HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/07/2003, BUS 1 - REVISED REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATIONS 1
Council M`dqD° I �a
j acEnaa uepoRt ,
CITY OF SAN LUIS O B 1 S P O
FROM: John Mandeville, CommunityD velopment Director "
Prepared By: Jeff Hook, Associate PlanntW_
SUBJECT: REVISED REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATIONS
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
1. With respect to the January 8, 2003 SLOCOG meeting to consider revised housing need
allocations, provide Council member Schwartz with the following direction:
A. Endorse the 333 unit reduction in the City's housing need allocation based on
revised jobs data as a percentage of total County employment, lowering the City's
allocation from 5,450 to 5,117 dwellings; and
B. Endorse a proposed shift of 2,000 above moderate income housing units from the
cities to the unincorporated County, further reducing the City's allocation from
5,117 to 4,383 dwellings, with the understanding that this shift will respect the
general plans of the County and the cities and that most of the added dwellings
will be developed on existing "lots of record"; and
C. Endorse the proposal by SLOCOG staff to count Cal Poly University housing
toward meeting the City's housing needs based on the inclusion of Cal Poly
employment in the City's job share, and on the impact the University has on the
City's overall housing supply and demand.
2. Continue to work cooperatively with all SLOCOG agencies to effect statewide legislative
reform in the regional housing needs determination process and in state growth policies.
3. Direct staff to work with the Housing Element Update Task Force and the Planning
Commission to prepare a housing element that can hopefully achieve state certification
based on the reduced housing need allocation and on respect for City General Plan goals.
DISCUSSION
Background
On December 4, 2002, the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) approved the
State Housing and Community Development Department's (HCD) housing need allocation for
San Luis Obispo County of 18,035 dwellings -- over the objections of the representatives of San
Luis Obispo and Arroyo Grande. The Council of Governments did not approve the distribution
of housing need to the cities and unincorporated County. SLOCOG continued this aspect of the
Plan to allow recalculation of the allocations based on new jobs data, and to reflect a possible
shift in "above-moderate income" dwelling from cities to the unincorporated County, as
1 � �
Amendments to the Draft Regional Housing Needs Plan
Page 2
explained in the attached letter from the County of San Luis Obispo. SLOCOG will hold a
hearing on January 8, 2003 to consider final adoption of the amended Regional Housing Needs
Plan. On December 17, 2002, the Council asked staff to place this matter on the agenda so that
the City's SLOCOG representative, Council member Schwartz, can receive Council direction
prior to the January 8'h SLOCOG meeting.
Based on a countywide total housing need of 18,035 dwellings, and on the previously approved
allocation formula that used job and population growth, the City of San Luis Obispo's housing
need allocation was previously set at 5,450 dwellings. Due to concerns with the accuracy of job
growth data, SLOCOG staff provided new job data from the State Employment Development
Department that now accurately reflects city limits. Based on the new data and on a change to
the formula using job share of total county jobs as opposed to job growth, the City's allocation
was reduced by 333 dwellings -- down to 5,117. This reduction, coupled with the proposed shift
of 734 "above-moderate income" dwellings to the County, lowers our total assigned need from
5,450 to 4,383 — a reduction of 1067 dwelling units, or about 20 percent. The City's revised
housing need allocation is shown in Table 1.
TABLE 1 —Proposed Regional Housing Needs Allocation, City of San Luis Obispo, 2001-2008
Income Group Number of Dwellings Needed
Very Low 1,484
Low 844
Moderate 870
Above Moderate 1,185
TOTAL 49383
The County's Proposal
On December 12`h, the countywide Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) review team
endorsed a proposal by San Luis Obispo County.to shift the need for 2,000 above moderate
dwellings from cities to the unincorporated County. County staff presented a letter verifying
that, after carefully reviewing, the numbers, the County could accommodate up to 2,000
dwellings in addition to their base need in the "above moderate category" and offered to do so
(letter attached). If approved by COG and HCD, this shift would reduce the City's RHNA
number by 734 dwellings. SLOCOG staff has recommended that the SLOCOG Board approve
this shift at its January 8`f' meeting.
Besides helping cities meet their housing allocations, this offer also makes sense for the County.
Most of the above moderate housing would be built in previously subdivided areas already zoned
for low-density residential development and served by roads and services. It would not increase
density nor introduce development where it was not already planned, such as the City's
Greenbelt. County staff believes the Board of Supervisors will be comfortable with this number
and willing to help the cities by assuming a larger share of housing need. Of course, the outcome
is not a sure thing, even if COG supports the shift. It won't be definite until HCD acts on the
Regional Housing Plan this spring.
�' A
Amendments to the Draft Regional Housing Needs Plan
Page 3
Jack Crawford, County Counsel, advised the staff review team that state housing law gives
COGs discretion in this matter, and that based on recent court decisions, felt SLOCOG would
prevail in litigation with HCD if the state tried to prevent us from implementing this shift.
HCD's only recourse to overturn the shift appears to be in a provision of state housing law
requiring that the housing need allocation "seek to reduce the concentration of lower income
households in jurisdictions that already have disproportionately high proportions of lower
income households." SLO City has the highest proportion of low-income households (to total
city households) in the County, and this shift in above moderate dwellings would result in a
small, and probably insignificant increase in the City's proportion of lower income dwellings
(although the absolute number of very-low and low-income dwellings would not change).
Cal Poly Jobs and Housing
Another issue raised at the December 12th meeting dealt with the jobs formula. Jeff Hook
thanked COG staff for recalculating the cities' housing need based on new job share numbers
and noted that the jobs imputed to SLO City still included Cal Poly employment --jobs located
outside city limits. There was agreement by SLOCOG and County staff that the City would
receive credit for 100% of qualifying Cal Poly campus housing. Ron De Carli, Executive
Director of SLOCOG, confirmed the Regional Housing Plan would include language to that
effect.
So while the City's base housing need allocation is still high, at least we would be starting from
a lower threshold and could take credit for Cal Poly housing planned and under construction —
two aspects that could help the City meet state law and achieve a certified housing element.
With 200 student housing units under construction, another 400 units of student and faculty
housing planned, the City will seek credit for as many as 600 Cal Poly housing units toward
meeting its housing need allocation. Even with the reduced allocation, the City may not be able
to fully accommodate its RHNA number in the General Plan need due to physical, resource, or
environmental constraints. Consequently, and as allowed by state law, the City's "quantified
objectives" in the updated Housing Element may have to be less than the RHNA growth targets
until the facilities and services to support that growth can be provided.
Council members previously expressed interest in reducing the City's assigned need by shifting
above-moderate income housing to other jurisdictions. The County's offer would effectively
achieve that end. So why not hold out for further reductions? Two reasons stand out: 1) with
the correction of the jobs data, there do not appear to be other technical flaws in the allocation on
which to base a credible appeal, and 2) COG has already adopted the allocation formula and the
overall regional housing need number of 18,035 dwellings. The County's overall allocation
number is driving the cities' and unincorporated County's high allocations, and the County's
overall housing need allocation has already been accepted and is not "on the table" at the
January 8meeting.
I- 3
Amendments to the Draft Regional Housing Needs Plan
Page 4
What Happens Next?
If the COG supports the proposed redistribution of dwelling units and approves the Regional
Housing Plan, COG must submit the Plan for HCD review. HCD then has 30 days to approve or
respond with changes. The cities and County have 90 days following a SLOCOG's final
approval of the Regional Housing Plan to appeal their allocations. This will require shifting
housing need among jurisdictions. Under state law, the overall regional housing need could not
be reduced. Within 60 days after the time period for the revision by the city or county,
SLOCOG must accept the proposed revision, modify its earlier determination, or indicate, based
upon available data and accepted planning methodology, why the proposed revision is
inconsistent with the regional housing need. If SLOCOG does not accept the proposed revision,
then the cities or County have 30 days to request a public hearing to review the determination.
While the process allows several months to appeal the RHNA allocations, such an appeal could
be problematic.. It would divert staff resources from work on the Housing Element, would not
address the key issue of the County's high overall allocation, and ultimately, is unlikely to be
fruitful. Thus, the City's proposed allocation of 4,383 — which can he further moderated by
allowing credit for Cal Poly housing -- is probably the best outcome possible given current state
law and the City's limited alternatives.
Where To From Here?
