)
Interim Open Space Conservation /Open Space (C /OS)
Recreation
Conservation /Open Space (C /OS), Public Facility (PF), or
either of the following zones limited by a Special
Considerations. (S), Planned Development (PD), or Specific
Plan (SP) overlay zone: Service Commercial (C -S) or
Manufacturing (M)
Park
Conservation /Open Space (C /OS) or Public Facility (PF)
Rural Residential
No equivalent City zone (County "Residential - Rural ")
Suburban Residential
No equivalent City zone (County "Residential - Suburban ")
Low Density Residential
Low Density Residential (R -1)
Medium Density, Res-
idential
Medium Density Residential (R -2)]
Medium High Density Res-
idential
Medium -High Density Residential (R -3)
High Density
Residential
High Density Residential (R -4)
Residential Neighborhood
Conservation /Open Space (C /OS), or any of the following
zones combined with the Specific Plan (SP) zone: PF, R -1,
R -2, R -3, R -4, or Neighborhood Commercial (C -N)
Neighborhood Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial (C -N)
Tourist Commercial Tourist Commercial (C -T)
General Retail Retail Commercial (C -R) or Central Commercial (C -C)
Office Office (0)
Services and Manufacturing Service Commercial (C -S) or Manufacturing (M)
Business Park Any of the following zones combined with Planned
Development (PD) or Specific Plan (SP): 0, C -S, or M.
Public Public Facility (PF)
PH1 -75
Resolution No. 8332
Attachment 4
Page 17
On motion of Settle , seconded by Roalman , and on the following roll
call vote.
AYES: Vice Mayor Settle, Council Members Roalman, Rappa, and Mayor Pinard
NOES: Council Member Romero
ABSENT: None
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 23rd. day of August , 1994.
Mayor Pe Pinard
ATTEST:
S
C' Clerk Diane . Gladwell
APPROVED:
C' Att rig-,
LUE- ADPT.RES
P H 1 -76
STATE QF CALJFQRNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGFNCY EDMUND G. BROWN JB.. Governor
DEPARTMENT OF DOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Attachment 5
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500 , o 13
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263 -2911 / FAX (916) 263 -7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
November 12, 2014
Mr. Derek Johnson
Community Development Director
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Mr. Johnson:
RE: City of San Luis Obispo's 5th Cycle (2014 -2019) Draft Housing Element
Thank you for submitting the City of San Luis Obispo's draft housing element update
which was received for review on September 15, 2014, along with additional revisions
received on October 30, 2014. Pursuant to Government Code (GC) Section 65585(b), the
Department is reporting the results of its review. Our review was facilitated by a
conversation on October 28, 2014 with Mr. Tyler Corey, Planning Manager.
The revised draft element meets the statutory requirements of State housing element law.
The revised element will comply with State housing element law (GC, Article 10.6) when
adopted and submitted to the Department, in accordance with GC Section 65585(g). The
Department conducted a streamlined review of the draft housing element based on the
City meeting all eligibility criteria detailed in the Department's Housing Element Update
Guidance. The City also utilized HCD pre- approved housing element data.
Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing
element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element
process, the City must continue to engage the community, including organizations that
represent lower- income and special needs households, by making information regularly
available and considering and incorporating comments where appropriate.
The Department appreciates the hard work and dedication of Mr. Corey in preparation of
the housing element and looks forward to receiving San Luis Obispo's adopted housing
element. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please
contact Melinda Coy, of our staff, at (916) 263 -7425.
Sincerely,
Glen A. Campora
Assistant Deputy Director
PH1 -77
Attachment 6
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX -15
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND AMENDMENTS
TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN
(GPI /ER 15 -14)
WHEREAS, State law requires cities and counties to adopt a general plan. The general
plan includes seven required elements, one of which is the housing element. The housing
element must be updated every five (5) years or as otherwise provided by State law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a
public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, on November 12, 2014, and recommended approval of a Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact and amendments to the Housing Element to address the changing needs,
resources and conditions in the Community, as required by State law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing
in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on January
20, 2015, for the purpose of considering amendments to the Housing Element (GPI/ER 15 -14);
and
WHEREAS, the City facilitated 12 workshops and meetings with the general public,
Workforce Housing Coalition, Association of Realtors, Economic Vitality Corporation, Chamber
of Commerce, Home Builders Association, Residents for Quality Neighborhoods and Planning
Commission to identify housing needs, issues and opportunities in the community and inform
policy and program changes; and
WHEREAS, on November 12, 2014, the City received a formal letter from HCD stating
that our revised Housing Element meets State and Federal housing law and will be certified upon
adoption by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all evidence, including the testimony of the
applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said
hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the
following findings:
PH 1 -78
Resolution No. (2015 Series) Attachment 6
Page 2
1. The City facilitated 12 workshops and meetings with the general public, Workforce
Housing Coalition, Association of Realtors, Economic Vitality Corporation, Chamber of
Commerce, Home Builders Association, Residents for Quality Neighborhoods and
Planning Commission to identify housing needs, issues and opportunities in the
community and inform policy and program changes.
