HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/27-29/2004, PH1 - DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE I
counciMminsD� 1_27.04
j acEnba nEpont
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: John Mandeville, Director of Community De 1 p n
Prepared By: Jeff Hook, Associate Plann
SUBJECT: DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CAO RECOMMENDATION
A. January 27, 2004: Review the Planning Commission recommended Draft Housing Element
Update (GPA 33-02) focusing on Chapter 3, provide direction to staff on necessary changes or
additions, and continue the item to the January 29, 2004 special Council meeting.
B. January 29, 2004: Review remaining issues with the Planning Commission recommended
Draft Housing Element Update and Initial Environmental Study (ER 33-02), provide direction to
staff and continue the item to the February 24, 2004 special Council meeting, with a goal of
taking final action at that time.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
Updating the General Plan Housing Element is a Major Council Goal. It is a key step in the
City's efforts to expand affordable housing opportunities and is required by State law. Once
adopted, the 2004 Housing Element will replace the.current Housing Element adopted in 1994,
and guide City housing actions through at least June 30, 2009.
The Planning Commission has referred the Negative Declaration of environmental impact and an
updated Draft Housing Element to Council for final action, as required by State law. This
version includes changes made by the Commission since the preliminary Draft was issued last
August. The changes include recommendations l y the Housing Element Update Task Force
(HEUTF), and address comments from citizens, businesses, neighborhood groups, environmental
groups, other advisory bodies, and staff. The HEUTF final report is included in Appendix G of
the Draft Housing Element.
Once adopted, Chapters 1-4 of the Draft will comprise the Housing Element, with the
Appendices to be available as a separate Housing Element supplement. Chapter 3 is the policy
section of the document and as such, has been the focus of community interest and Planning
Commission work. At the first of three planned meetings on the Draft, staff suggests Council
focus its review on the goals, policies and programs in Chapter 3 by reviewing a special
"legislative draft" version, Attachment 1, showing changes made from the current Housing
Element.
If the Council can complete its initial review of the Draft Element at the January 29`h meeting,
staff can prepare a final draft document for adoption at the February 24`h special Council
meeting. The State deadline for housing Element adoption was December 31, 2003. State
Draft Housing Element Update Page 2
officials have acknowledged our hearing schedule and advised staff that the timing for adoption
is reasonable given the City's progress to date.
DISCUSSION
Overview
The General Plan Housing Element is the City's blueprint for housing development. It contains a
description of housing demand in the City as well as goals and .strategies for meeting this
demand. The Housing Element is being updated now for several reasons. State law prescribes
that an update to our current Housing Element be prepared. In addition, real estate values have
increased dramatically since the adoption of the current Element in 1994. The cost of housing
has far outpaced the ability of most people living and working in San Luis Obispo to afford it. A
community assessment of this situation and potential remedies is needed. Finally, an updated
housing element that is certified by the State will allow the City to compete for millions of
dollars in State housing grants and other forms of housing assistance for which we are not now
eligible, since the City's Housing Element is not State certified.
Updating the 1994 Housing Element was identified as part of the Major City Goals in the 2001-
2003 Financial Plan. During that fiscal period, staff started preparing the data for the update and
worked with the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments and the State to determine the City's
"fair share" of housing production. The current 2003-05 Financial Plan again identifies the
Housing Element Update as a Major City Goal. A draft update has been prepared and reviewed
.by the Planning Commission, with input from the Council-appointed Housing Element Update
Task Force.
The "Council Hearing Draft" is the third version of the Draft Housing Element Update. The
preliminary Draft was issued in August 2003. A "Planning Commission Draft" was endorsed
and forwarded by the City Planning Commission at its December 17th meeting with a few
additional changes and the recommendation that Council:
1) Approve a Negative Declaration of environmental impact, and
2) Approve the 2004 Council Hearing Draft Housing Element Update.
This action followed approximately four months of Planning Commission review including eight
public hearings, detailed discussions of housing issues by the Council-appointed Housing
Element Update Task Force, and extensive public testimony. The chairs of the Planning
Commission and Task Force will be present on January 27 to comment directly to the Council.
This has been,by far, the most detailed, inclusive review process ever conducted by the City for a
Housing Element update. The process reflects Council's intent to involve a broad range of
community views, and to craft an element that can help the City meet a broad range of housing
needs and achieve State certification.
The Architectural Review Commission and Cultural Heritage Committee reviewed the Draft
Element and their suggestions have been incorporated. About 100 community stakeholders,
including neighborhood, environmental, business, Downtown, and development interests, have
been informed of and participated in the update process.
� -a
Draft Housing Element Update Page 3
What's New in the Draft Housing Element
In 2004, San Luis Obispo faces a more challenging housing market than the one that shaped the
previous Housing Element. Higher housing costs and the State's economic recession have made
it more difficult for many households to meet their housing needs today than in the mid-1990s.
Consequently, San Luis Obispo's recommended housing strategy has expanded to meet those
needs by:
1. Providing incentives to encourage developers to build more affordable compact rental and ownership
housing.
2. Initiating rezoning of several areas suitable for higher density, infill housing.
3. Establishing a "First-time Homebuyers Program" to assist low- and moderate-income households in
purchasing a home.
4. Using a combination of State and Federal grants,affordable housing funds, density bonuses and other
incentives to accommodate planning for 4,087 dwellings during the period from January 1, 2001 to
July 1,2008.
5. Amending the City's Affordable Housing Standards to lower rent levels for dwellings intended to be
affordable for moderate-income households and individuals.
6. Using Section 108 Federal guaranteed loan funds and other funding sources to initiate development
of a major downtown mixed-use project with both affordable and market-rate housing.
7. Requiring most new multi-story buildings in the Downtown Core to provide housing above the
ground floor.
8. Providing special incentives to encourage downtown residential development, and instituting more
flexible parking requirements for specified housing developments where alternative
parking/transportation strategies exist.
9. Seeking new funding sources to help defray City development review and impact fees for developers
of very low-, low-and moderate-income housing.
10.Exempting housing affordable to moderate income households, and housing in the Downtown Core,
from Residential Growth Management Regulations.
11. Reducing obstacles to the production of small residential projects by exempting the construction,
remodeling or relocation of most developments of four dwellings or less from Architectural Review
Commission review.
12. Preserving housing in the Downtown Planning Area.
13.Amending Inclusionary Housing Requirements to provide incentives for compact, higher-density
housing and to increase support for affordable housing by new commercial development.
The recommended Draft sets new, stronger housing goals in response to the urgent need for
affordable housing and community calls for action. It builds upon housing incentives and
� - 3
1
Draft Housing Element Update Page 4
requirements in the current Housing Element to increase production. of both affordable and
market-rate housing over the next four and a half years. Like most small cities with only limited
public funds for housing, the City has relied on the private sector to meet a substantial portion of
its affordable housing needs. Increasingly, local governments are finding it necessary to assist
developers if adequate housing is to be built at prices that citizens can afford, and most effective
housing programs involve cooperative public/private efforts. Accomplishing even a portion of
the City's housing objectives will require the City to take a more active role in planning, funding
and promoting affordable housing than has been its practice. The recommend Draft Element will
be a key first step in fulfilling that role.
Planning Commission Action
The "City Council Hearing Draft" incorporates many changes from previous drafts issued on
August 17, 2003 and December 17, 2003. In response to the Housing Element Update Task
Force (HEUTF) recommendations and public comments, the Commission significantly revised
the Draft by adding, deleting, and modifying policies and programs. The attached Chapter 3
Legislative Draft shows the Commission's proposed changes compared with current Housing
Element policies. Overall, the Commission's recommended changes broaden the range of
incentives for affordable housing development, and provide more specific guidance on the city
housing objectives, particularly with regard to flexible development incentives and sustainable
site, house and neighborhood design.
Dousing Element Update Task Force
The 17-member, ad-hoc Housing Element Update Task Force met from January to August 2003.
The Council-appointed Task Force members represented a wide range of community
perspectives, including housing consumers, business, neighborhood, environment, social
services, Cuesta College and Cal Poly. Task Force members reviewed current Housing Element
policies and developed a report which includes numerous recommendations for new or revised
policies and programs to help address housing needs. The HEUTF Report is included as
Appendix G in the Draft Housing Element.
The HEUTF report was forwarded to the Planning Commission. During its deliberations, the
Commission reviewed the Task Force'.s recommendations and comments in detail. In response
to the Task Force recommendations and public comments, the Commission significantly revised
the Preliminary Draft Housing Element by adding, deleting, and modifying policies and
programs. The two issues where the HEUTF and Planning Commission disagreed are
specifically noted as text boxes in Attachment 1 — the legislative draft of Chapter 3. On the
whole, however, the final Commission recommendation reflects the official Task Force positions
at a high level.
State Review
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) reviews housing
elements for conformance with State housing law. Staff has received HCD comments on the
Draft Housing Element, and most comments were generally favorable. Assuming State
comments and requirements do not change markedly, it appears promising that the City will be
i `-C
i
Draft Housing Element Update Page 5
able to satisfy HCD concerns and achieve certification based on the structure and content of the
Draft Housing Element.
Once the Draft Housing Element is adopted, staff will incorporate any changes into a final
Housing Element, along with graphics and all necessary attachments, and forward the adopted
Element for HCD review. HCD then has 90 days to review the Element and certify the element
or respond with additional comments. Staff will continue to work with HCD to achieve
certification. This may include providing additional information or clarifying adopted policies
and programs.
Previous Council Action and Other Key Issues
In November 2002, Council created a 17-member Housing Element Update Task Force to
provide a broad perspective on housing issues and contribute new program ideas. Individual
Task Force members were appointed to the ad-hoc advisory body in January 2003.
In January 2003, Council provided direction to the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments
(SLOCOG) regarding the City's Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA). Council took
several actions and forwarded these to SLOCOG: 1) endorsed a City housing need of 5,117
dwellings, 2) endorsed 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, 3) endorsed counting new Cal Poly University housing toward meeting the City's
housing needs, and 4) directed staff to work cooperatively with SLOCOG and other agencies to
reform the RHNA process and State growth policies. Council also directed staff to work with the
Housing Element Update Task Force and the Planning Commission to prepare a housing element
that could achieve State certification based on the reduced housing need allocation and in concert
with the General Plan. The Draft Housing Element Update follows these directives.
In early 2003, Council appropriated $120,000 for EIR preparation and $35,000 for a fiscal impact
analysis as mid-year program changes. Based on an initial environmental study and .scoping
meeting held in August 2003, the Planning Commission determined an EIR was not needed and
that the initial environmental study adequately addressed potential environmental effects. The
Commission recommended approval of the initial environmental study at its December 17, 2003
meeting. This recommendation is further discussed on pages 8 and 9.