In correspondence with HCD (see Plan Appendices, Council Reading File), SLOCOG identified
resource growth constraints, technical problems and equity concerns with our County's assigned
housing need. Those concerns are shared by several jurisdictions in San Luis Obispo County,
and mirror similar concerns and experiences of other cities and councils of governments
throughout the state that have recently gone through the RHNA process. Fundamental concerns
with the regional housing needs determination process and state growth policies remain to be
addressed at the state level, and SLOCOG staff has already initiated reforms at the state level (see
attached letter).
By accepting the modifications to the RHNA numbers, the City can move forward with the
support of other jurisdictions in the County to address first the City's urgent housing need, and
second, to achieve much needed reform in the RHNA process at the state level. An appeal of
RHNA numbers will involve a potentially divisive effort to shift more housing units to other
jurisdictions. In so doing, the City risks losing the support of the County and neighboring cities
and the momentum for a united, regional effort to reform state housing law.
In the meantime, the City's actions should be guided by three goals:
1. Accept the City's RHNA number and focus efforts on the Housing Element Update to
comprehensively address the critical need for affordable and market rate housing in the City
of San Luis Obispo.
i
Amendments to the Draft Regional Housing Needs Plan
Page 5
2. Support SLOCOG's efforts and those of other jurisdictions to institute reforms in the
Regional Housing Needs Allocation process before the next round of housing needs
assessment (2005-2008).
3. Work to produce a housing element that can achieve certification to enable the City to qualify
for various housing grant programs, such as Proposition 46 funds (which we are not presently
eligible for because the City does not have a certified housing element).
In the final analysis, the City's housing goals will be determined through the update of our
Housing Element. This process will be accomplished through extensive community, advisory
body and Council involvement. The revised RHNA number for the City, coupled with crediting
Cal Poly housing toward meeting our housing need, will put the City within reach of achieving a
certifiable housing element that will respect City General Plan goals.
ATTACHMENTS
1. January 8, 2003 SLOCOG Staff Report
2. SLOCOG Letter to CALCOG Executive Director
3. Letter From San Luis Obispo County
JWUregionalhousingneeds/ccreport I-7-03B
�— J
_ Attachment /
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: JANUARY 8;2003
SUBJECT: Regional Housing Needs Plan(RHNP). Continued from December 2002
SUMMARY
This Item is a continuation of the Public. Hearing to adopt the SLOCOG Regional Housing Needs Plan.
The Draft Regional Housing Needs Plan (RHNP) has been in circulation since July 10, 2002. Modifications
to the plan have included incorporating the overall target of 18,035 units and adjustment of the formula to
account for each agency's share of countywide jobs. The RHNP proposed for adoption at today's hearing
includes a revised allocation incorporating a shift of 2000 "Above-Moderate" units to the County
Unincorporated area and a proportional distribution of the remaining Above-Moderate units to the cities.
At the December SLOCOG meeting the Board elected to incorporate the State's Department of Housing
and Community Development (HCD) determination of 18,035 new units for the SLOCOG region. The
attached Table A shows the distribution of the 18,035 units based upon the revised formula (utilizing each
jurisdiction's share of countywide employment rather than projected employment growth) and a shift of
2000 "Above—Moderate" units to the unincorporated County. The change in the formula shifting "Above-
Moderate" units does not alter the numerical allocation of "Very-Low", "Low", or "Moderate" units in any
jurisdiction and is intended to recognize the large inventory of vacant acreage parcels within the
unincorporated area. These locations will continue to be in demand for development of residences
consistent with the "Above-Moderate" category and will alleviate some of the planning burden on the
cities.
During the public hearing, state law (Section 65584) indicates that SLOCOG with either"accept, modify or
reject" proposals and comments from member agencies. The adoption of the RHNP is followed by a 30-
day appeal period allowing member jurisdictions to challenge the allocation of their respective assigned
share of the regional housing need.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff: A. Adopt the Regional Housing Needs Plan as amended (agenda attachment) and the
Recommendations included under Items 1-4 on pages C-1-3 to C-1-4 in the staff report.
C. Seek grants or local funding to continue working with member jurisdictions to develop
acceptable housing elements and review jurisdiction progress in accommodating units within
the respective Housing Elements in June 2003.
DISCUSSION
At the December 4th SLOCOG meeting County Planning and Building Department staff indicated that the
Unincorporated County could absorb a greater share of "Above-Moderate" units in the allocation process.
Since that time they have conducted a more detailed analysis of the County's capacity and have offered to
incorporate an additional 2000 units into the share of "Above-Moderate" units they receive in this process
(See Attachment A—Letter dated December 12, 2002).
The revised allocation was reviewed by Planning Department representatives from member agencies on
December 12th and was unanimously approved by those in attendance. The proposed redistribution of
these units is effected by Section 65584(x) of the Government Code which states in part "...The
distribution shall seek to reduce the concentration of lower income households in cities or counties that
already have disproportionately high proportions of lower income households..." We believe that the
proposed shift in "Above-Moderate" units to the Unincorporated Area will not result in a"...concentration of
C-1-1
-!.p
L �
Attachment
lower income households..." in areas that "...have disproportionately high proportions of lower income
households..." The allocation to each jurisdiction remains numerically the same in the "Very- Low", "Low"
and "Moderate" categories under this proposal - only the percentage distribution among the categories for
each jurisdiction is altered. Given the substantial increase in values of residential real estate over the past
decade the slight increase in the percentage of these units does not even begin to address the shortfall in
the need for units serving these populations. The proposed shift of assigned units recognizes the large
inventory of acreage parcels within the unincorporated county area. County land use designations for the
very-low, low, and moderate category units will of necessity be demonstrated within unincorporated
urbanized areas.
The redistribution of "Above-Moderate" units among the incorporated cities was calculated based upon the
relative percentage of these units among the cities under the formula as it appeared prior to the adjustment
of 2000 units to the Unincorporated County (i.e. Arroyo Grande had 12% of the cities original Above-
Moderate allocation and was assigned 12% of the cities adjusted Above-Moderate allocation). The
following table demonstrates how this revised assignment of units impacts the distribution and relative
percentages of each agencies assigned allocation by income category.
TABLE A
_....__ .__........._. .__.._._ __.._ __._._ .______ _...__ _.___ _ .__ ....._--
Proposed Housing Unit Distribution
2,000 Above-Moderate'Units Shifted to County Unincorpored Area
existing% Revised
Very-Low of Very. Orig.Very dory Low Low existing Original J20%
Low Low q° % %of Low Low%o Grande 310 20% 22% 26% 223 15% 16%i dery 345 19% 21% 25% 254 15% 16%Grover Beach 178 23% 23% 26% 142 19% 18%Morro B 185 30% 27% .31.% . 122 19% 18%Paso Robles 627 24% 24% 28% d67 19% 16%
Pismo Beach 1 150 1 24% 24% 28% 102 16% L176%
19%
San Luis Obispo 1,484 .35% . 29% .34%. 844 17% 19%
County Unincorp. 1,029 18% 21% 15% 778 15% 11%
Totals or Average 4 08 24% 24% 24% 2933 17% 16% 16%
i
existing% Original Revised Adjusted Ong e;%o{g Orig Revised
Moderate of Mod% Aevi % Above. Above Above- Above Above
moderate Moderate Mod Moderate Mod% Mod%
Arroyo Grande 259 18% 18% 22% 400. 648 47% 45% 34%
Atascadero 304 19% 19% 22% 456 739 47% 45% 34%' "
Grover Beach 166 23% 21% 24% . 200 324 36% 39% __. 29%
Morro Bay 129 1 19% 19% 22% 162 262 31% 37% 27%
Paso.Robles 521121% 20°- :23%" 651 1,054 36% 39% 29%
Pismo Beach 105 15% 17% 20% 1731 281 46% 44% 33%
San Luis Obispo 870 16% 17% 20% 1,1851 1 19 321yo 37% 27%
County Unincor . 929 1 19% 19% 1 13% 42841 2284 1 48% 45% 61%
Totals or Average 3,283 19% 18% 18% 7,511 7,511 40% 41% 42%
Adjusted Original
Total Total Difference
Allocation Allocation
oyo Grande 1,192 1,440 248
tascadero 1,359 1,642 _283 O
Grover Beach 686 810 -124 0
Morro Bay 599 700 Am
Paso Robles 2 2,6691 -4 H
Pismo Beach 1 5311 638 -107
San Luis Obispo 4= 5.117 734
County Uninco . 7 5,M01 2,000
Totals or Average 18MI 18 0
C-1-2
Attachment
Written Comments Received: (addressed at the December SLOCOG meeting and prior to the
redistribution of Above-Moderate units)
1.City of Paso Robles
The City of Paso Robles requested the allocation formula incorporate the use of 'Households', not total
population, in the regional allocation formula (this request was made prior to the revised formula
proposal).