2. The proposed Housing Element amendments are consistent with other land use goals and
policies of the General Plan.
3. The proposed amendments are appropriate and necessary to ensure that the City's
Housing Element meets State law and the changing needs, resources and conditions in the
community.
4. Achieving Housing Element State certification will promote affordable housing
opportunities and help achieve adopted housing goals by making the City eligible for
various housing grants and financial incentives, and will foster cooperation among local
and state agencies in addressing an urgent need for affordable housing in the City.
Section 2. Environmental Determination. The City Council does hereby adopt a
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (ER 15 -14).
Section 3. Action. The City Council does hereby adopt the proposed amendments to
the Housing Element (GPI 15 -14), which is incorporated herein by reference.
Section 4. Effective Date. The updated Housing Element shall become effective
immediately upon adoption of this resolution.
Section 5. Repeal of Previous Element. The Housing Element adopted June 1,
2010, is repealed upon the effective date of the updated Housing Element.
PH 1 -79
Resolution No. (2015 Series) Attachment 6
Page 3
Upon motion of , seconded by , and on the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 20th day of January, 2015.
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
Anthony J. Mejia
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
PH1 -80
City of San Luis Obispo
Housing Element Update
January 20, 2015
Presented by: Tyler Corey, Housing Programs Manager
Contact Info.: tcorey@slocity.org or 805-781-7169
Moylan Terrace – 851 Humbert Street
1
2
Recommendation
As recommended by the Planning Commission:
1. Adopt a Resolution approving updates to the City’s
Housing Element; and
2. Adopt the Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact.
3
Housing Element Background
State requirement
5 year update
Establishes goals, policies and programs for housing
development
4
Where we’ve been…
Research
Public outreach
Planning Commission Review
State Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HCD) review
Draft Housing Element
5
Countywide Regional Housing
Needs Allocation (RHNA)
6
City RHNA
7
Outreach Efforts
Workshops & Meetings (12)
General Public
(November 14, 2013)
Workforce Housing Coalition
(January 9, 2014)
Planning Commission
(February 12, 2014)
Association of Realtors
(March 4, 2014)
Economic Vitality Corporation
(March 18, 2014)
Chamber of Commerce
(April 3, 2014)
Home Builders Association
(April 10, 2014)
Residents for Quality
Neighborhoods
(April 16, 2014)
Workforce Housing Summit
(May 28, 2014)
General Public
(July 16, 2014)
Planning Commission
(July 23, 2014)
(November 12, 2014)
8
Public Feedback Overview –
Housing Needs
Affordable and workforce housing
Senior and veteran housing
Transitional housing for children out of foster care
and those with mental health issues
Small apartments and efficiency units for seniors
and homeless
Increase owner-occupied housing
9
Public Feedback Overview –
Housing Issues
Financing for affordable housing production
Preservation and rehabilitation of existing housing
stock
High property cost and low incomes
Development fees proportional to impact
Affordable housing units comparable in size and
quality to market-rate units
10
Public Feedback Overview –
Housing Opportunities
Incentives for single room occupancy (SRO) and
secondary dwelling units
Increase residential densities where appropriate
Allow greater building height to accommodate
housing
Creatively utilize existing housing resources
11
HCD’s Role
Implement Housing Element State law
Determine RHNA for COG’s
Ensure local governments plan to meet existing and
projected housing needs
Review housing elements for compliance with State law
12
Draft Policies & Programs
1.6 Program – Safety
Existing program in 2010 Housing Element
PC recommendation includes removal of program
Potentially be intrusive to homeowners and renters
Possibly increase housing costs
13
Draft Policies & Programs
2.16 Program – Affordability
Existing program in 2010 Housing Element
Considers the creation of a workforce level of affordability
Incentives to increase housing options for those
earning between 121-160% of AMI
Cannot be used to meet Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance requirements
14
Draft Policies & Programs
4.6 Program – Mixed-Income Housing
Recommended by the TF-LUCE
Requires affordable housing units be comparable in size,
appearance and basic quality to the market rate units.