Funding for economic studies was included to address possible fiscal impacts of meeting
substantially higher RHNA numbers, an expanded City fee waiver program for affordable
housing, and to evaluate the potential economic effects of an expanded Inclusionary Housing
Requirements program. As noted above, the final RHNA numbers were reduced significantly
from the original SLOCOG estimates. Based on a preliminary fiscal study prepared by the
Finance Director, the Commission modified policies in the Draft Element to avoid fiscal impacts
and to seek grant funding to assist with City fee waivers or reductions for affordable housing.
The City's economic consultant, Mundie and Associates, is evaluating the economic effects of
the proposed Inclusionary Housing Requirements. Preliminary study results are expected by
mid-January.
I ,
Draft Housing Element Update Page 6
It is not recommended that the City proceed with a Housing Element fiscal impact analysis.
Preparation of such an analysis is discretionary on the City's part. It is unlikely the updated
Housing Element will result in significant change in fiscal impacts from the current element; and
given other priorities in achieving the City's housing goals, it is unlikely that adverse fiscal
impacts alone would guide housing decisions. Staff recommends the Council consider fiscal
impacts of the next General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) update. The LUE was last updated in
1994 and will likely need updating within a two to five-year timeframe. As part of the Mid-Year
Budget Review (scheduled for Council consideration on February 17, 2004), staff will
recommend the Council formally "un-budget" the balances remaining for the preparation of an
EIR and a fiscal impact analysis.
Council Review
Due to State requirements, housing elements are often lengthy. The Housing Element is both a
policy document and a community reference on housing and demographics. While Council's
review may include the entire document, staff recommends Council focus mainly on Chapter 3 —
Goals, Policies and Programs. This is the core of the Housing Element and is the main part of.
the document that will guide housing decisions.
The Housing Element is a policy and program "rich" document. It is, however, generally not
necessary or desirable to include highly detailed program implementation measures. . Most
programs will require some type of follow-up action and return for public hearings before the
Planning Commission and City Council. These actions may include General Plan, Zoning map
or text amendments, new or amended ordinances regarding housing incentives and standards,
development approvals, and new capital improvement projects. Consequently, most program
details need not be finalized in the Housing Element. Council members are dealing primarily
with policy direction, and in so doing, balance the need for clear, concise policymaking with the
need for sufficient guidance in the element's text to enable implementation.
Suggested Review Framework
Initially, three Council meetings are planned for Housing Element consideration. To help
organize Council's review, staff suggests the following outline:
January 27: Review Attachment 1. This is a legislative draft showing new, modified and
deleted goals, policies and programs. Council may work through the list item-by-
item, identifying concerns and providing direction on additional information or
changes needed. Alternatively, Council may choose to focus on the "special
topics" listed below, and discuss only those policies and programs requested by
individual Council members.
January 29: Review items in Chapter 3 not covered on January 27, Chapters 1, 2, and 4, the
environmental determination, and Appendices; provide direction to staff on
revisions, as appropriate..
February 24: Review Council changes to Draft, if any; take final action on the environmental
determination and Final Council Hearing Draft.
Draft Housing Element Update Page 7
Special Topics
Commissioners recommended that some existing housing policies be retained as is or with only
minor changes. There were, however, new policies and programs added that entailed
considerable discussion and in some cases, controversy. These are described below. Staff will
be prepared to discuss these in more detail at the meeting.
1. Rental Inspection Program, 1.3.3. Calls for the City to enact a Rental Inspection Program to
ensure that rental properties are properly maintained and comply with building and zoning codes.
Details of how the program might operate and be funded would be determined at future
implementation hearings.
2. Housing Affordability Term, 2.2.3. Extends the required term of enforceably restricted;
affordable housing units from 30 years to "the longest period allowed under State law", with
shorter periods allowed for shared equity and housing rehabilitation programs.
3. Inclusionary Housing Requirement, 2.3.1. The requirements have been modified to: 1)
provide incentives for the construction of more compact, higher-density housing by applying a
"sliding scale" for developments of 20 or more dwellings, 2) to shift additional responsibility to
commercial development to provide affordable housing by increasing the in-lieu fees from two
percent to five percent, and 3) to increase the in-lieu fee for residential developments in
expansion areas to more closely reflect actual costs of building affordable housing. The
inclusionary requirement for 5-19 dwellings would not change, and inclusionary requirements for
developments of 20 or more dwellings would be reduced or eliminated for compact housing, and
equal to or increased beyond the base requirement for larger, low-density housing.
4. Alternative Funding Assistance for City Fee Waivers for Affordable Housing, 23.6 and
23.7. These programs maintain existing city fee waivers and financial incentive's for very-low
and low-income affordable housing, and call for the City to pursue alternative grant funding
sources to enable the expansion of such incentives and maintain necessary funding for city
services to new and existing residents.
5. No Net Housing Loss, 3.3.5. The changes would monitor demolitions in the Downtown
Core (C-D zone) and the Downtown Planning Area outside the Core area, to ensure the number
of dwellings removed does not exceed the number built. Requirements to retain housing would
be triggered only when the number of dwellings removed exceeded the number of dwellings
built, starting with a baseline date of when the Housing Element is adopted. This approach
would apply on an area wide basis, allowing greater development flexibility.
6. Fair Housing, 4.2.4. This policy explicitly states the City will promote equal housing
opportunities for all persons, as required by State law. Staff added this policy to meet State
Housing and Community Development Department certification requirements.
7. Housing Variety and Tenure, 5.2.4. Provides that housing developments of 20 or more
units should provide a variety of dwelling types, sizes and forms of tenure (ownership or rental).
�^ I
Draft Housing Element Update Page 8
8. Housing and Mixed-use Incentives, 6.2.3. Expands the range of development incentives to
encourage housing in the Downtown Core, particularly in mixed-use developments. Incentives
could include .flexible density, use, height, or parking provisions, streamlined development .
review or construction permit processing.
9. Open Space and Affordable Housing, 6.2.6. Relax open space requirements in new
developments in expansion areas in return for affordable housing, provided such open space is
not specifically intended for protecting hillsides, creeks, or wetlands.
10. Flexible Zoning and Subdivision Standards, 63.8. Adopts more flexible zoning and
subdivision standards to apply to affordable housing or mixed uses, and expands the range of
possible changes to include flexible Floor Area Ratios for a specific site, reduced lot sizes and
setbacks, and increased lot coverage.
11. Balance Infill and Expansion Area Housing Development,.6.3.9. The City-should place
as much emphasis on ill and densification within City limits as it does on developing housing
in expansion areas. This would be done by rezoning_ residential areas to promote denser, infill
housing where appropriate.
12. Increase Residential Density Limits in Downtown Core, 6.3.16. Initiate amendments to
the Zoning Regulations to increase allowed residential density in the Downtown Core,(C-D zone)
beyond the current 36 Density Units per Acre.
13. Encourage Manufactured Homes in Expansion Areas, 8.2.3. Includes various strategies ,
to promote manufactured/mobile home parks in expansion areas.
14. Sustainable Housing, Site, and Neighborhood Design, Goal 9A et. seq: Expands upon
the goal in the current Housing Element, "Energy and Water Conservation"., to address "Green
Building" strategies and technology.
15. Local Preference, Goal 10.1 et. seq. Revises the current Housing Element goal, "Demand
Management", to remove previous policies deemed unworkable or objectionable, to emphasize
affordable housing benefits for people living or working in San Luis Obispo, and to encourage
Cal Poly, Cuesta College, and State institutions to address housing needs as part of any further
expansion.
Environmental Review
Community Development Department staff prepared an initial environmental study to evaluate
the potential environmental effects of the Draft Housing Element Update (ER 33-02). Based on
an analysis of 17 environmental factors, the initial environmental study concluded that adoption
of the Update would not result in any new, significant environmental effects not previously
considered in the Final EIR for the 1994 General Plan Land Use (LUE) and Circulation Element
Updates. Accordingly; the Community Development Director determined the proposed project
could not have a significant effect on the environment and directed that a Negative Declaration of
environmental impact be prepared.
Draft Housing Element Update Page 9
On August 27, 2003, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing to review the
project's initial environmental study to determine whether, based on the goals, policies and
programs in the Draft Housing Element dated August 13, 2003, the initial study adequately
addressed the project's potential environmental effects, and to conduct scoping to identify issues
needing further environmental study, if needed. Based on its review of the initial study, the
Commission adopted Resolution No. 5369-03 supporting the preparation of a Negative
Declaration (Resolution attached). In supporting a preparation of a negative declaration,
Commissioners found that the Update was consistent with the LUE and Residential Growth
Management Regulations, and that potential environmental effects of the LUE had been
evaluated in an Environmental Impact Report certified on August 23, 1994: Specifically,
Commissioners determined that the level of residential growth to be accommodated under the
Update was consistent with the LUE and Residential Growth Management-Regulations and was
not likely to result in the City exceeding its buildout population or its ability toadequately serve
new residents with infrastructure or public services.
At its December 17, 2003 special meeting, the Commission considered the initial._environmental
study and determined the initial study adequately addressed the environmental issues. The
Commission recommended that Council approve the Negative Declaration: of environmental
impact based on the above findings.
.1994 EIR on Land Use and Circulation Element Updates
In 1994, the Final EIR evaluated Draft LUE policies that anticipated a total of.up to 24,300
dwellings and a total population of up to 58,200 persons by 2022. It included 37 mitigation
measures and identified nine significant adverse impacts for which the-City, Council made.
findings of overriding considerations. In particular, Council noted that the LUE update could
result in conversion of prime agricultural land to urban use, that various street widening projects.
would be necessary, that there would be a change from rural to urban character, and that
unacceptable levels of service at certain major intersections and along most.arterial streets could
result. The need to accommodate a reasonable share of anticipated regional growth was cited as
the primary overriding consideration.