The Methodology Committee discussed the use of 'Household Population' as an alternative formula
factor. The committee rejected this alternative and elected to maintain 'Total Population' as the
Formula Factor in the allocation calculation. This proposed change using households would reduce
the County allocation when compared to the revised formula.
Proaosed Action: Reiect the'pr000sed formula modification and support,the application of the original
adooted.formula with_therecommehded-modification to the Above-Moderate category.
2.City of San Luis Obispo
The majority of the City's concerns focused on the state's allocation of units to the region. The issues
regarding these concerns were addressed in the discussion of the state allocation at the December
SLOCOG meeting. The following list responds to the concerns expressed regarding the regional
allocation.
A. Inaccurate data for iob growth.
The employment figures have been adjusted based upon more precise job data provided by the State
Employment Development Department which assigns jobs based on geographic locations within city
limits rather than zip-code areas. The proposed formula utilizes the regional share of jobs in lieu of job
growth due to the limitations of the available data.
B. Formula based on 1991 — 1999..... a period of rapid iob growth.
The time period used is the same for all member jurisdictions impacted by the RHNP, therefore it no
more or less burdensome upon the City of San Luis Obispo than any other jurisdiction. The City has
allowed commercial development growth in the city in excess of residential growth levels. Significant
new commercial development.has occurred oris coming "on-line" (Redeveloped Promenade Center,
and Madonna Plaza, Best Buy, Petco, Home Depot, etc.); approved for development or about to
begin construction (Costco, Copeland's Center); or under review (The Marketplace project). This
issue is address by shifting the job portion of the formula to geo-coded data.
C. Fails to account for adverse impacts on the city's ability to provide public facilities.
The allocation of "need"for residential units under the RHNP is not based upon the current ability to
provide services. The ability to provide services is to be evaluated in the update of the city's Housing
Element and the City's ability to provide public services is a factor in determining the "Quant able
Objectives"that can be served in the plan's timeframe.
D. Fails to account for the availability of suitable sites.
The RHNP intent is to determine housing need. During housing element updates, each city will
carefully address its ability to provide adequate sites. An October 1, 2002 City of San Luis Obispo
staff report to the City Council indicated that "...an estimated 5,860 additional dwelling units can be
built under the current General Plan policies." This in excess of the RHNP allocation therefore it can
be fairly argued that the proposed allocation of 4,383 units to the city of San Luis Obispo is not
excessively burdensome. .
Recommended Action: The formula was modified to..recognize the .existing share of iobs within each
iurisdiction or their respective sphere of influence. Staff does:not recommend additional changes to the
RHNP—based—upon these cofTlmerits.
3.City of Arroyo Grande
The majority of the City of Arroyo Grande's concerns focused on the state's allocation of units to the
region. The state allocation of units to the region was addressed at the SLOCOG December 2002
C-1-3 `
i _g
Attachment /
�i
meeting. The City comments related to the regional allocation focused on the relationship of home-
based businesses to the proposed formula.
SLOCOG staff investigated the Arroyo Grande home-based-business numbers and found them to be
commensurate with the rest of the county. Since the existence and distribution of these types of
business enterprises exists proportionally across all jurisdictions there is not a need to adjust the
formula based upon this concern. The impact to the formula would not result in a significant change to
the distribution of need.
Recommended Action: Staff does not recommend changes to- the _HNP based'upon these comments.
4.Public Comment Received
Betty Wilhoit of Morro Bay commented that the income breakdown did not need to include Above
Moderate Units as the need is for Very Low and Low Income Units.
State law provides for the RHNP to address all categories of need. Jurisdictions are allowed to provide
for units in excess of the minimum identified in the RHNP.
Recommended Action: The Unincorporated-County_:has oroposed:Eo_accegt additional Units -in the
Above-Moderate_cateaory thus reduang_.the assiariment of these Units_to:the-cities: Staff;does not
recommend additional changes-to-the RHNP beyond this adiustment based'uponthis comment:
Continuing Involvement
Even as each jurisdiction is assigned their share of the total regional need in the RHNP there exists
opportunities to work with other jurisdictions in accommodating the overall goal of providing adequate
locations and the infrastructure necessary to produce such housing. Staff is proposing that jurisdictions
within each of the four Subregional Planning Areas North County, South County, North Coast, and the
Central Area (each area operating as sub-regional real estate market) work cooperatively to ascertain how
to best accommodate the assigned housing needs within their respective jurisdictions and to jointly
examine strategies for providing the needed infrastructure to accomplish these goals.
Most jurisdictions are still preparing their respective inventories of available sites and a sufficient number of
suitable locations and appropriate land uses may exist to accommodate the anticipated demand. The
challenge will be how to accommodate the low and very-low housing demand.
The PLACE3S Program currently being developed in conjunction with Caltrans and Cal Poly offers an
opportunity to work with member jurisdictions in the evaluation of alternative land use and housing
scenarios. Through this process we hope to be able to demonstrate creative and competent alternatives
that will become the basis for changes in local plans and ordinances allowing the type of zoning and
development standards that will result in development that can accommodate the goals and objectives
while still respecting community character and resources.
Toward these ends staff is proposing the Board direct SLOCOG staff to:
• Continue to work with partners in building the necessary components of the PLACE3S program.
• Work with member jurisdictions in the various submarket areas to ascertain if adequate and
appropriate opportunities exist to transfer a percentage of an agency's allocation to the Count or
another City pursuant to Section 65584.5.
• Evaluate budgetary implications and seek member agency contributions and/or grant funding to
support this program.
C-1-4
Attachment
I
� o V -� •� a7 � � 'a ie4 +a n o
g � CD a` z
Vi a a +�
III o = M X 0 0 0 N o
� v , = tootM CN p
Lq M I" Lq Lo M
CE
0 O a�.67 'O
_ L N p 67
N O v d z
O(q
�:O 'E II II II II II II II II II II II N , �
_ }
O V d a m
N O .c � m CN C4 OMcn OD LO LO
MM pp
4, 67 N 7 N N O OD O OD t'V
0 ccM
�O 3 U -a Q
ar + + + + + + + + + +
O .. > C ¢ _ m c N v a �
�+ N .� y
Lo
75 :3
.Q
E
Lr) LD LD Lo LD LD LD LD
Q 2 i O .N 47 i `
tel! � a). ozO z
V O 0C15 � d M =
�4M x X X x X X x X X
Qi
U O O m 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O
E Qc a s �x x x x x x x x x x
V .G Q
r O Co a D a a LDr. NMw -grM .TID o0
C
3 O t o LD m LD CVM M r O r
O N `o CD _
U) N O a t + + + + + + + + +
co 2 ar
Jm N r`67 CM co co co co Lo co co c.a w
CoCD o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C U-
Ox x x x x x x x x x
G ~ "- ^ o o e e o e o o
O 9 .^ LIOL�olz
O d! `7 c M r Nr W Ln N C
M U
Q
CL
CL
v O
aci s t v
a7 = V H u C O
Q A 0. 0 41 M
CD (D CD-0 = O m ` = O
E
O V j 0O O J = O
♦O.. O ty0 y i=O O 607
San .Luis_ Obioo Council of overnmehts .
P
,,noyo Gfimft: .
Regional Transportation Planning Agency
Grover Beach .
.00 Metropolitan Planning Organization Moro Bar
Piso RBich
San Luis Obispo Data Affiliate Pisnro each
ooald4�DeCuli'-EzecvtDirector Service Authority for Freeways and Expressways San Luis
Obispo County
Attachment
December 9,2002
Rusty Seliix, CALCOG Executive Director
112711th St., Suite 830
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Reform of the Regional Housing Need Allocation Process
�j1 ryl
Dear CALCOG.Delegates and Executive Director Rusty Selix;
Every Council of Governments (COG) in the state of California has had difficulties and complaints with the
Regional Housing Needs Allocation process, as it is currently defined under state law. This process,
administered by the state's Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), intrudes upon
local agency responsibilities and vests HCD with the authority to demand unreasonable targets for future
development without balancing resource capacity, environmental impacts, and economic realities.
It is the intent of this letter to begin a process of coalition building so that during this period - prior to the
next round of housing needs assessment(2005-2008) - real legislative reform can occur so that every city,
county and COG with not be left with the feeling that their local concerns are all but meaningless at the
state level.