15
Draft Policies & Programs
6.8 Policy & 6.13 Program – Housing Production
Recommended by the TF-LUCE
Seeks to incentivize the development of smaller
apartments and efficiency units in the Downtown Core
Increase the production of smaller dwelling units
16
Draft Policies & Programs
6.9 Policy – Housing Production
Recommended by the PC
Encourage and support employer/employee financing
programs and partnerships
Policy supports need to increase production and financing
opportunities for workforce housing
17
Draft Policies & Programs
6.31 Program – Housing Production
Recommended by community input
Considers modifying development impact fees based on
the size, number of bedrooms and room counts in a
dwelling unit
Explores alternatives to the current impact fee schedule
18
Draft Policies & Programs
7.8 Policy – Neighborhood Quality
Recommended by community input
Modified based on PC and HCD comments
Encourages strategies and programs that increase long-
term residency and stabilization in neighborhoods
19
Draft Policies & Programs
8.11 Policy & 8.23 Program – Special Housing Needs
State law requirement
Encourages amendments that support the special
housing needs of disabled persons
Seeks grant opportunities for housing construction and
rehabilitation specifically targeted for persons with
developmental disabilities
20
Draft Policies & Programs
8.12 Policy & 8.24 & 8.25 Programs – Special
Housing Needs
Supports the City’s 2013-15 Financial Plan Major City
Goal: Implement Comprehensive Strategies to Address
Homelessness
Encourages improved and expanded services and
programs for the homeless
Furthers the 10-Year Plan to end homelessness
21
Draft Policies & Programs
9.6 Policy & 9.13 Program – Sustainable Housing
Supports the City’s Climate Action Plan
Considers financing options for sustainable home
improvements
22
Draft Policies & Programs
9.12 Program – Sustainable Housing
Recommended by community input
Seeks to identify incentives for project that propose
smaller apartments and efficiency units
Consideration of a local ordinance to allow apartments to
be constructed smaller than the CBC’s requirement
23
Environmental Review
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact
Initial Study does not identify any significant and
unavoidable impacts
City Council to take final action on environmental
document
24
Recommendation
As recommended by the Planning Commission:
1. Adopt a Resolution approving updates to the City’s
Housing Element; and
2. Adopt the Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact.
25
Program 1.6
Existing program language in 2010 Housing Element:
“Enact a Rental Inspection Program to improve the
condition of the City’s housing stock.”
26
Jobs/Housing Balance
Existi
ng1
(2010
)
Existing General Plan
Capacity LUCE Update Capacity
Net New
Total
(Existing +
Net New)
Net New
Total
(Existing +
Net New)
Dwelling Units 20,553 3,060 23,613 4,904 25,457
Jobs 33,000 16,760 49,760 11,346 44,346
Jobs/Housing
Ratio 1.6 5.5 2.1 2.3 1.7
1 As reported in SLOCOG Regional Growth Forecast. The 2012 General Plan Annual Report
reports 33,451 jobs and 20,687 housing units, which also results in a jobs/housing ratio of 1.6.