Quantified Objectives in the Draft Housing Element Update
As required by State law, the Draft Housing Element Update includes Quantified Objectives
showing the number of dwelling units the City will be able to accommodate in each income
group during the planning period from January 1, 2001 to July 1, 2008. The Quantified
Objectives anticipate the eventual of up to 4,087 new dwellings. Of these, 2,167 units are
targeted for very-low and low4ncome households to help meet the City's Regional Housing
Needs Allocation. Under the General Plan and Residential Growth Management Regulations,
these units are exempt from the one percent per year residential growth target. The Objectives
include an additional 1,178 dwelling units for Cal Poly University students, faculty and staff, to
be located on State-owned land, outside city limits. These units are not subject to city land use
regulation. Consequently, during the Housing Element planning period, (4,087 — 2,167- 1,178 =
742), 742 non-exempt dwelling units are expected to be developed. The resultant annual average
residential growth rate during the planning period is 0.51 percent. This is within the allowed
average residential growth rate of one percent per year anticipated in the General Plan.
l - 9
Draft Housing Element Update Page 10
Residential Growth Management
The General Plan anticipates approximately 21,360 dwellings housing about 50,450 persons by
July 2008. If all of the Draft Housing Element's proposed 2,909 in-city dwellings were built, the
City's total housing stock could reach up to 22,264 dwellings (including both exempt and non-
exempt units) and a population of up to 50,766 by 2008. In other words, if the number of new
dwellings anticipated in the Update were actually built, the City would exceed its total expected
housing stock (affordable and market rate) by about 4% or 326 dwellings, and its projected 2008
population by about 0.6%, or 316 persons. This variance is within the growth range analyzed by
the 1994 EIR, and is unlikely to pose significant environmental impacts.
The City's ability to achieve its Quantified Objectives is contingent upon 1).the City having
adequate funding to undertake the necessary capital improvements for .the expanded water
conservation and groundwater programs in 2005 and 2006, 2) adding the ,water resources
necessary to serve 2,276 additional households, 3) developer interest in building below-market
rate housing, and 4) securing local, State or federal funding to help fund the provision of very-
.low and low income housing. It is also.contingent upon private development decisions and
economic factors outside,of City control. While achieving these housing production objectives is
,theoretically possible given available land resources and expected water.and sewer:capacity*, it is. _
highly unlikely this number of dwelling units will actually be produced without significant local,
State or federal assistance.
ALTERNATIVES
State law calls for cities and the unincorporated County to update their housing:elements by the
end of 2003: While the City has not met that deadline, the State Department of Housing'and:
Community Development has assured staff that there is not a significant ;problem with the
proposed timeframe to complete the Housing Element.
Council may choose alternative review strategies, and may choose to schedule additional
meetings at which to consider the Draft. It may also, but is not required to, refer the Draft back
to the Planning Commission for additional changes, as appropriate.
Attachment:
1. Chapter 3 —Goals, Policies, and Programs (showing Housing Element changes)
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5369-03
3. Initial Environmental Study(ER 33-02)
4. Advisory Body Minutes and Meeting Updates (where minutes not yet available):
Planning Commission, Architectural Review Commission, Cultural Heritage Committee.
Transmitted separately:
-2004 Council Hearing Draft Housing Element Update (includes Housing Element Update Task
Force Final Report)
Draft Housing Element Update Page 11
Council Reading File:
1. Public and agency correspondence on the Housing Element Update
2. State Housing Law
JAMOMI-lousing Element Update\CARL-27-04HEupdate[3].doc
1 " � 1
- Attachment 1
chaptER 3
coals, policies ana puocuams
3.10 Overview
This chapter of the Housing Element includes the City's Housing Implementation Plan
for the period January 2001 to July 2008. The following goals;policies and programs are
based on an assessment of the City's needs, opportunities and constraints; an evaluation
of its existing policies and programs; and community input from the Housing Element
Update Task Force, community groups, public hearings, workshops and correspondence.
3.20 Summary of New Programs
Higher housing costs, population growth, and the State's economic recession are making
it far more difficult for many households to meet their housing needs today than in the
mid-1990s. Consequently, San Luis Obispo's housing strategy has expanded to meet
those needs by:
• Exempting housing affordable to moderate income households, and housing in
the Downtown Core, from Residential Growth Management Regulations.
• Providing incentives to encourage developers to build more affordable
compact rental and ownership housing.
• Initiating rezoning of several areas suitable for higher density, infill housing.
• Establishing a "First-time Homebuyers Program" to assist low-and moderate-
income households in purchasing a home.
• Using a combination of State and Federal grants, affordable housing funds,
density bonuses and other incentives, accommodate development of 4,087
dwellings during the planning period from January 1, 2001 to July 1, 2008.
• Amending the City's Affordable Housing Standards to lower rent levels for
dwellings intended to be affordable for moderate-income households and
individuals.
• Using Section 108 Federal guaranteed loan funds and other funding sources,
initiate development of a major downtown mixed-.use project with both
affordable and market-rate housing.
• Requiring most new multi-story buildings in the Downtown Core to provide
housing above the ground floor.
• Providing special incentives to encourage downtown residential development,
r
Chapter 3—Goals,Policies and Programs Attachment 1
and instituting more flexible parking requirements for specified housing
developments where alternative parking/transportation strategies exist.
• Seeking new funding sources to help defray City development review and
impact fees for developers of very low-, low- and moderate-income housing.
• Reducing obstacles to the production of small residential projects by
exempting the construction, remodeling or relocation of most developments of
four dwellings or less from Architectural Review Commission review.
• Promoting mixed-use development, infill residential development, and more
compact,higher density housing where appropriate.
This strategy combines requirements and incentives to increase production of both
affordable and market-rate housing over the next four and a.half years.
Like many small cities with only limited public funds for housing, the City has relied on
the private sector to meet a portion of its affordable housing needs. Increasingly, local
governments are finding it necessary to assist developers if adequate housing is to be
built at prices that citizens can afford. Across the U.S., it has become apparent that the
most effective programs involve cooperative public/private efforts to produce affordable
housing. This requires that the City take a more active role in planning, funding and
promoting affordable housing than has been its.practice. This Housing Element update
builds upon programs introduced. in 1994 to promote affordable housing and expands
incentives for affordable housing construction. For example, using Community
Development Block Grant funds, the City has established a Housing Programs Specialist
position to actively support affordable housing by soliciting grants, loans, and other
forms of assistance.
3.30 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 seven and one-half year period covered
by this Element. Goals, policies and programs are listed in top-to-bottom order, with
goals at the top and being the most general Statements, working down to programs, the
most specific Statements of intent. Here is how the three levels of policy 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 designers, decision makers and others who will initiate or review new
development projects. Some policies stand alone as directives, but others require that
z
r— c 3
Chapter 3—Goals,Policies,and Programs — Attachment 1
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.
In the following section, new goals, policies and programs are hi
.g!gjg!LteA revised
policies and programs from the 1994 General Plan Housing Element are in italics, and
goals policies and programs carried forward with no significant changes from the
previous Housing Element are in plain text. Goals, policies and programs from the 1994
Housing Element that have been changed or deleted are shown in s#iWesas text. Related
policy changes are grouped and separated from unrelated policies by asterisks***.
Housing Task Force recommendations that contradict the Commission's recommendation
are in ext boxes.
Goal 1.1 Safety. Providing safe, decent shelter for all residents.
1.2 Policies
1.2.1 Assist those citizens unable to obtain safe shelter on their own.
***
1.2.2 Support and inform the public about fair housing laws and programs that
allow equal housing access for all city residents.
***
1.2.3 Maintain a level of housing code enforcement sufficient to correct unsafe,
unsanitary or illegal conditions and preserve safe housing.
1.3 Programs
1.3.1 Provide financial assistance to very-low, law- and moderate-income
homeowners and renters for the -rehabilitation of approximately 45 rental
housing units and 45 single-family or mobile home units using Federal, State
r and local housing funds.
'1. 3.7> UsingSealeeF edefeA funds, •e as CO-ammait y Deyelepment Rleek
dw City will establish a housing r-ehabilitmien pfegam offer-iRg
s
er- eb&-& eenventional fffhmeing. Many of the City's older- Musing anits in
the D 1 and D 7 zeRes pr-eyide housiag- for- these en F..e.l .. W
e
3 _ I �
Chapter 3—Goals,Policies,and Programs —` Attachment 1
affeEdability er-iter-ia, the City will help pr-eseEve safe, ade"ate housing fer-
###
1.3.2 As staffing and funding levels allow, 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.
1.21.4 As staffmg and f�ndiRg levels allew, will be ex-paFA .
###
1.3.3 Enact a Rental Inspection Program to improve the condition of the City'-.
housing stock,
###
1.3.4 As funding allows, continue to support local and regional solutions to
homelessness by funding the SLO Homeless Shelter and Prado Day Center for
Homeless Persons.
1.28.6 The City .,ill suppeFt Wee! and runie aal. solutions to mooting needs ahomeless per-sons, and will e .i I.
i with other- ,
1.3.5 Create an educational campaign for owners of older residences informing
them of ways to reduce the seismic hazards commonly found in such
.structures, and encouraging them to undertake seismic upgrades.
1.23.13 The City will er-eate an ed a atie nal eampiign fer-owner. ef Older- msideme&
upgrades.
T7:3.4 The City shall u neiu suiser.ie• upgrades e,f elder dwel ifigs to r-ed no_tho
risk ef bedily hum and the less of heusing in an eaFth"ake.
1Z3.14 To assistst lexh,efhe. eholeln reteet their hemes f:efn eaFthauake
damage, the City will er-eat-e a finaneial assistame program feF seis
###
Chapter 3—Goals,Policies,drid Programs - Attachment 1
Goal 2.1 Affordability. Accommodate affordable housing production that helps
meet the City's Quantified Objectives.
2.2 Policies
2.2.1 Income Levels for Affordable Housing. For purposes of this Housing
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 Very-low, Low, and Moderate-income
persons or households shall be considered "affordable housing. " Income
levels are defined as follows:
Very low: 50% or less 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.
1.
affer-dable heusiRg is housing that is a&Fdable beth inkially aad.iR the long tafm to
a heuseheld ...at. as ..a..l;e,aa r- i me levet lReeme levels ffe defiRed as fellows. ..
Ver-y leywE GAOL_ r- loon of media. ho el.eld
Az i��dGTitte: _ Q1 % •e 12007_ of median t.euseheld : ..
Y'tbeve-fneder-at$: 1214 omer-e o f-...ed a...-heusehel.7 e
Housing Task Force Recommendation: Create two additional income categories -
Extremely Low, and Above Moderate Income (120-160% of median County income).
2.2.2 Index of Affordability. The Index of Affordability shall be whether the
monthly cost of housing fits within the following limits:
❑ For very low- and low-income households, not more than 25% of monthly
income.
❑ For moderate-income households, not more than 30%of monthly income.
❑ For above-moderate income households, no index.
These indices may be modified or expanded if the State of California modifies
or expands its definition of affordability for these income groups.
5
ILP A'In
1 r
Chapter 3—Goals,Policies,-and Programs Attachment 1
2.2.3 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 rehabilitation agreement with the City.