Senate-Bill 910 (Dunn) deals primarily with reforming HCD's housing element review process and as
originally envisioned, creates fiscal penalties against jurisdictions unable to comply with state mandates.
Amendments to the bill were considered that would alleviate many of the concerns of cities and counties
while still maintaining its intent to make failure to achieve Housing Element.compliance extremely
unattractive. From the perspective of COGs, more influence in how population projections are used by
HCD to forecast housing need is needed along with greater coordination between Regional Transportation
Plans and housing forecasts. These issues were addressed in some of the later bill revisions. However,
the bill's authors and proponents were unable to gamer adequate support to move forward with the bill as
proposed.
If SB 910, or some form of it, is to surface again as Senator Dunn has indicated, greater attention must be
paid to the structure of how COGS must deal with HCD and the lack of planning applicable to local
conditions. We support the League of California Cities in their efforts to address the following outstanding
issues:
Implementation of the housing element and the ability of HCD to rescind compliance for any
actions taken by jurisdictions deemed by HCD to be out of line with state objectives
HCD review issues and the specifics of the process by which HCD approval is given
Conflicting State Laws, which may be directing cities to both plan for housing while
simultaneously limiting how and where housing can be constructed, due to resource constraints
issues or environmental concerns
Legal Protection for Local Governments which approve housing, yet often find themselves
embroiled in law suits from organizations in opposition to the type or quantity of housing being
provided
Lack of fiscal tools enabling cities to procure the resources necessary to pay for infrastructure
and services generated by new housing
1150 Osos Street.Ste. 202,San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 ♦Tel. (805) 7814219 ♦Fax. (805)781-5703
E-mail. slocog@)slocog.org ♦Intemet. hitp://www.slocog.org ,_
Attachment
The following list highlights areas of difficulty we and other COGS share. These issues can serve as
beginning points to ensure that the widespread concerns with this process are reformed. Cities and
counties charged with housing element updates using HCD and COG allocations has been the topic for
reform thus far. But legislative reform on behalf of COGS, who often find themselves struck between
fulfilling their statutory obligations at the state level while still answering concerns of their member agencies
locally, must also be addressed.
• Increased COG input for population projections used by HCD in determining housing need. In
terms of potential differences between local and state forecasts, the latest revision of SB 910
contains. a 3% threshold under which COG projections can be used while 10% may be more
realistic.
Consideration of resource constraints, not necessarily across the board, but at least those
identifiable as extremely costly to procure or where long term measures may need to be taken,
such as in the case of sewer systems or water delivery projects.
• Proportional equity should be part of the equation when HCD allocates housing needs to COGs
such that those allocations have at least some connection to urban services available and existing
populations. For example, SLOCOG, which governs the least populated county in the central
coast, was given an original allocation that exceeded those of much more populated surrounding
counties.
• Economic factors should also be considered by HCD, rather than purely demographic ones when
making determinations for regional housing needs. The economics of land prices, employent and
the housing market can hardly be left out of an equation designed to determine regional housing
need.
• Flexibility in the definition of."housing unit" needs to be achieved such that real relief, in
SLOCOG's case, that comes in the form of on-campus university housing (or senior housing) can
be credited to the jurisdictions which in effect are realizing more housing opportunities because
that pressure is no longer on surrounding jurisdictions.
Thank you for your attention and consideration in this matter. I look forward to CALCOG taking an active
role in addressing this important issue.
JQ40V-
Ronald L. De Carli
Executive Director
C.
Planning Directors
SLOCOG Delegates
t- ia
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING
VICTOR HOLANDA, AICP
DIRECTOR
Attachment_ 3.7
December 12, 2002 -
Ron DeCarli, Executive Director DEC 12 2002
San Luis Obispo Council of Governments _
1150 Osos Street, Suite 202
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
Dear Mr. Decarli:
SUBJECT: ESTIMATE OF ADDITIONAL ABOVE-MODERATE INCOME HOUSING
NEED WHICH COULD BE SHIFTED FROM CITIES TO COUNTY IN
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS PLAN
The purpose of this letter is to provide a better estimate of the amount of housing need
that could be shifted within the Regional Housing Needs Plan (RHNP) from cities to the
unincorporated county than the preliminary estimate which I provided at the December
4, 2002, meeting of the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG). This
information is provided as requested by SLOCOG during its December 4 meeting. At
that meeting, I suggested that a maximum of 3,500 housing units in the "above
moderate-income" category could be shifted from the cities to the unincorporated
county as a revision to the Regional Housing Needs Plan which was recommended for
adoption by your staff. This was based on a very preliminary analysis of the County's
General Plan and Growth Management Ordinance.
County staff is now recommending that no more than 2,000 above moderate-income
housing units be considered for the shift from cities to the county as an adjustment to
the RHNP previously recommended by your staff. We also would not oppose a similar
shift of a lesser amount, such 1,500 or 1,000 units of above-moderate-income housing
need. We understand that moving 2,000 above moderate-income housing units to the
unincorporated county would result in a total of 7,020 housing units being shown in the
RHNP as needed in the unincorporated areas of the county over a 7.5 year period
starting January 1, 2001. Of that total housing need allocation of 7,02Q units, 4,284
would be included in the above moderate-income category, 929 in the moderate-
income category, 778 in the low-income category, and 1,029 in the very low-income
category.
County staff also recommends that the housing need allocations to the unincorporated
county in the very low, low or moderate-income categories remain as recommended by
SLOCOG staff in its December 4, 2002, staff report.
COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER • SAN LUIS OBISPO CALIFORNIA 93408 • (805) 781-5600
EMAIL: plan ning@Co.slo.ca.us FAX: (805) 781-1242 WEBSITE: http://www.slocoplanbldg.com
1- ►3
Attachment �
County staff to SLOCOG re: RHNP Page 3
December 12, 2002
updated Housing Element documenting that the County has adequately planned for its
share of regional housing need.
A total of 5,944 net new units were completed in the unincorporated areas of the county
during the ten-year period from 1991 to 2001.. Staff estimates that approximately 200 of
those new housing units were very low, low or moderate-income housing units and
therefore exempt from the GMO. While the County provided financial assistance to
various other very low and low-income income housing developments (in addition to the
200 units mentioned here), those developments were located within incorporated cities.
This results in an estimate of 5,744 above moderate-income housing units completed
from 1991 to 2001, or an annual average of 574 units in the unincorporated areas. This
is well below the current GMO ceiling of 969 units per year. Also, if this annual average
of 574 units continued through the remainder of the planning period for the RHNP, and
we add in the estimates of non-exempt housing completed in 2001 and 2002 (from the
above discussion) it would result in 4,857 new above moderate-income housing units
(840+860+3,157), which is more than the 4,284 above moderate-income units in the
RHNP now under discussion. Thus, the RHNP now under discussion would not conflict
with the County's plans and ordinances, even when potential economic downturns are
considered.
In conclusion, if SLOCOG wishes to revise the RHNP previously recommended by your
staff for adoption on December 4, 2002, then the County Planning and Building
Department recommends that no more than 2,000 housing units in the above
moderate-income category be moved from the cities to the unincorporated county, and
that no additional housing need in the very low, low or moderate-income categories be
moved to the unincorporated county.
,;espectfully,
Dana Lilley
Supervising Planner
Housing and Economic Development
San Luis Obispo County Department of Planning and Building
cc: Members of the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors
� - I i
Jan :06 03 12: 47p CYnMEY HOLCOMB 805-594-0365 p. l
RECEIVED
JAN 0 6 2003
eu SLO CITY CLERK
Residents for Quality Neighborhoods
P.O. Box 12604•San Luis Obispo, CA.93406
COUN IL 2-CDD DIR
CAO Z FIN DIP
ITACAO FIRE CHIEF
January 6, 2000 9ATTORNEY zpwDIR Faxed To: 781-7109
ZrCLERK/ORIG 12 POLICE CHF
0 DEPT EAD 0 SEC[)IS� Z- IL DIP RED FILE
8' HA DIP
-- MEETING AGENDA
Re: Revised Regional Housing Needs Allocations/ 1.7-03, Item 41 DA D3 ITEM #16AS
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council,
It is encouraging to see that staff has been able to engineer a variety of reductions in the Regional
Housing Needs Allocation for the City of San Luis Obispo. They are asking you to endorse the
reductions, work toward reform of the regional housing needs process, AND to direct staff, in
conjunction with the Task Force and Planning Commission, to prepare a certifiable housing element
based on the unapproved, reduced allocation. We have the following concerns:
1. Even though the number of dwelling units has changed from 5,450 to 4,383, the issues have
not. There is still no discussion of what effect accepting either number of units would have on
the community in the way of impacts to our schools, our water supply, our air quality, the
traffic on our streets, and the taxes we pay. We wonder how an informed and responsible
decision can be made without that information?