Community Snapshots
Annual Population Growth, 2000-2013
Source: U.S. Census, 2000 and 2010; California Department of Finance, 2013
27
Affordable Housing Standards
Table 1: 2014 Annual Income Limits
28
INCOME GROUP NUMBER OF PERSONS IN HOUSEHOLD
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
EXTREMELY LOW 15,850 18,100 20,350 22,600 24,450 26,250 28,050 29,850
VERY LOW 26,400 30,200 33,950 37,700 40,750 43,750 46,750 49,800
LOWER 42,250 48,250 54,300 60,300 65,150 69,950 74,800 79,600
MEDIAN 53,900 61,600 69,300 77,000 83,150 89,300 95,500 101,650
MODERATE 64,700 73,900 83,150 92,400 99,800 107,200 114,600 121,950
Affordable Housing Standards
Table 2: 2014 Rent/Sales Affordability Standards
29
INCOME GROUP TENURE
Maximum STUD1 1-BDRM 2-BDRM 3-BDRM 4-BDRM
Sales Price $47,550 $54,300 $61,050 $70,575 $78,750
Sales Price $79,200 $90,600 $101,850 $117,675 $131,250
Sales Price $126,750 $144,750 $162,900 $188,175 $209,850
Sales Price $226,450 $258,650 $291,025 $336,350 $375,200
DWELLING
EXTREMELY LOW
Monthly
Rent
$404 $462 $519 $601 $670
VERY LOW
Monthly
Rent
$674 $770 $866 $1,001 $1,116
LOWER
Monthly
Rent
$808 $924 $1,039 $1,201 $1,339
MODERATE
Monthly
Rent
$1,123 $1,283 $1,444 $1,668 $1,860
Community Snapshots
Household Size
Source: U.S. Census, 1990, 2000 and 2010
30
Community Snapshots
City Unemployment Rate
Source: U.S. Census, 2000 and 2010
31
Community Snapshots
Median Household Income
Source: U.S. Census, 1990, and 2000 and 2010
* Figures for a four-person family or household
32
Community Snapshots
Source: U.S. Census 2010
33
Type Bedroom
Housing Stock
Community Snapshots
Median Household Income
Source: U.S. Census, 1990, and 2000 and 2010
* Figures for a four-person family or household
34
Community Snapshots
Median Residential Sales Price
Source: Zillow, June 2000-2013
35
$565,000
$431,000
$370,000
Community Snapshots
Population Projections 2015-2030
36
Community Snapshots
City Population Pyramid
Source: U.S. Census, 2010
37
RHNA Methodology
38
THNewspaper of the Central Coast kb 15
MBUNE
3825 South Higuera • Post Office Box 112 • San Luis Obispo, California 93406 -0112 • (805) 781 -7800
In The Superior Court of The State of California
In and for the County of San Luis Obispo
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
CMEM
AD # 1485453
SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
OFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
The San Luis Obispo City Council Invite:
all interested persons to attend a publh
hearing on Tuesday, January 20, 2015, a
13:00 p.m. In the City Hall Council Cham
bar, 990 Pahn Street, Sony Luis Obispo
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
California, reelive Ig the following:
ss.
CITY SAN Q1.@ OBISPO
County of San Luis Obispo
_OMSIHG
J LIEMENT UPRA1'E_[m3PUEA 14 -14)
A public hearing to consider approval of up•
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the
dates to the City's Housing Element and
adoplion of a Negative Daciaratlon of Envi-
County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen and not
ronmental ImpacL The Housing Element is
a state required element of the General
interested in the above entitled matter; I am now, and at
pion that must be updated every five
all times embraced in the publication herein mentioned
years, Updating the Housing Element is a
key step In the City's efforts to, expand af-
was, the principal clerk of the printers and publishers of
fordable housing opportunities and Is re-
quired by California Goverment Code Sec -
THE TRIBUNE, a newspaper of general Circulation,
tion 65580,655139,6. The update process is
printed and published daily at the City of San Luis
a tool to modify housing policies and pro -
grams to reflect the changing needs, re-
Obispo in the above named county and state; that notice
sources and conditions in the community,
at which the annexed clippings is a true copy, was
and to respond to changes In slate and fed -
eral housing laws, The Planning Commis-
ublished in the above -named newspaper and not in an
P y
sign recommended approval of the Hcus-
Ing Element on November 12, 201 a.
supplement thereof — on the following dates to wit;
JANUARY 10, 2015 that said newspaper was duly and
Tha City Council may also discuss other
hearings or business items before or after
regularly ascertained and established a newspaper of
the items listed above. II you challenge the
Proposed action in court, you may be limit.
general circulation by Decree entered in the Superior
ed to raising only those issues you or
Court of San Luis Obispo County, California,
State of on
the public hrir
SpmeQ09 else raised e, eo
described In this notice, or in written rre-
June 9, 1952, Case #19139 under the Government Code
spondence delivered to the City Council at,
of the State of California.
or prior to, the public hearing.
Reports for this meeting will be available
for review In the City Clerk's Office and on-
I certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the
line at Lh",Mooltyr.0A on Wednesday, Jan.
foregoing is true and correct.
Vary 14, 2015. Please call the city clertra
office at (805) 781 -7100 for more Informs.
PV'
r�f -- _
Lion, The City Counoll meeting will be tale-
vised live On Charter Cable Channel 20
and Ilya streaming on www.sfpq .Qrf
(Signaide of Principal Clerk)
Anthony J. Mejla
DATED: JANUARY 10, 2015
City clerk
AD COST: $152.64
City of San Luis Obispo
January 10, 2015 1485453