1.22.1 Fef: a pr-ejeet to qualify as "a&r-Elable housing" under- the pfevisions of this
affeFdable a least 30 years, or- as other-wise pr-evided -by StMe ,
90).
2.2.4 Encourage housing production that provides affordable housing for all financial
strata of the City's population, in the proportions shown in the Regional Housing
Needs Allocation, 2001 - 2008. For this Element's planning period, the
proportions shall be: very low income, 34 %; low income, 19 %; moderate
income, 20 %; above moderate income, 27 %.
1.22.4 Housing pi:eduetiea II provide housing a&Fdable te all fimasial
stfata are found in the City's pepulatien. Per- &As element's plafwAag , , . .
the pr-epeffieks shaI4 be these ef the 1990 U.S. Geftsus� very low
3.1
,.
low neeee, 18%; faeQeFateineeeae, 17%; abeve esederate ifleeme, 34
1 22 G The City should Wle stups that efieeur-age 1...,.cehelds or- living gr-e s o ffnedest
2.3 Programs
2.3.1 Amend the Inclusionary Housing Regulations to require that new residential
subdivisions and residential development projects meet the inclusionary
requirement by: 1) building the required affordable housing on- or off-site, 2)
dedicating real property, or 3) rehabilitating units with guarantees the units
remain affordable, pursuant to the Affordable Housing Standards, as shown in
Tables 2 and 2A, and as further described in the Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance.
6 In
I
Chapter 3—Goals,Policies,and Programs Attachment 1
Table 2
Inclusionary Housing Requirement
Type of Development Project
Residential, 5-19 Dwellings Residentia20l or Commercial
more Dwe
Build 3% low or 5% moderate Adjust base Build 2 ADUs per acre, but not less
y a cost Affordable Dwelling Units requirement per than 1 ADU per project;
E N (ADUs2), but not less than I Table 2A
ADU per project; Or
U o or
h
c pay in-lieu fee equal to 5% of pay in-lieu fee equal to 5% of
c building valuation.' building valuation.
0
r
Build 5% low- and 10% Build 2 ADUs per acre, but not less
Qa moderate-cost ADUs, but not than 1 ADU per project;
ez
less than 1 ADU per project;
HQ Adjust base or
Qo or requirement per
Table 2A pay in-lieu fee equal to 5% of
e pay in-lieu fee equal to 15% of building valuation.
building valuation.
'Developer may build affordable housing in the required amounts, pay in-lieu fee based on the above
formula, or dedicate real property.
'Affordable Dwelling Units must meet City affordability criteria listed in Goal 1.22.
3"Building Value" shall mean the total value of all construction work for which a permit would be issued,
as determined by the Chief Building Official using the Uniform Building Code.
TABLE 2A
Project Inclusionary Housing Requirement
Density Adjustment Factor2
(Density
Units/Net Average Unit Size (sq. ft.)
Acre)' Up to 1,201-1,500 1,501-2000 2,001-2,500 2,501- >3,000
1,200 3,000
36 or more 0 0 .75 1 1.25 1.5
24-35.99 0 0 .75 1.25 1.25 1.5
12-23.99 0 .25 1 1.25 1.5 1.75
7-11.99 0 .5 1 1.5 1.5 1.75
<7 0 .5 1.25 1.5 1.75 2
Including allowed density bonus,where applicable.
'Multiply the total base Inclusionary Housing Requirement (either housing or in-lieu percentage) by the
adjustment factor to determine requirement.
Chapter 3—Goals,Policies,and Programs Attachment 1
1.22.10 The City w4l amend its regulations to require dmt new deveiepment pr-9jeet&
iaePade a&F&ble housing units, with gaffafitees that they re
17.90),er- pay an in lieu fee to assist in the develepment ef affer-dable
•
Table 1
Type of Developmeot Pr-eje
fps)
ADU ger pr-ejeet; eF
in city OF
buildiRg Val
pay in lieu fee equW to 5% e
�se�iee ��1A�3
dim ! ADU .
in MpamieE of
Area eF
pay in lieti fee eq"to 15% ef 1 -velaetiea-
lwl"g valtmien
k
amounts,Developer- may build affbFdable heiasifig in the r-equifed
pf pay in lieu fiaebased en the abeve CbFmula.
3
Affer-dable DweHing Unks fEmst meet City a&r-dability er-iter-ia listed if) Goal 1.22.
3n
Bui4diag Value" shall Enean the total value of all eenstfuetion wer-k fer- whieh a pe
....ld be issued, as dere.-.. i ed by the Chief &aildiag Off ei l usi-Ing the ir.,if.,r>,t
Building
2.3.2 Maintain a city housing fund to be used to develop affordable housing units
and acquire land for affordable housing projects. To quay for such public
assistance, the development of affordable units must include guarantees the
units will remain affordable for the longest period allowed by State law.
Inclusionary housing in-lieu fees will be placed into this fund.
8
Chapter 3—Goals,Policies,and Programs Attachment 1
1.22.11 The City will establish a housing tFust fund to be used to develop a&rdabl-e
2.3.3 Review existing and proposed building and planning policies regulations to
determine whether there are changes possible that could assist the production
of affordable housing but that do not conflict with other General Plan
policies. Such periodic reviews will seek to remove regulations that are no
longer needed.
122.12 The City ,ill per-iodieelly review its buRding and planning regula ions to
see if -ehanges possiblethateek-assist the—pr-eduetien--e€
needed.
2.3.4 Adopt permit streamlining procedures to speed up the processing of
applications and construction permits for affordable housing projects. City
staff and commissions should give such projects priority in allocating work
assignments, scheduling, conferences and hearings, and in preparing and
issuing reports.
1.22.13 The City will adept pFeeedur-es to speed the pr-eeessiag ef applieatieffi --
eeffHnissieashould give see r—ejeets priority in aiieeating- wer4E
issuing-Fepef4s.
2.3.5 Review existing and proposed building and planning policies and regulations
to encourage "green building technology", and to allow construction of
personalized, unconventional housing types that reduce cost andlor energy
and materials consumption, provided that residential quality and safety can
be maintained.
T2-2.1A The Pity .ill review its building and plaFming regulations to fiFAway
t
allew eeatFuefien--iy owner- builder-s of perseaaiized, a^t:^ a
provided that residential "ality and safety effla be
9 � 'dru
Chapter 3—Goals,Policies,and Programs - Attachment 1
2.36_ Pursue alternative 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,
2.3.7 To the extent additional funding sources can be identified to offset impacts on
the General Fund, 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.
Retain current exemptions for very-low and low-income households.
1.22.15 The City will amead its r-eguiatiens te e*empt eeFtaifi a&Fdable housing
.
pat
2.3.8 Help coordinate public and private sector actions to encourage the
development of housing that meets the City's housing needs.
1.22.17 The City will help eeer-dinate publie seeter- and private seetef aefiefts to
2.3.9 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
and (2) subsidized mortgages for very-low, low- and moderate-income
persons and first-time home buyers, and (3) self-help or "sweat equity"
homeowner housing.
1.22.18 The City will enable i uanee effae lgage-mvv
""J e"
2.3.10 Amend Affordable Housing Standards to modify the method for calculating
maximum moderate-income rental costs, so that moderate-income rents are
proportionately consistent with rental costs for very low- and low-income
renters,to the extent allowed by State and Federal law.
10
Chapter 3—Goals, Policies,and Progams `-- Attachment 1
2.3.11 Amend development standards to allow second residential units ("granny
Mats') on most residentially-zoned lots by right; and to allow second
residential units on non-conforming lots and in planned developments without
the need for a PD zoning_amendment, submit to discretionary approval and
architectural review.
t.3.L2 In conjunction with the Housing Authority and other local housing agencies,
provide ongoing 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.
value,1.22.3 The City will pr-eses,e and ercpand its supply. ef affeFdable Feata4 heusing.
1.23.210 afeas, the right of fifst r-eflasal shall be e*teaded te the City
development.
Goal 3.1 Housing Conservation. Conserve the housing stock and prevent the loss
of safe, affordable housing and the displacement of current occupants.
eeeupai4s
3.2 Policies
3.2.1 Encourage 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.
1.23.2 The City shall diseeumge the demelitien of sound or. Fehabilitable e*istifig
1.23.3 Sinee elder—dwells can eften be relecatedand r-ehaftishedforz
-
,
and sinee
dwellings Enay offer- spatial and Fnater-ial amenities unavailable in new
dwellings, the City, in the iawest ef both eeenefay and housing iv
]I
Chapter 3—Goals,Policies,and Programs Attachment 1
3.2.2 Discourage the removal or replacement of housing affordable to very low-
and low-income households by higher-cost housing unless: (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
are provided, or (3) the project will correct substandard, blighted or unsafe
housing; and (4) replacement will not adversely affect a designated historic
resource.
1 23 2 Th Citty shell .1: hplaeement _*isti.. lower- hg by......,....,..a the �e of e .. ....st heusing
Wgher. east
(1) the lewer- cost unks at risk can either- be
e s
eaffief3veds
A .,:ties to these being Fe..lase.l o e e-anted .,s paA of the ., est
axxa caxxc.....^.. .., .._.,..^ .,_�_a _r___-_ �- ---^--- -- r-- -- --- new• r~-r---
###
3.2.3 Avoid permit approvals, municipal actions or public projects that remove or
adversely impact affordable housing, unless such actions are necessary to
achieve General Plan objectives and no feasible alternatives exist.
whieh femoveor-adver-sel3affeet e*Mag-a€ferdable heusiHg. The City
pfejeet, it shall assist displarsed residents with r-eleeatien eests and provide
ES
1 23 2 The City shell avoid ae ,t. el netin.ns ,� Meh o e a .,table housing
�
Units.
3.2.4 Encourage seismic upgrades of older dwellings to reduce the risk of bodily
harm and the loss of housing in an earthquake.
3.2.5 Encourage the construction, preservation, rehabilitation and expansion of
residential hotels, group homes, integrated community apartments, and other
types of single-room occupancy dwellings.
} 23 3 Th City shalla r th r• habil:tetien and of
ra ,� expansion
Fesidemial hotels and other- "es of single r-eefn eeeupaney dwellings.
12 � - �3
Chapter 3—Goals, Policies,and Programs Attachment 1
3.2.6 Preserve historic homes and other historic residential buildings, historic
districts and unique or landmark neighborhood features.
***
1.23.2 The City shah diseeufage the 4imimfien of existing heusing
***
3.3 Programs
3.3.1 When the City finds affordable unit removal is necessary in connection with a
municipal project, it shall help displaced residents find affordable replacement
housing and assist with relocation costs.