2. It appears that even the reduced figure still exceeds our annual growth rate of 1% per year.
3. Staff points out in their report at Page 1-2, that the reduced number"is not a sure thing" and
at Page 1-3 they express a concern that shifting the 2,000 above-moderate units from the
cities to the unincorporated area of the County may not be supported by state housing law.
Approval for the shift would be required by the Board of Supervisors. The revised allocations
to the cities would have to be supported by COG and then finally approved by HCD. This
sounds like a very risky venture to us. What happens if the City says "yes" to the 4,383
number now, and HCD says'no" later?
4. The argument expressed on Page 1-8, COG Agenda, Item 21) and proffered by others "that
the proposed allocation of 4,383 units to the Co of San Luis Oblspo is not excessively
burdensome' because "an estimated 5,860 additional dwelling units can be built under
current General Plan Policies' is ridiculous. The 5,860 figure, which is contingent on the
availability of adequate resources, represents maximum build out over the remaining 12
years of the General Plan's 20 year life span. The proponents of this argument are suggesting
that we accept anywhere from 4,383 to 5,450 housing units within the next six (6) years,
with no regard for available resources. And, what they don't say is that if we satisfy the
excessively high mandate this time we are still subject to the imposition of another
excessively high mandate in the next planning period and so on down the line.
Jan�6 03 12: 47p cynNEY HOLCOMB 805-594-0365 p.2
JanuaN.6 2003
Revised Regional Housing Need Allocations Page 2
S. It is understandable that staff should probably promote the construction of a certifiable
housing element, however, council at the meeting on November 12, 2002 was emphatic that
was not to be the "goal' or a duty of the Housing Element Update Task Force. On Page 1-1
the CAO's third recommendation is for council to direct staff to work with the task force and
the Planning Commission to prepare a housing element that can "hoperulV achieve state
certification. And, on Page 1-4,5 it states that the City's actions should be guided by "three
goals' one of which is producing a housing element that can achieve certification. We believe
this language is contrary to the council's intent and directive with regard to the formation of
the task force.
In conclusion, we believe that you have a responsibility to the public to disclose the costs
associated with the approval of any number of additional housing units that are not in
compliance with the City's existing General Plan. We would also ask that you reaffirm that the
goal of the Housing Element Task Force is not to meet the"State Housing Quota".
Sincerely,
r
dney=omb
Chairperson, RQN
RichdSchmidt 4544-4247 Ma1/6/3 03:34 PM D 11
RECEIVED
RICHARD SCHMIDT JAN 0 6 2003
112 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93417M I
e-mail: rschmidt@calpoly.edu
January 6, 2003 VIA FAX
Re: Agenda Item Business 1, Jan. 7 Agenda: Regional Housing Allocation
To the City Council:
With respect to this item, I offer the following comments:
1. Directions to the Housing Task Force. Telling the task force, as staff wishes you to
do, to create a Housing Element that accepts the state housing mandate (how else do
we get one that can "hopefully' be certified?) would be a terrible mistake. Here are
some reasons why:
A. Such a housing element would rewire abandonina_major-portions of our general
plan which have taken form through 25 years of community consensus and citizen
contribution, including the growth management provisions, most environmental
protection provisions, open space/greenbelt preservation provisions, neighborhood
protection and enhancement provisions, circulation provisions, among others. Why
direct creation of a housing element which would cause such unpopular planning
chaos?
B. Were such a plan change to be adopted (which, knowing all of you, I consider
unlikely), it would go to referendum and be disapproved by the citizenry at large. This
would probably take place at the same time as a council election, and would color
that election's outcome. Why put the community through such turmoil?
C. Having the task force present such a housing element to the council would
position and pressure the council to make massive general plan changes. Do you
really want to be positioned in this uncomfortable manner by a task force of your own
creation?
D. Such instructions would also throw the work of the task force into chaos. The
members would argue endlessly whether this course of action really makes sense.
The members would fight over how to implement the undesirable, the unrealistic,
and the impossible state mandate rather than focus on making constructive
contributions towards shaping a plan which could actually be implemented. Such
instruction to the task force would be tantamount to throwing a monkey wrench into
their work.
suggested Alternative Instruction to the Task Force. The task force should be charged
with developing a housing element that is consistent with all other elements of the
general plan as it exists today. That makes clear what I think the Council wants: a
housing element that doesn't upset the entire planning apple cart.
Housing Needs, Schmidt to Council, Page 1
Richard Schmidt 4 544-4247 Ma 116/3 G3:34 PM D 2/2
2. "Endorsement' of housing allocation numbers. I suggest that the council "accept"
these slightly reduced numbers rather than "endorse" them. By endorsing them, you
would also be endorsing the housing allocation for both the city and county of SLO,
which by unanimous vote the Council has previously opposed. I urge you to continue to
be opposed to the unfair, outrageous mandate which was imposed upon us by
Sacramento bureaucrats.
Furthermore, have the numbers actually been reduced enough that you would want to
"endorse" them? I think not. They are still not reality-based, and the allocation for the
entire county is ridiculous as well. None of this merits your "endorsement."
3. Working "coo erp atively" with SLOCOG to change state law. Of course, continue to do
this. But is this enough? The letter in your packet from SLOCOG on this matter is pretty
milquetoast. I'd encourage you as public officials to do your own campaigning -- and
also support-building through your own networks of contacts in other jurisdictions -- and
not rely on SLOCOG. This issue is big enough it merits an all-out political attack.
Good luck with this.
Richard Schmidt
.0'COUN IL r2 CDD DIR
,6 CAO eFIN DIR
Z(ACAO Z FIRE CHIEF
RED FILE ZATTORNEY 21PW DIR
,O'CLERK/ORIG 2 POUCE CHF
M ING AGENDA o DEPT H Z REC DIR
DA ITEM # uS I T-�� e(RDLhUAL 2r IRIR
Housing Needs, Schmidt to Council, Page 2
K FILE
MEETING AGENDA
V'f pIGL1"o
BOARD OF SUPERVISORWE 7e3 ITEM #&s
COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, Room 370 • SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93408-2040 • 805.781.5450 /
W�
SUPERVISOR PEG PINARD
DISTRICT THREE
January 3, 2003
COUNCIL ❑ CDD DIR
RE: January 7,2003 City Council Meeting 3-CAO ❑ FIN DIRE-ACAO FIRE CHIEF
aATTORNEY ❑ PW,,_DIR. -
Proposal to change the City Council's adopted Goals [}CLERK10RIG ❑ POL"''' , F r_,
for the Housing Element Update
® DEPT HEADS ❑ REC:DIR:`,
gp, Oi/2 ❑ UTIL DIR`''
O—. Mja ❑ HRDIR.._...._. j
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members,
At the November 19, 2002 Council meeting covering the goals ofthe Housing
Element Update, Council discussion focused on three issues;
1. Council wanted preservation ofthe City's established neighborhoods to be a
" .. goal ofthe Housing Element Update
2. Council did not want to have a goal of producing "above moderate housing".
3. Council did not want to say specifically that their goal was to achieve
compliance with HCD `s interpretation of State Housing Mandate laws
because they did not agree with all of them
After public input and council discussion, The Council adopted the following
goals for the Housing Element Update(Resolution No. 9387):
` The City is updating its General Plan Housing Element with the goals of
expanding housing opportunities for very4ow,low and moderate income
households,preserving and enhancing residential neighborhoods,and complying
with state laws,including the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)."
RECEIVED
JAN 0 3 2003
SLO CITY COUNCIL
On page 14 and 1-5 ofthe current staff report, Staff states that the City's action on
the Housing Element update should be "guided by goals"which are not the Council's
adopted goals. They are:
"1. Work to produce a housing element that can achieve(State)certification to
enable the City to qualify for various housing grant programs, such as Proposition 46
funds(which we are not presently eligible for because the City does not have a certified
housing element)."