3.3.2 When the City permits private development projects that displace affordable
housing, it will require the developer to assist displaced residents find
affordable local replacement housing. Such measures may include: first
priority in purchasing or renting new affordable dwellings to be developed on-
site, assistance with relocation costs, or other financial measures.
1.22.16 The City will revise its eendefaipAum eefwer-siea regulations to diseoufage
,
are
***
3.3.3 Evaluate, and where necessary, revise building, zoning and fire code
requirements which discourage housing and encourage the conversion of
housing to other uses.
3.3.4 Using State or Federal grant funds such as Community Development Block
Grants, or other funding sources, the City will establish a housing
rehabilitation program offering low-cost loans or other rehabilitation
assistance to those who cannot afford or obtain conventional financing. The
purposes of the program shall be to remove unsafe, unsanitary or illegal
conditions, maintain safe housing, and preserve neighborhoods.
***
3.3.5 To preserve housing in the Downtown Core (C-D Zone) and the Downtown
Planning Area, the City will adopt a "no net housing loss" program by
amending the Downtown Housing Conversion Permit ordinance. The
amendment shall ensure that within each area, the number of dwellings
13 _
Chapter 3—Goals,Policies,and Programs Attachment 1
removed shall not exceed the number of dwellings added on an area-wide
basis.
nHe Mt hOUSiRg less"
i
maintained,units either- be in the ease ef Offi-re of pw;istift
e
heusing, be r-eplaeed en site or- neafby. n
DewRtewa" meaffi the area
betifided by Highway f the railroad i
1.23.9 ldewdfy Offlee (0) zoned afeas around the De%%temca Core AFea (a&
Fesidemial md r-edesignate them fer- r-esideatial use. The City she--
efflee uses, the City w4l apply a n n
,
require r-eplaeefaent of dwellings as a eendifien of effiee expansion OF
� n less"
p qeeES�
3.3.6 Identify residential properties and districts eligible for local, State or Federal
listing and prepare guidelines and standards to help property owners repair,
rehabilitate and improve properties_in a historically and_architecturally
sensitive manner.
3.3.7 To encourage housing rehabilitation, amend the Affordable Housing
Standards to allow a reduced term of affordability for rehabilitated units, to
the extent allowed bytate or Federal law,,but not less than three years.
3.3.8 Establish a monitoring and early warning system to track affordable housing
units at-risk of being converted to market rate housing.
1=3.11 The City will Fefeve r-egulateFy ebstaeles to ther-eleeatien--ate
Fehabilitaien ef dwellings that would ether-wise be defaefished beeaus
sites.-
1.23.12 In the past, .i n liiari niece rr RS and culler mstrietieas have bleeketle
r-eleeated dwel ings
Chapter 3—Goals, Policies,and Programs Attachment 1
,1.23.15 To e the reser.rntion e^d Yuhabilitatien of older heesi^R_ethete City
eeafem+41 use in eeAain zones.
Goal 4.1 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.
4.2 Policies
4.2.1 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 very-
low, low, moderate and above-moderate income households in the City's
quantified objectives.
' .s�"z' Within i'vxy develeped eeighber-heads, hetsing—a€€erdablete vafieus
###
4.2.2 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 appearance and basic quality to market-rate units.
' 7"-2 Within apaFaneat Er-
r.r� r-
units,and a&F&ble
uaks should net stand eut as being speeial or- k9fefier,
4.2.3 Very low-income housing developments, such as those 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. In
general, 23 dwellings should be the maximum number of very-low-income
units developed on any one site.
1.24.3 Pe subsidized Yer-y le iReeme housingre eetof s eh as these develop
by the City Housing Authority er- non profit e
general, -29 dwellings should be ahe Rmaxifffmm number- of subsidized lvefy
low ifreeffle units developed
4.2.4 In its discretionary actions, housing programs and activities, the City shall
affirmatively further fair housing and promote equal housing opportunities for
15
fir "
Chapter 3—Goals,Policies,and Programs — Attachment 1
persons of all economic segments of the community.
4.3 Program
4.3.1 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.
Goal 5.1 Housing Variety and Tenure. Provide variety in the location, type, size,
tenure, and style of dwellings to accommodate the wide range of households
choosing to live within the City.
weemmedate the wider-ange of heuseholds desir- ng to live within the
5.2 Policies
5.2.1 Encourage the integration of appropriately scaled, special-use housing into
developments or neighborhoods of conventional housing.
5.2.2 Encourage mixed-use residential/commercial projects to include live-work
and work-live units where housing, offices or other commercial uses are
compatible.
1.25.2 Whery heusiRg ean be eeaVatible with efflees er- ether- businesses, mixed
5.2.3 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.
5.3 Te p vide housing a pefPanities elese to aei
efeiendy, thete City will eneear-age iFAll hens ng above g ..A level ..et..a
5.2.4 In general, housing developments of twenty (20) or more units should provide
a variety of dwelling types, sizes or forms of tenure.
types,1.25.4 LaFge housing developfaeffts should provide a vafiety of dwelliag
16 I (�
Chapter 3—Goals,Policies, ..d Programs Attachment 1
5.3 Program
5.3.1 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.
4.3.1 neyiew . . development p ,.1s f cemplianee vAth rit , r- „lations and
,
to b'dper-seml4ed living effvir-efffaems suited to ,
###
Goal 6.1 .Housing Production. Construct new housing to meet the full range of
community housing needs and to achieve the City's Quantified Objectives.
Gefistmet new housing te fulfill the *needs ,ef, first, City ,
there. andseeeEW, these who wefk in the City and who would like to live
6.2- Policies
6.2.1 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 2,909 dwelling units between,January•2001 and July 2008. Cal Poly
University intends to provide up to 1,178 housing units on State land during
the planning period.
• avai1..hility e f adequate the /'pity .ill ..1., to aeeeR .,te up to 4,216
dwelling unks between june 1994 aFA Iune 1999, and te Ampnd thp.-%�WeFAW
Growth Management Regulations te e*efnpt the pr-eduefiefi of a-w dwellings
a r-dable to very low and low mneme heasehelds
6.2.2 New commercial developments in the Downtown Core (C-D Zone) shall
include housing, unless the City makes one of the following findings:
❑ Housing is likely to jeopardize the health, safety or welfare of
residents or employees;
❑ The property's shape, size, topography or other physical factor makes
dwellings infeasible.
17
V r 0
Chapter 3—Goals,Policies,_,d Programs - Attachment 1
6.3:Fe add to the City's residential land base, the City will emearage the pr-eduetien ef.
zenes.
6.3` 2 Provide incentives to encourage additional housing in the Downtown Core
particularly in mixed-use developments. Incentives may include flexibl
density, use, height, or parking provisions, fee reductions, and streamlined
development review and permit processing.
6.3.3 If City services must be rationed to new development, residential projects will
be given priority over non-residential projects.
,
6.4.2 City costs of providing services to housing development will be minimized.
Other than for existing housing programs encouraging housing affordable to
very-low and low income persons, the City will not make new housing more
affordable by shifting costs to existing residents.
§T-he easts to the City of heasing develepment will be faipiimized and equit"
• distFibu*d. The City will not ..,.,Le new housing '.•, a affordable by shifting eests
raring residents.
The Housing Task Force recommended that costs of providing affordable housing be
spread to the entire community by developing or reallocating sources of funding.
6.5.2 Relax open space requirements in Expansion Areas in return for the provision
�of additional affordable housing units beyond the minimum requirements
provided that such open space is not for the specific purpose of protecting
geographic features like hillsides,wetlands, biological resources and creeks..
is
1
Chapter —Goals,Policies., jid Programs - Attachment 1
6.3 Programs
6.3.1 Amend the General Plan and Residential Growth Management Regulations
(SLOMC 17.88) to exempt all new housing in the C-D zone, and new housing
in other zones that is affordable to very low-, low- and moderate- income
households, pursuant to the Affordable Housing Standards. In expansion
areas, the overall number of units built must conform to the city-approved
phasing plan.
1.26.7- -The City will affiend its Resideff" Growth Mamgefnent Fegulations-to
eFitertia f YeFy 1.... and 1,.... : a heusehelds.
6.3.2 Amend the Zoning Regulations to allow flexible parking regulations for
housing development, especially in the Downtown Planning Area, includin
the possibility of reduced or no parking requirements where appropriate
I limit occupancies to.persons without motor vehicles or who use
I
lternative trans ortation .
.3.3 Amend the Parking Management program to promote housing in the
Downtown Core by allowing flexible use of city parking facilities b
Downtown residents, where appropriate. Such use may include requirements
for parking use fees, use limitations and enforcement provisions.
1,26.9 The City will amend.its ppgulafiens te require that seme new housing-be
6.3.4 Specific plans for designated Expansion Areas shall include appropriately
zoned land to meet the City's regional housing need for dwellings affordable
to very low- and low-income households, including R-3 and R-4 zoning.
These plans shall include sites suitable for subsidized rental housing and
affordable rental and owner-occupied units. Such sites shall be integrated
within neighborhoods of market-rate housing and shall be architecturally
compatible with the neighborhood.
1.26.10 For,ffh�er- residential e*pamiea areas, the City,wili adopt speei
plans. These plaas will inelude &uffieieat R 4 zened land te meet the City's
households. These plans will inelude sites suitable for- subsidized refital
heasing and affefdable rental and owner- eeeupied heitsing. Such sites shall
19
1 - au
Chapter 3—Goals; Pokieb,r id Programs Attachment 1
based en the aff-erdability ef dwellings and other- publie ,
the same housing a&r-dabilky-
6.3.5 Specific plans should designate sufficient areas at appropriate densities to
accommodate the types of dwellings that would be affordable in the
percentages called for by this Element. Also, specific plans will include
programs to assure that the affordable dwellings actually will be pfoduced.
60.6 Initiate amendments to the General Plan and rezone commercial,
manufacturing or public facility zoned areas for residential use, to promote
higher-density, infill or mixed-use housing where appropriate. For example
areas to be considered for possible rezoning include, but are not limited to the
I sites(shown Lin Figure 1)L- �—
a} Little Italy district and portions of Broad Street comdor_ _^
b) Mid-Higuera corridor, between Fontana Avenue and Prado Road
6) 791/861 Orcutt Road
fid) Both sides of Ferrini Road, between Cerro Romauldo and Felton Wayl
e) 3730 South Higuera Stree
1642 Johnson Avenue and 1499 .San Luis Drive w(rezone vacant and
underutilized school district propertyi
Ll 030 Southwood Drive
6.3.7 Support regional efforts to establish a countywide affordable housing fund to
be funded through a countywide, dedicated revenue source rather than
diverting existing affordable housing trust funds. The City should manage its
Affordable Housing funds generated through the Inclusionary Housing
Program to assist affordable housing development in the City;--
6.3.8_Adopt flexible zoning and subdivision standards to be applied t
developments in return for the provision of affordable housing units or mixed-,'
uses. Such flexible standards could include floor area ratios modified for a
specific site, reduced lot sizes, reduced setback requirements, increased
building heights, or increased lot coverage; and should_ allow planned
20
Chapter 3—Goals,Policies,—id Programs Attachment 1
developments of less than 1 acre where otherwise allowed
3.9 Balance City efforts to encourage residential development. by focusing
much on infill. development and densification within City Limits as o
I of new residential land. The City will accomplish this b
considering amendments to the General Plan and Zoning. Regulations t
rezone residential areas to encouraize infill and densification, when
appropriate,
Figure 1
Areas to be Considered for Possible Rezoning
d
f
a.
I
b —
.�� t �
j
e
I
21
� - 3�-
Chapter 3-Goals, Policies-mi,d Programs Attachment 1
3.10 Seek opportunities with'otherpublic agencies and public utilities to identify,
assemble, develop, redevelop and recycle surplus land for housing, and t
convert vacant or underutilized ublic utili or institutional buildin t
housing.
.3.11 Develop multi-family housing_ design standards to promote innovative
attractive, and well-integrated higher-density housing. Developments tha
meet these standards shall be eligible for a streamlined level of planning anc�
development review. Developments that include a significant commitment t
affordable housing may also be eligible to receive density bonuses, parkin
reductions and other development incentives including City financi
assistance.
6.3.12 Financially assist in the development of 90 new ownership or rental units
affordable to very-low, low- and moderate-income households during the
planning period using State; Federal and local funding sources.
6.3.1` Actively seek new revenue sources, including State, Federal and private/non I
profit sources, and financing mechanisms to assist affordable housing
development and first-time homebuyer assistance programs.
6.3.14 Exempt the construction;relocation,rehabilitation or remodeling of up to fouu
residentialunits from Architectural Review Commission review.New multill
I housing may be allowed with "Minor or Incidental" or staff leve
architectural review unless the units are located on a sensitive or historicall I
I site.
6.3.1.5 Promote the development or rehabilitation of housing as part of large
buildings in the Downtown Core.
1.26.9 The City will afnead its r-egulatiom t8 teoir-e ,dla seme new housing be
Area (as deser-ibed in the Laad-Use QemepA). PaFkiag regulations may-be
whie
6.3.1.6 Initiate amendments to theZoning Regulations to increase residential density
limits in the Downtown Core(C-D Zone)T A
6.3.17 Assist in the production of long-term affordable housing by identifying vacant
or undenitilized City-owned property suitable for housing, and dedicate publiq
property, where feasible and appropriate, for such purposes I-
22
t f 33
Chapter 3—Goals, Policies,_1d Programs — Attachment 1
1.26.1.1 The Edna !slay Speeffie Plan guides development e€ 446 aefes in the
southem peftien er- the City. Adopted in 1983, the plan ineludes ealy 1
and n3edtnm density—kenSn3g—Abe>ic two-azacr-in--the—area— ffi--vvva
hoesingunits-are-possible-in the Edna !slay speeiPie-p=a=ng area. The City
Goal 7.1 Neighborhood Quality. , Maintain, preserve and enhance the quality of
neighborhoods, encourage neighborhood stability, and improve neighborhood appearance
and function by applying "New Urbanist"design principles to new developments.
Pfesefve the neighber-heeds and allow development.in-a
- +*o
f high q"iV.
7.2 Policies
7.2.1 . Within established neighborhoods, new residential development shall be of a
character, size, density and quality that preserves the neighborhood character
and maintains the quality of life for existing and future residents.
7.2L 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 develop,ingn mixed-use developments or iii
housing in the Downtown Core
7.2.3 Within established neighborhoods, infill housing should be located on
appropriate sites, but not on sites designated in the General Plan for parks or
open space.
7.2.4 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.
1.27.3 within city s, new r-esidefifial deyelepmepA should
23
Chapter 3—Goals,Policio_, mid Programs -- Attachment 1
7.2.5 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.
1.27.4 T/, er-eatienof-walled €€Fesideatial efielaves, or- e€sepefate-aneefmeetea
tFaetsis A' d beeause h t - eat F re ==tieof
l D "
Wit:}ening-neighbor-heads Neise walls be..o...,Assible where it ea,, be
demeass r A R. ♦ no ether- ff fi :t: ..ti.. reek "esa available
feasible.
k#+k
7.2.6 Housing shall be designed to enhance safety along neighborhood streets and
in other public and semi-public areas.
7.2.7 Neighborhood layout and house designs shouldromote walkin an
bicycling, and should preserve open spaces and views
7.2.1 S High-Occupancy Residential Use Regulations should be amended a'
necessary to achieve General Plan housing obiectives, preserve neighborhood
livability and reduce parking conflicts-
73 • Programs
7.3.1 Implement varied strategies to ensure residents are aware of and able•to
participate in planning decisions affecting their neighborhoods early in-the
planning process.
a7 6
Tl. !` .. 'ilWage FesidepAs to play lffgeE role in rr D
1.27.7 The City will establish_pr-eeedur-es te eneou-mg oeighber-heed kwelvement
in the planning —an-d- develepme sses.
7.3.2 Idents specific neighborhood needs, problems, trends and opportunities for
improvements. Work directly with neighborhood groups and individuals to
address concerns.
1.2.8 49beFe neeessaff,the city will ide....€., Weei€te Reighbefheed aeea
wig designate staff to wer-k dif:eedy with aeighbeFheed groups a
7.3.3 Help fund neighborhood improvements, including sidewalks, traffic calming
devices, crosswalks, parkways, street trees and street lighting to improve the
aesthetics, safety and accessibility within neighborhoods.
24 I r
Chapter —Goals, Policies,old Programs Attachment 1
1.27.9 The City wi4l -help ftmd aeighber-heed impr-evements where aeeessafy to
.3/.44 Residential development should promote defensible space and walkablel
ocially-interactive neighborhoods. Design measures may include providing
Seating porches,balconies,view windows or similar features,
73.5 Continue to develop and implement neighborhood parking strategies i
including parking districts, to address the lack of on- and off-street parking in
residential areasl
Goal 8.1 Special Housing Needs. Encourage the creation and maintenance of
housing for those with special housing needs.
8.2 Policies
8.2.1 Encourage housing development that meets a variety of special needs,
including large families, single parents, disabled persons, the elderly,
students, the homeless, or those seeking congregate care, group housing,
single-room occupancy or co-housing accommodations.
1.284r—Trhe City.will enneouf rge-housing-that-meets-the Speeia4 needs ef. families
with ssingle pffents, disabled ,
these desknkj eeaffegate or. ,
e hetising lifestyles, the el`le..lyf s
students, and the.hemeless
8.2.2 Preserve manufactured housing parks and support changes in this form of
tenure only if such changes provide residents with greater long-term security
or comparable housing in terms of quality, cost, and livability.
0.2.3 Encourage manufactured homes in Expansion Areas by;
I Encouraging developers to create owner-occupied manufactured hom
parks with amenities such. as greenbelts; recreation facilities, and
'shopping services within a master planned community setting. Sucli
I
arks could be specifically designed to help address the needs of those
with mobility and transportation limitations:�
b�Establish lot sizes, setback, and parking guidelines that allow for relativel
dense placement of manufactured homes_ within the master plane
nei borhood.
c)Locate manufactured home parks near public transit facilities or provid
public transportation services to the manufactured home parks t
minimise the need for residents to own automobiles I—
25 1 r
Chapter 3—Goals, Policies, ,d Programs Attachment 1
8.2.4 Encourage Cal Poly University and Cuesta College to continue to strengthen
student and faculty housing programs to lessen pressure on City housing
supply and transportation systems to meet both existing and future needs,
consistent with the Cal Poly Student Housing Needs Study recommendations.
City housing supply and tFanspeftafien.systems, eensistent wM the Cal Poll'
'8.2.5 Strengthen the role of on-campus housing by encouraging Cal Poly Universi
Ito require entering freshmen students to live on campus during their first year
8.2.6 Fraternities and sororities should be located on the Cal Poly University
campus. Until that is possible, they should be located in Medium-High and
High Density residential zones.
8.3.4 Fr- to ..Baia. ffind r r-:ties sheald he leeated en the Cal Pel::_I rAyercity e.... pa .
URW that is possible, they should be eeaeefAmted in high density r-esidmAial
zones adjaeont to the eaWus rather- than dispeFsed dwougheut the City.
8.2.7 Special-needs living facilities should be dispersed throughout the City rather
than concentrated in one district.
8.3 Programs
8.3.1 As funding allows, support local and regional solutions to meeting the needs
of the homeless and continue to support,jointly with other agencies, shelters
for the homeless and for displaced women and children.
8.3.2 Continue the mobile home rent stabilization program to minimize increases in
the cost of mobile home park rents.
8.3.3 Identify sites in specified expansion areas suitable for tenant-owned mobile-
home parks, cooperative housing, manufactured housing or other types of
housing that meet special needs.
8.3.4 Advocate developing non-dormitory housing on the Cal Poly University
campus and refurbishing existing campus housing and its associated programs
to make campus living more attractive and affordable.
8.3.5 Work with Cal Poly University Administration to secure designation of on-
26 l I
Chapter 3—Goals,Policies,mid Programs Attachment I
campus fraternity/sorority living groups.
with f 1 Pell T Tniye.. '�..- A A
�. l9 pl3e E4E�bY}l� we�lc �Yia: cmTvrJ-vza�grm�-z,dffAm cxvirty oaomc
designat;ien Of en e-aWus living—groups In the sae ter-
ren City peh . City 1. a Piens suitable fe. f eA «' a •a'
_, ..J r_ —J "__J ...�»........ ............... .... ....w.u.u...a a..w yva vaauvo
will be vel-ned. Zeningr-egul tieFi�•l, be-im§ea cvicStfiet the-neeat
xrnaeampus
> .
8.3.6 Jointly develop and adopt a student housing plan and "good neighbor
program" with Cal Poly University, Cuesta College and City residents. The
program would seek to improve communication and cooperation between the
City and the schools, set student housing objectives and establish clear,
effective standards for student housing in residential neighborhoods.