2. Accept the City's RHNA.number and focus efforts on the Housing Element
Update to comprehensively address the critical need for affordable and market rate
housing in the City of San Luis Obispo."(Does`market rate housing"include "above
moderate housing"7)
The CAO's recommendation on page 1-1 states;
`'Direct staffto work with the Housing Element Update Task Force and the Planning
Commission to prepare a housing element that can hopefully achieve state certification
based on the reduced housing need allocation and on respect for City General Plan
goals."(page 1-1, staff report for 1-7-03)
It should be noted that if"achieving state certification"is the goal ofthe Housing
Task Force, and the Housing Element is rewritten to achieve this,then it also follows that
the Land Use Element and other elements of the adopted General Plan would have to be
rewritten to achieve "intemal consistency of the elements".In other words,the HCD's
requirements for achieving state certification of the Housing Element would
effectively require rewriting and overturning critical Land Use Element and other
city policies which resulted from years of citizen committee work and years of
public hearings by the Planning Commission and City Council.
To understand the problems which follow the goal of `update the housing element to
achieve state certification",please read the attached letter in which HCD tells the City of
San Luis Obispo its interpretation of what the City must do to "achieve state
certification".
For example,please read page 6,which declares the City's Residential Growth
Management Ordinance a `government constraint' and "suggests"that the city change
the Growth Management Ordinance to a 5%growth rate. This would double the City's
population in less than 20 years.
That was based on 5,128 units. What is the growth rate for the current proposed range
of 5,117 to 3,783 ?(this range depends on whether or'not HCD will "count"including
Cal Poly housing outside of the City, and shi$ing above moderate income units from the
City to the unincorporated County... `not a sure thing"according to staff). Staff
references using "quantified objectives"`until the facilities and services to support that
growth can be provided". Would this require a major new water source, and rewriting
the current water policy? What are the costs to the city for this growth rate?What would
be the impact on air quality,traffic, schools, and police and fire protection?Would taxes
have to be raised to pay for these facilities and services to support this growth?
I strongly urge the City Council not change its adopted goals for updating the
Housing Element,and to know what the approximate costs to the community will be
to"meet the quota"before it votes on this issue.
Sincerely,
w � �
4TE CF.CA►IF.ORNIA r_BUSINESS.TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY PETE WILSON.Governor
FrY
fa
PARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
VISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
0 THIRD STREET.Room 430 y �d
i BOX 953053
R•.NiE\-r0.cA 94252-205.3
6) 323.3176 FAX(916) 323-6625
July 1, 1993
----.._.....
Mr. John Dunn ---- -
City Manager
City of San Luis Obispo
San Luis Obispo;-California 93403 -
Dear Mr. Dunn:
RE: Review of San Luis Obispo' s Draft Housing Element
Thank you for submitting San Luis Obispo' s draft housing
element, received June 1, 1993. for our review. As you know, we
are required to review draft housing elements and report our
findincs to the locality (Government Code Section 65585 (b)) .
Identified concerns were reviewed in a telephone
conversation on June 24 , 1993 with Jeff Hook, the City's Project
Planner. This letter and Appendix contain a summary of that
discussion.
The draft element contains much useful information about the
City' s housing environment and outlines an extensive array o
policies and programs. However, revisions are needed for the
element to comply with State housing element law (Article 10. 6 of
the Government Code) .
In :particular, the element should clarify the availability
of adequate sites to accommodate the City' s regional housing
needs, include programs to address the City' s constraints on
housing development, and include more specific program actions.
The Appendix to this letter outlines these and other revisions -_
needed to bring the element into compliance.-
We appreciate the City' s efforts to work cooperatively with
the Department to bring its housing element into compliance with
state law. We remain committed to helping the City develop a
housing element which addresses all of its housing needs and
enables the City to receive Community Development Block Grant
Funding to address those needs. We will be happy to meet with
the City again to provide additional direct assistance to the
City in revising its programs and policies to comply with State
law.
Mr. John Dunn
Page 2
We hope our comments are helpful to the City and we
appreciate the assistance of Mr. Hook during the course of our
review. If you have any questions concerning our comments, or
would like -assistance in. revising. the element, please contact
- = ar `Colloid of our.'staff at (916) 327-2644 .
In accordance with requests pursuant to the Public Records
Act, we are forwarding copies of this letter to the persons and
organizations- listed below.
Sincerely,
40000
Thomas B. Cook
Deputy Director
Enclosures
cc: Assemblymember Andrea Seastrand
Senator Gary Hart
Peg Pinard, Mayor, City of San Luis Obispo
Debbi Hosli, Administrative Analyst, City of San Luis Obispo
Arnold Jonas, Director of Community Development, City of San
Luis Obispo
Jeff Hook, Project Planner, City of San Luis Obispo
Jeanette Duncan, Peoples' Self-Help Housing
Kathleen Mikkelson, Deputy Attorney General
Bob Cervantes, Governor' s Office of Planning and Research
Dwight Hanson, California Building Industry Association
Kerry Harrington Morrison, California Association of
Realtors
--`—.___.—Marc- Brown, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation-
Rob Wiener, California Coalition for Rural Housing
Susan DeSantis, The Planning Center
Dara Schur, Western Center on Law Poverty
APPENDIX
City of San Luis Obispo
The following changes would bring San Luis Obispo's housing
element into compliance with Article 10. 6 of the Government Code.
Following each recommended change or addition, we refer. to the.
applicable provision of the Government Code. Where particular
program examples or data sources are listed, these suggestions
are for your information only. We recognize that the City may
choose other means of complying with the law.
A.. nousinq Needs;"'Resources and Constraints
1. Identify the City's projected regional housing needs for all income groups
(Section 6»83 (a)(1)). - ---- -
The Cizy' s projected housing needs, as reported in the
1991 Regional Housing Needs Plan for the San Luis
obisno City Region, for the planning period (January 1,
19.91 to July 1, 1997) are as follows:
Very Low 1,333 '
Other Lower 820
Moderate 11077
Above Moderate 1.898
Total 51128
2. Clarify the availability of land suitable for residential development for all
become groups, v:eludvng vacant sites and sites leaving potential for
redevelopment, and describe the relationship of zoning and the availability of
public services and facilities to the sites (Section 65583(a)(3)).
It is not possible to determine whether the City has
sufficient sites available to accommodate its housing
needs for all income groups from the analysis provided
in- the element (pages 38-44) . h'hile Table 14 clearly
illustrates the amount of vacant residential land in
each zone, it is not clear. how much land having infill
(i. e. , sites which are underdeveloped) or recycling
(i. e. , sites with older or decaying uses) potential is
also available .in each zone. To clarify this, Table 14
could include• a separate column which identifies the
amount of land having infill or recycling potential in
each zone.
The inventory should also specify the permitted
development density range. of each zone permitting
residential development and indicate expected
development densities based upon recent development
trends or on the basis of identified slope constraints.
This information should be provided for vacant sites
and sites having infill or recycling potential.
Since it appears the City will need to rely upon sites
having redevelopment potential to accommodate some. of
its housing needs, the element should also demonstrate
this potential by indicating the net number, type, and
density of units historically created (e.g. , during the
last five years) through infill, recycling of underused
or older residential sites, mixed-use developments, or
the element should estimate future potential based on
programs to encourage and promote such development.
The inventory should also clarify which sites are
located within the City,. (pr are .=r000sed7for annexat?on
within the planning .te-r oc} a id=- =ale --or-w3i-1--Have,-•
access to allof the essential facilities and-"services -- _ —'
necessary to support development within the planning
period.
According to Table 6 of the element, the additional
water supplies needed to accommodate the City' s
regional housing needs are expected to be available
towards the end of the current planning period. As a
result, the City could include sites in the expansion
areas in the inventory provided the element includes
specific programs to annex and facilitate the
development of such sites within the planning period.
3 Expand the analysis of the Cir v's land tcse conrrois, permit fees, and penTnit ✓
processing procedures; and analyze the City's buddbig codes and enforcement
procedures as potential and acrttal governmental conzstravirs upon: the
mavtenance, improvement, and development of housing for all income groups
(Section 65583(c)(1)).
a. The analysis of land use controls should be
expanded to describe and analyze zoning and other
land development regulations such as building
setback and height standards, on-site open space
and parking requirements, and design review
requirements for single and multifamily
residential zones.
b. The analysis of permit fees and exactions should
be expanded to describe and analyze permit fee
-" '- --"-"costes•-for various residential development
applicartions—(*e:g:—'tract map, conditional use
permit, zone change, environmental reviews, etc. ) . -
c. The analysis of permit processing procedures
should be expanded to describe and analyze
discretionary .review requirements and typical t/
processing timelines for various residential
development applications (e.g. , tract maps,
planned developments, conditional use permits,
site plan reviews, environmental reviews, etc. )
2
d. The analysis of building codes and enforcement
/ procedures .should describe and analyze any local
✓ amendments to the uniform building codes and the
City's procedures for identifying and resolving
residential code violations.