Goal 9.1 Sustainable Housing, Site, and Neighborhood Design. As pan of
its overall commitment to quality of life for its citizens, and to maintaining environmental
quality, the City encourages housing that is resource-conserving, healthful, economical to
live in, environmentally benign, and recyclable when demolished.
Gaal 1.29. Ener-gy and Water- Pr-eduee housing—that is
..vv..vuuvw to vvvuyy weuisw o o - -
9.2 Policies
9.2.1 Residential developments should promote sustainability in their design,
placement, and use. Sustainability canbe promoted through a variety
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 ofener t l
I or that cause significant,adverse environmental,impacts[—
"corporate renewable energy features into new homes, including passive
solar design, solar hot water, solar powers and natural ventilation and
coo, ling
219=1 Minimize thermal island effects through reduction of heat-absorbing pavement
and increased tree shading. —
z7 1 - 3g
Chapter 3—Goals,Policies,_ad Programs Attachment 1
a Avoid building material's that may contribute to health problems through
the release of gasses or glass fibers into indoor air,
J Design dwellings for quiet, indoors and out for both.the mental and
physical health of residents-
0 Design dwellings economical to live in because of reduced unlit bills to
cost maintenance and operation, and improved occupant health(��
1.29.0 Use construction materials and methods that maximize the recyclability of a
building's partsF
J Educate public, staff, and builders to the advantages and approaches'o
' _1
sustainable desi and thereb develo consumer demand for sustainable
housin
D 1 ty will consider ado tin a sustainable development ratio s stem such
as the LEED program
.2.2 1Residential site, subdivision,and neighborhood designs should be coordinated
to make residential sustainability work. Some ways to do this include��
Design subdivisions to maximize solar access for each dwelling
b, Design sites so residents have usable outdoor space with access to b
sbot
un and shade
c).Adopt street and access way standards that reduce the amount o
impermeable surface devoted to vehicular use.
d�Use neighborhood retention basins topurify street runoff prior to its
entering creeks..Such basins should be designed to be attractive, visua
and functional amenities in the dry season. Unsightlyz fenced-off retention
basins should beavoided. +
J Encourage cluster development with dwellings grouped around,
significantly-sized, shared open space in return for City approval o£
smaller individual lots,
28
Chapter 3—Goals,Policie�,._id Programs Attachment 1
f,)Use landscape buffers,to separate neighborhoods of all densities from
heavily trafficked streets and hi ways9
0.23 Preserve the physical neighborhood qualities in the Downtown Core tha
contribute to sustainability. Some ways to do this include,
1.29:1 Maintain the overall scale,.density and architectural character of olde
neighborhoods surrounding the Downtown Core,thereby preserving close
living environments appealing to people who choose to live close to their jobs
b Encourage the maintenance and rehabilitation of historic housin stock
.2A To promote energy conservation anda cleaner environment,encourage th
development of dwellings with energy=efficient designs;utilizing passive and
active solar features, and the use of energy Saving techniques_that exceed
I prescn�l5ed by State law_
.29 5 Actively promote water conservation to lessen the need for capital-intensiv
water source develo men which could considerabl increase the cost of
housin
,
utihziRg passive -
teehpAques that erweed the mi i ibed by State 1-
1.29.2 [a order- te lessen the need fOF eapital ipAeasi*e water- seur-ee develepfflepA w
93 Programs
9.3.1 Educate planning and building staff and citizen review bodies on energy
conservation issues, including the City's energy conservation policies and
instruct that they work with applicants to achieve the housing goals that
conserve energy.
9.3.2 Revise the Energy Conservation Element to address residential energy
conservation for both new and existing dwellings. Disseminate this
information to the public.
and heuses as well as eendefrAfff'Was.
29 - !o
1 (�
Chapter 3—Goals,Policie-.,_id Programs Attachment 1
9.3.3 Evaluate present solar siting and access regulations to determine if they
provide assurance of long-term solar access for new or remodeled housing and
for adjacent properties, and revise regulations found to be inadequate.
publie, and ineefper-ate its key features We City eaefgy eeaseFvati
pehey.
L29.7 Continue, and expaad, .the Givy's subsidized PhHnbing mtFefk program uati4
all e...st:.... A..ell: s have been et.-e fiaed
� _
with plumbing Fetfefits.
Goal 10.1 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.
deffktad te ffhi*kr&e heusing eppeFtuaities fer-these who live or- work in the City.
10.2 Policies
10.2.1 Administer City housing programs and benefits,. such as First Time
Homebuyer assistance or affordable housing lotteries, to give preference to
persons living or working in the City or within the City's Urban Reserve and
'to persons living in San Luis Obispo Count
0.22 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 b
J Establishing standardsfor appropriate student densities in nei borhoo ss
near Campus
J Promoting homeownership for academic faculty and staff in Low-Dens_ity
Residential neighborhoods near Campus; and
pc Encouraging and artici atin in the revitalization of de aded
neighborhoods,
,1.39.i The-City will disee..mge aefiy:t:es ..,Web aggr-a ate the :...b l.,....e between
30
t - 41
„ 4 1 i � (
Chapter 3—Goals,Policies, id Programs Attachment 1
efnpleyffiefit
housing mafketmafes-
and industfial development.
1.30.3 The City will seek to faif�mize e*paffiiea of housing demnd and esealatien
of housing eests due te per-seffi beiRg entieed to move &em ether- areas.
•
10.3 Programs
10.3.1 Work with the County of San Luis Obispo to mitigate housing impacts on the
City due to significant expansion of employment in the unincorporated areas
adjacent to the City. Such mitigation might include, for example, County. .
participation and support for Inclusionary Housing Programs.
1.30.6 The Gi�z will work with the County ef San Luis Obispo to diseeuFag0 :..'-
10.3.2 Encourage residential developers to promote their projects within the San Luis..
Obispo housing market area (San Luis Obispo County)first.
pr-ejeets epAy within the housing faar-k-et aFea (San Luis Obispe Geunty).
10.3.3 Advocate the establishment of a link between enrollment growth and the
expansion of campus housing programs at Cal Poly University and Cuesta
College to reduce pressure on the City's housing supply.
10.3.4 Advocate that-further expansion of State institutions such as the California
Men's Colony should include adequate provisions by the State for providing
additional housing for new employees.
east and supply as pai4 of any pr-epesals to designae addifie" land
. ,
31
Chapter 3—Goals,Policie_, -iid Programs Attachment 1
1.30.11 he Citywill--eensidef amending itsgFew
Goal 11.1 Suitability. Develop and retain housing on sites that are suitable for that
purpose.
11.2 Policies
11.2.1 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 will be discouraged.
11.2.2 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 wildfire 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.
1 .7 The City should of p it development of housing on a e if o 0 0 ..
eenflietswMgoals er--pelieies of this Element, other- G ne...l Plan*
Elements, or-with other- eeffaffuai�y geals.
1.31.3 The City should prevent now heusiRg develepment an sites that sheWd be
1.31.4 The City sheuld diseeufage r-edevelopmepA of sites where th
er- r-ehabilitable housing is well suited te the needs ef lew inee
,
elderly, or- disabled per-sem, uffless an e"iva4eat fmfnberr ef new
eempaFable in affefdability and ameakies to those being r-emeved are
efeated as paFt of the new prrejeet—.
11.3 Program
11.3.1 The City will adopt measures ensuring the ability of legal, conforming non
residential uses to continue where new housing is proposed on adjacent or
nearby sites.
32
Chapter 3—Goals,Policies,-.mid Programs Attachment 1
uses.1.31.5 Pw City will adept Fegulations to pmveRt new housing deVelepmepA en s
j h/Uhousingelemenmpdatel2004legislativedraft
33
Attachment 2
SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 5369-03
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo did
conduct a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San
i
Luis Obispo, California, on August 27, 2003, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under
application ER and GPA 33-02, City of San Luis Obispo, applicant, for the project
described below:
ITEM REVIEWED:
Consideration of a resolution supporting the preparation of a Negative Declaration of
environmental impact, based on Initial Environmental Study 33-02, and on the goals,
policies and programs contained in the Draft Housing Element Update dated August 13,
2003.
DESCRIPTION:
The project consists of the August 2003 Draft Housing Element Update, a seven and
one-half year plan that describes the City's proposed housing goals, policies; and
programs. It updates the current Housing Element adopted in September 1994. The
Housing Element is part of the City's General Plan and guides public and private
decisions regarding housing, including city development review, land use decisions, city
budgets and capital improvement programs. The Draft Element includes policies and
programs intended to increase housing opportunities for 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.
GENERAL LOCATION:
Citywide
WHEREAS, said public hearing was for the purpose of reviewing Initial
Environmental Study ER 33-02 to determine whether, based on the goals, policies, and
programs in the Draft Housing Element Update dated August 13, 2003, the Initial Study
adequately addresses the project's potential environmental effects; and to conduct
scoping to identify issues needing further environmental study, if warranted; and
,rte
C -
-- MACHMN 2
Resolution No. 5369-03
Page 2
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the
manner required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered Initial
Environmental Study ER 33-02 and the Director's Action granting a Negative
Declaration of environmental impact for the Draft Housing Element Update dated
August 19, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence,
including the testimony of the public, interested parties, and the evaluation and
recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Commission supports the
preparation of a Negative Declaration of environmental impact, based on Initial
Environmental Study ER 33-02, and on the goals, policies and programs in the Draft
Housing Element Update dated August 13, 2003, subject to the following findings:
Section 1. Findings.
1. Goals, policies and programs in the Draft Housing Element are consistent with the
General Plan Land Use Element and the Residential Growth Management
Regulations;
2. The potential environmental effects of the General Plan Land Use Element were
addressed in the Environmental Impact Report for the Land Use and Circulation
Element Updates, certified on August 23, 1994;
3. The level of residential growth accommodated under the Draft Housing Element
Update is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element and Residential
Growth Management Regulations, and is not likely to result in the City exceeding its
build out population or its ability to adequately serve new residents with
infrastructure and basic public services;
4. Implementation of the Draft Housing Element Update will not result in significant
adverse impacts not previously considered and mitigated in the Land Use and
Circulation Element Updates EIR; and
5. The City faces an unprecedented, critical need for providing housing affordable to
1 - 4
ATTACHMEW 2
Resolution No. 5369-03
Page 3
very-low, low and moderate income households, and that the Draft Housing Element
Update is intended to help meet those needs..