Where constraints are identified, the element should
include programs to- mitigate them or, where appropriate
and legally possible, remove them (see item C12, below)
(Section 65583 (c) (3) ) .
. 4_.-. ExDand-the anal wis of rhe.availability of financing and the cost of
corutntcrto�r.as-cr orenrial e
z'
or actual nonotmmental contraLnr u_on the
-- -p. - - --: a - —. - .. P ----
mavrtenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income groups
- (Section 65583 (a)(5)).
a. The analysis of the availability of financing
should describe whether financing is generally
available in all regions of the City and. whether
there are mortgage deficient areas in the City for
purchase, new construction, or rehabilitation
loans.
b. The analysis of residential construction costs
should describe typical developer costs for land,
r/ fees, materials, labor and financing for typical
single and multifamily developments.
5. Expand the anah�sis of the special hontsiig needs of the homeless (Section
65583(a)
The analysis of the City's homeless population should
include an estimate of the daily average number of
persons and families in the City lacking permanent
shelter. where possible, the analysis should describe
the characteristics of the local homeless population
(e.g. , single males, single females, families, mentally
ill, substance abusers, etc) .
The analysis should also include a count of the number
and type of shelter beds, motel vouchers, or
transitional housing available in the City to establish
whether there is a need for additional shelter -. -
facilities
helter - -facilities and the types of facilities-needed:
6. Analyze and document household and housing characteristics including
overpayment and housing stock conditions and expand the anah'sis of
overcrowded housing units (Section 65583 (c)(2)).
The analysis of overpayment should identify the number
and proportion of lower.-income renter- and owner-
occupied households overpaying for housing. For
3
example, according to the 1990 Census, 89 percent of
all renter households with incomes less than. 20, 000. per
year are paying 30 percent or more of their income for
housing (see enclosed data) .
The analysis of overcrowding should be expanded to-
identify the number and proportion of renter- and
owner-occupied housing units which meet the Census
definition of overcrowding (i.e. , one or more persons
.per:-room) . For example, according to the 1990 Census,
cant t Cityls._renter .households are
overcrowded compared with 1.9 percent of owner-occupied
households (see enclosed data) .
The analysis of housing stock conditions should
identify the .nunber of units in need of repair
(rehabilitation) and replacement (demolition) .
Where housing needs exist, the element should identify
potential solutions and resources to address the need.
B. quantified Objectives
Establish the maxi num number of housbng units that can be consaucted,
rehabilitated, and conserved by income category dtubtg the planning period of the
element (Section 65583 (c)(3)).
Chapter 889, Statutes of 1991, requires that cuantified
objectives for new construction, rehabilitation, and
conservation now be estimated by income category (i. e. , very
low-, low-, moderate-, and above moderate-income) . This
information mav be- illustrated in chart form; for example:
QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE
Income Level New Construction Rehab Conservation
Very Low=ln_come
Low-Income
Moderate-Income
Above Moderate
4 .
While Table 7 summarizes the City' s total housing production
objective for the planning period, the element does not
clearly establish the City' s construction objectives for
each income group. While Table 9 is labeled "Projected
-Housing Construction by Income Group" the text explaining
the table indicates that the figures represent housing
construction needs for each income group proportionate to
the allocation used in the RHNA plan, rather than the City' s ,
construction objective for each income group.
Programs _: ,:_ _:::.,:_.- 7.
1. Identify adequate sites which twill be made available through appropriate
zoning and development standards needed to facilitate and encourage the
development of a variety of housbng types for all income groups, hicludbig
multifamily rental houshig factory-built housing mobilehomes, and emergency
shelters and trauitiwnal housing. Where the btventory of sites does not identify
adequate sires to accommodate the need for all household income groups
pursuant to Section 65584, the program shall provide for sufficient sites with
zoning that permits owner-occupied and rental multifamily residential use by
right, bicludbng denuity and development standards that could accommodate
and facilitate the feasibility of Itousi ng for very low- and low-become
households. (Section 65583(c)(1)).
A development density of 25 or more units per acre is
typically needed to accommodate lower-income housing
needs (i. e. very low- and low-income households) . The
development densities of the City's R-4 and certain
commercial zones (e.g. , C-R, C-C, NU) provide
appropriate opportunities for lower-income households.
However, from Table 14, there does not appear to be
enough vacant sites available in these zones to
accommodate the City's total lower-income need for
2,153 units.
A density of 10 or more units per acre is typically
needed to provide opportunities for moderate-income
households. The City's R-2 and R-3 zones appear
appropriate- for accommodating this need. According to
T&Ble-I ,--triere appears to be sufficient vacant sites
------------- ' to accommodate approximately 460 to 770 units (one- and
two-bedroom units) , compared with the total need for
1, 077 moderate-income units.
Table 14 does appear, however, to identify sufficient
sites to accommodate the City's total need for above
moderate-income households. The R-1 zone contains
enough vacant land to accommodate a maximum of 1, 900
units, compared with the need for 1, 898 units.
5
Therefore, the element should include programs to
increase the availability of sites, which are
appropriately zoned, to accommodate the City ' s lower-
and moderate-income housing needs.. .
2. Address and, where legally possible, remove governmental constravtts to the
maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income o oups
(Section 65583(c)(3)).
The City'-s .,Residen tial-t owth Management-0rd na-mce -
prevents the accomz'nodation of additional residential-
development commensurate with the City's assigned share
-of-the-regional-housing need (see item._A-1,_.above)-._-
•According to the element, the Ordinance' s one percent
annual growth allowance will allow the City to
accommodate 1, 185 additional units during the planning
period. The City estimates that approximately 190
additional units could also be acco=. odated through
replacement housing construction and by proposed
exemptions for affordable housing units. The City' s
projected housing need for the planning period (January
1991 through July 1997) , however, totals 5, 128 units.
Therefore, the Ordinance is serving as a governmental
constraint which should be removed or mitigated. For
example, the City could mitigate or remove the adverse
effects of the ordinance by annexing additional sites
in the expansion areas for residential development and
exempting development on these—Zites -f-- Tn -ha
Ordinance. a City could also align the annual growth
Faance of the Ordinance with the housing production
opulation growth projections prepared for the City
e San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (i.e. , an
l growth rate approximating 5 percent) .
The City's proposed inclusionary housing requirements
(Program 1.22 .11) also presents a potential
governmental constraint to the development of large-
scale residential projects and should be._removed or
mitigated. As _structured, the prcg_am-wcz3.d—impose-a---- --
-50 percent--inch: ionary•-requirement (i. e. , 33 percent
lower-income and 17 percent moderate-income) . on
residential development projects of 50 or more units.
Unless much stronger financial incentives or regulatory
incentives are provided, the exceptionally high
inclusionary requirement proposed under this program is
likely to constrain the development of housing in the
expansion areas proposed for annexation.
6
The City should modify its inclusionary ordinance
and/or other development standards. For example, a 25%
inclusionary requirement (with 15t lower-income and 10%
moderate-income) , combined with density bonus or other
development concessions would be less likely to
constrain residential development.
The existence of other potential or actual governmental
constraints, and the adequacy of City efforts to
mitigate_ �.hem, cannot-be determined in the absence of a
complete discussion .and determination of .otential
constraints (see item A-3 , above) .
3 . Programs should include specific timelines for implementation and identify the
City depar m6zt or iiulividual responsible for implementation (Section 65583
(c)),
All of the City' s programs lack this information.
4 . Most of the programs should include more specific implementation actions
and demonstrate a greater commitment toward implementation to ensure that
the City can meet housing element program requirements (Section 65583(c)(1-
6)).
All program descriptions should be as detailed as
possible, specifying the objectives of the program,
funding sources and costs, and the steps to be taken by
the locality to implement the programs. Example,
include but are not limited to:
Program 1. 22. 14 : When will the City adopt procedures
to expedite development permits?
What amount of reduction in average
processing time is expected? How
many projects or units are expected
to be assisted during the planning_
period? what kinds of affordable
housing projects are eligible; does
it include development projects
subject= o.!?rgcr_am-1 .'22 .11?
Program 1. 23 .7: When will the City establish a
housing rehabilitation program?
What amount of CDBG funding will be
allocated for this purpose? How
many units does the City expect to
assist during the planning period?
The evaluation of the previous housing element 's
ptograms (pages 59-61) indicates that the City was
unsuccessful in implementing many cf the programs.
7
Several programs were not fully implemented or failed
to meet intended objectives (e.g. , programs 2, 41 5, 8,
and 11) _ Many other programs (programs 13-32) are not
included in the evaluation and, therefore, it is not
possible to determine whether these programs were
successfully implemented. Development of strong
programs which clearly articulate the City' s policies
and commitment to address local need and State law will
ensure that San Luis Obispo will be more successful
- during the current planning period.
As you ray-}chow,Government Code Section 654.00 requires
each city and county planning agency to provide an
annual report to its legislative body on the status of
--- - the local general plan and the progress in its -
implementation. Chapter 1441, Statutes of 1990 added
that this annual report must also include the
locality's progress in meeting its share of regional
housing needs (for each income group) determined
pursuant to Section 65584 . Chapter 889, Statutes of
1991 now requires that a copy of this report be
submitted to the Department of Housing and Community
Development within. 30 days of its receipt by the local
legislative body.
The City should establish a system for monitoring the
city's progress in meeting its regional housing needs
and implementing housing element program actions. The
City' s ability to effectively monitor program progress
during the planning period, and make appropriate
modifications, depends upon clear and measurable
program objectives. Therefore, the City should ensure
that its programs contain sufficient information to
make annual monitoring possible.
To assist the City in revising all of its programs, 'we
have enclosed excerpts of successful programs with
clear objectives and commitment from other localities.
We would also be happy to provide assistance to City
staff to facilitate program revisions.
5. Incicede additional pro,ams which assist the development of adequate lionising"— - ----
to meet the needs of low- and moderate-income hoctseholds (Section 65583
(c)(2)), and conserve and improve the condition of the existing affordable
housing stock (Section 65583 (c)(4)).
Following clarification of the City' s commitment to
implement proposed housing element programs and program
objectives (see items C-3 and C-4 above) , the City may
need to include additional programs to assist the
development and conservation/rehabilitation of
affordable housing.
8
6- Include an equal housui, opporaotiry program (Section 65-5583 (c)(S)).
A local equal housing opportunity program should
provide some means for the resolution of housing
discrimination complaints and should be promoted-
throughout the community. In smaller localities, this
may be limited to distributing information on fair
housing laws, and referring complaints to the district
office of the State Department of Fair :.Em�loy-men and
_ Housing or other public or nonprofit zgerici es--ern=ipied== - -= --:
to handle housing discrimination complaints. . .
D. Preservation of Subsidized Housing
Pursuant to Chapter 1451, Statutes of 1989, expand the
analysis of assisted multifamily housing developments that.
are eligible to change to non-low-income housing uses within
ten years of the housing element update (July 1, 1992) due
to termination of subsidy contracts, mortgage prepayment, or
exoiration of use restrictions (Section 65583 (a) (8) ) .
1. Include a cost analysis of the following:
• The cost of preserving all of the project units at
risk of losing affordability controls; and
• The cost of producing or replacing the units with
new rental housing with compatible unit size and
rent levels (Section 65583 (a) (8) (B) ) .
Costs can be combined for all of the units at risk
within the planning period; detailed cost analysis or
project appraisals are not necessary. If it is not
possible to reliably estimate preservation costs, it is
permissible to describe whether such costs are
anticipated to be higher or lower than replacement
estimates, and the magnitude of the difference between
preservation and replacement costs. .
Z. Expand the analysis of financing sources chcouldused to preserve units at risk of conversion during the
planning period. The analysis should identify the
amount of funding which could be made available from
the funding sources identified (i.e. , CDBG funds,
mortgage revenue bond proceeds, or the housing trust
fund) (Section 65583 (a) (8) (D) ) .
3 . Establish quantified objectives for the number of at-
risk units to be preserved during the planning period
of the element (Section 65583 (b) ) .
9
Y
Ideally, preservation objectives will equal the number
of units at risk, however, the statute acknowledges
that when a locality has determined that the potential
preservation need exceeds available resources,
objectives may be less than anticipated needs. Under
these circumstances, the element should include the
analysis used to establish the maximum preservation
objective.
4 : filet-i-may=pzogram_acLaons: o�=preserv-i3�g units: -at--'.risk:of conversion during'the-planni=ng--period--?rog-j�a.- -
actions should utilize the funding sources identified
in item D-2, above, except where the City has
---- -identirfied-other (more urgent)-needs--for.--these funding
sources (Section 65583 (c) (6) ) .
The element should include programs which clearly
describe the specific actions or steps the City will
take to preserve at-risk projects, including timelines
and the funding sources to be used. Actions might
range from regulatory and technical assistance measures
to providing direct financial participation
(loans/grants for acquisition and rehabilitation) to
preserve the at-risk units. Program actions should be
appropriately tailored to the kinds of projects at risk
(e.g. , local versus federal projects) .
It is also appropriate to describe the City's
responsibility for reviewing plans of action submitted
for LIHPRHA-eligible projects and advising tenants of
available assistance (see pages 23-25 of the enclosed
technical assistance paper: Housing Element Analysis:
Preservation of Assisted Units.
10
1
January 4,2003
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM Cada Saunders RED FILE
ME ING AGENDA
SUBJECT: Vox on the"State Horsing Quota" DATE' 7 dT ITEM
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:
Itis mumed by the public drat when a government decision can be cq=t ed to cost
many millions of dollats,these vill be cost estimates bd=a vox is taken by their elected
represcntatives.
When the previous City Council was faced with a similar vote on the "state horsing
quota"in the early 199os,the staff report provided the City Council with multiple policy
options and the estimated environmental and eeononomic costs of all three options
the vox vw t dzn There are none of these in this staff report or the previous one on this
issue.Shouldn't the City Council abstain from voting on this issue until it has this
infoarstion?
since e ,
E COUNCIL 7, CDD DIR
[fCAO ❑ FIN DIR
❑'ACRO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
[-ATTORNEY Cl PW DIR RECEIVED
0<L-ERK(ORIG G POLICE CHF
°°% a UT�DIR SAN 0 3 2003
7_, _ o HR DIR SLO CITY COUNCIL
Fila
P.O.Box 550
214 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande,CA 93421_
Phone:(805)473-5404
OFFICE of the MAYOR FAX:(805)473-0386
E-Mail:agcity@arroyogrande.org
December 12, 2002
PED FILE
ME -iNG A :ENDA
JULIE BORNSTEIN DA ITEM # L
DIRECTOR
California Department of Housing and Community Development
1800 Third Street, Suite 450
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Ms. Bornstein:
As I am sure you are aware, the San Luis Obispo County Council of
Governments has now formally approved the State housing needs allocation
figure for our county. On behalf of the City of Arroyo Grande, we would like you
to know that while we still object to the figures and the existing process in which .
they were developed, we will proceed to make a good faith effort to update the
City's Housing Element in accordance with all aspects of the law.
It is also important for you to know that we are committed to meeting the housing
needs of our community, particularly with regard to affordable housing. Our
objections have always been based on the fact that we believe the figures are
unrealistic given available resources, the requirements undermine the City's
General Plan, and the process is a serious infringement to local control.
However, the City is taking a proactive approach to the housing issue. For
example, the City's updated General Plan outlines incentives for production of
affordable housing. A "Local Housing Task Force" has recently been formed to
develop solutions to how existing constraints to affordable housing construction
can be addressed. A percentage of new construction is required to be
affordable, or the developer must pay an "in lieu" fee, which is then used to help
make other affordable projects economically feasible. As a result, new affordable
housing units have recently been approved and the City is working with other
potential applicants on future proposals.
In summary, while we will continue to oppose the State housing needs allocation
process, we are striving to be a leader in developing creative ways to construct
more affordable housing. Despite our differences in opinion regarding the
process, we hope for the support of your agency when moving ahead with
tangible projects to address what I believe are our common objectives.. We
would also like very much to work with you in the future to make constructive
improvements to the process.
L�OUNC L ❑ CDD DIR
20CA0 ❑ FIN DIR
AO El FIRE CHIEF
ATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR
V Q'EERK'ORIG ❑ POUCE CHF
❑ DEP�J EADS 13REC DIR
" ❑ UTiL DIR
y
0 HR DIR
1
JULIE BORNSTEIN
DIRECTOR— HCD
December 12, 2002
Page 2
Please contact our City any time you have questions or .would like to discuss
ways in which we can better work together to improve housing opportunities.
Sincerely,
.TONY FERRARA
MAYOR
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
c: Ron DeCarli, SLOCOG
City Council
City Manager
City Attorney
DEC 17 2002
C - I -- �1