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of San Luis Obispo this 271h of August, 2003, upon the motion by Commissioner
Loh, seconded by Commissioner Boswell, and on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commrs. Loh, Boswell, Aiken, Caruso, Christianson, and Osborne
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Cooper
Ronal Whisenand, Secretary
Planning Commission
Attachment 3
awl
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For ER#33-02
1. Project Title: General Plan Housing Element Update
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Community Development Department
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Jeff Hook(805) 781-7176
4. Project Location: Throughout the City of San Luis Obispo.
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Community Development Department
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
6. General Plan Designation: Project applies to all General Plan land-use designations.
7. Zoning: Project applies to all zones in the City.
8. Description of the Project: The project consists of the August 2003 Draft Housing Element
Update, a seven and one-half year plan which explains the City's housing goals, policies, and
programs. It updates the current Housing Element which was adopted in 1994. Once adopted,
the Housing Element becomes part of the City's General Plan and will guide public and private
decisions regarding housing, including city development review, land use decisions, city budgets
and capital improvement programs. The Draft includes policies and programs intended to
increase housing opportunities for 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.
The Draft Housing Element Update contains many of the same policies and programs found in
the 1994 Housing Element. State, regional and local housing costs, supply and needs have
changed since 1994, as evidenced by the 2000 Census and current information on real estate
prices, affordable housing, and the widening "gap" between rental and purchase housing costs
and consumers' incomes. The Draft Housing Element Update also includes new policies and
programs to address these changes to the City's housing situation.
( - 4-
Attachment 3
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The City of San Luis Obispo is a community of about
44,000 persons, is home to Cal Poly State University, and is separated from other communities in
the County by agricultural and open lands. It is the County seat and the County's largest
incorporated city with about one-fifth of the County's total population. San Luis Obispo is a
charter city and began as one of a chain of 21 missions founded by Spanish missionaries in the
late 1700s. The City is the retail, employment, and cultural center of the County, and is notable
for the many scenic hillsides and "morros" that ring the City, and many creeks that wind through
the community. The City is also noteworthy for the many historic homes and commercial
buildings located downtown and in four other historic districts..
10. Project Entitlements Requested: Council adoption of the Housing Element.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: The Draft Housing Element Update must
be referred to the California Department of Housing and Community Development for a
determination of consistency with state housing law.
�r CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 2 Wm LL.STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003
i ^ 0
Attachment �i
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.
Aesthetics Geology/Soils Public Services
Agricultural Resources Hazards&Hazardous Recreation
Materials
Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation&Traffic
Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service
Systems
Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Energy and Mineral Population and Housing
16— Resources
FISH AND GAME FEES
There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish
X and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a
de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees.
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been
circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more
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)).
6019S CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003
DETERMINATION: Attachment 3
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X
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, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and
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 project, nothing further is required.
August 19, 2003
Je ociate Planner Date
For. John Mandeville,
Michael Draze, Deputy unity Development Community Development Director
Direct
�r CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ZOO$
1 - S-[
Attachment 3
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 analysis in each section. 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. The explanation of each
issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold,if any,used to evaluate each question.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are
one or more"Potentially Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made,an EIR is required.
4. "Potentially Significant Unless 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 17, "Earlier Analysis,"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) of the California Code of
Regulations. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
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.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached,and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion. In this case,a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state inhere 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 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 address site-specific conditions for the project.
CITY OF SAN Luis Ompo 5 INITIAL STUDY ENvIRoNmENTAL CHECKLIST 2003
(-4��
Issues, Discussion and Support::_ .riformation Sources Sources Po., :..y Potentially Less Than No
GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#33-02 Issues Unless impact
Mitigation
Inco ted
Attachment.3
1.AESTHETICS. Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited X
to,trees,rock outcroppings,open space,and historic buildings
within a local or state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of 1,2 X
the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would X
adversely effect day or nighttime views in the area?
(Text references in parentheses refer to a General Plan Digest policy or program, e.g. LU 2.2.8 refers to Land Use
Element policy 2.2.8,or the 1994 Final Environmental Impact Report for Land Use and Circulation.Element Updates)
Policies in the Draft Housing Element Update encouragethe 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. Draft policy 11.2.2 precludes new housing on sites
subject to natural or manmade hazards, incompatible land uses, or on sites that should be preserved for dedicated parks or
open space.
New residential development may alter the visual settings of suburban and rural areas outside of the City's Urban Reserve.
These areas primarily consist of major expansion areas and minor annexation areas that require either specific plans or
development plans showing form,layout and integration of new buildings with the site. As noted in the 1994 Final EIR Land
Use/Circulation Element Updates, accommodating a reasonable share of the anticipated regional growth will result in change
from rural to urban character in some areas. This change was anticipated in the FEIR and a finding of overriding
considerations was made(p.11, FEIR). Most new development will be subject to further environmental review under CEQA
and architectural review for residential projects of five or more units, or where a sensitive or historically significant resource
may be affected. These additional review steps focused on individual project designs should adequately address potential
aesthetic concerns. Under the proposed Draft program 6.3.14,the construction or relocation of four or less dwellings would
be exempt from architectural review. Such projects would still be required to be consistent with the Residential Project
Objectives(LU2.2.12)that address privacy and overlook,views,usable outdoor space,use of natural ventilation,sunlight and
shade for environmental comfort with reduced energy use, security and safety, design features to facilitate neighbor
interaction, and noise and visual buffers from roads and incompatible uses. Policies in the Draft are intended to prevent
housing on sites that are often scenic, including dedicated open space or parks, sites subject to natural hazards such a floods
or seismic risks,or steep hillsides with wildfire susceptibility.
Conclusion: No impact:
2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of X
Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps 1,2,3
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a X
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to X
their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland
to non-agricultural use?
The City of San Luis Obispo is in the County's central coastal agricultural region. San Luis Obispo City is, for the most part,
urbanized with only a few small farms still engaged in agricultural production. In 2003,about 33 acres remain in agricultural
�i CITY OF SAN Luis OsisPo 6 INITIAL STUDY ENviRONmENTAL CHECKLIST 2003
Issues, Discussion and SUpportr, fiformation Sources Sources Po. .'y Potentially Less Than No
GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#33-02 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Attactimen
use within the City. The most intensive agricultural activity in the San Luis Obispo area is located in the Edna Valley,just
south of the City. The Housing Element follows the General Plan Land Use Element(LUE) in terms of where housing should
be developed, and is intended to promote compact urban form and reduce sprawl and loss of productive agricultural lands
outside the City's Urban Reserve. Agricultural and Conservation/Open Space lands allow limited residential use at very low
densities, appropriatefor 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.
A land inventory done in connection with the Housing Element Update identified approximately 49 acres of vacant or
underutilized Interim Open Space within city limits. This includes three properties: the 25 acre Sunset Drive-in property,and
two parcels totaling about I 1 acres between Los Verdes Residential Condominiums and San Luis Obispo Creek(off Los Osos
Valley Road) that are farmed in 2003. 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. Because this
land is not yet suitable for residential development and provides open space benefits, it is considered a lower priority for
development and is not included in the Draft Element's summary of residential development capacity. Development of
Interim Open Space requires approval of a development plan or specific plan, showing how these flood hazards would be
mitigated.
Conclusion: No impact. The project is located primarily in an urban or suburban area. Agricultural resources would not be
significantly affected.
3. AIR QUALITY. Would theproject:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contriibute.substantially to an 1,2,3, X
existing or projected air quality violation? 6,7,8
b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air X
qty plan?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X
concentrations?
d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of X
people?
e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria 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 qualitative
thresholds for ozone recursors)?
The Draft Housing Element Update includes policies and programs to accommodate up to 2,909 in-city dwellings during the
planting period from January 2001 to July 2008. Of these,approximately one-half of the units are planned for very-low and
low-income households. An additional 1,178 dwellings are anticipated on state-owned land, to be developed by Cal Poly
University Foundation for students, faculty and staff: As discussed under Housing and Population, Section 12, this level of
growth is consistent with the residential growth anticipated in the General Plan Land Use Element and evaluated in the 1994
FEIR on the Land Use and Circulation Element Updates. The anticipated population number within the planning period,and
the rate at which it is attained,is within growth projections of theSanLuis Obispo County 2001 Clean Air Plan(CAP).
Residential growth adds to local and commuting automobile trips, a primary factor affecting air quality. As a "job rich"
community, a key component of vehicle trips is employees commuting into jobs in San Luis Obispo. The Final EIR for the
CAP based its air quality assumptions in part,on an estimated San Luis Obispo population of 52,684 by 2008. The estimated
city population in 2008, assuming development of up to 2,909 in-city dwellings is 50,766. The Final EIR also identified
transportation control measures to reduce transportation-related emissions that affect air quality. The Draft Housing Element
Update incorporates several of these measures as part of its overall"smart growth"strategy, including: 1)Planning Compact
Communities, Mixed Use Development, and Improving Jobs/Housing Balance. The Draft has 28 policies or programs
designed to promote compact urban growth,encourage mixed residential and commercial use,allow employees to live within
walking or biking distance of their jobs,and to encourage downtown housing close to jobs,services,government,recreational
and cultural opportunities.
`i CRY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 7 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST2003
lr Sr•`�'
Issues, Discussion and Suppol.... ,nformation Sources Sources K ..y Potentially Less Than No
GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Significant Significant Significant lmpact
ER#33-02 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Attachment _
Conclusion: No impact. The Draft Housing Element Update is consistent with General Plan growth policies and with
prevailing countywide assumptions regarding air quality. To the extent the updated Housing Element helps produce more
"workforce" housing, that is, housing affordable to very-low, low and moderate income working people, many of whom now
commute into the City, it may help improve the Jobs/Housing balance, promote use of alternative transportation, and help
reduce traffic congestion.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or indirectly or X
through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a 1,2,3
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 X
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) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting X
biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance(e.g.Heritage Trees)?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident X
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of
wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation X
Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved
local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan?
f) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected X
wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including,but not limited to,marshes,vernal pools,etc.)
through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or
other means?
The General Plan Land Use and Open Space Elements guide the preservation of biological resources. These 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. 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 open space values, or natural or manmade hazards. Individual development projects will be subject to
environmental review and development review by staff and City advisory bodies to assure compliance with pertinent policies.
All new residential development must comply with the Creek Setback Ordinance and must avoid sensitive site resources.
"Green Building Technology" is encouraged to reduce energy consumption,promote development that is well-integrated with
the natural features and environmental processes of its site, and to encourage personalized, unconventional housing that
reduce costs,energy or materials consumption,and site disturbance.
Conclusion: No Impact. Residential development anticipated in the Draft Housing Element Update is consistent with the
General Plan Land Use Element and was evaluated as part of the 1994 General Plan Land Use Element Update EIR
5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:.
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a X
historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an X
archaeological resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
`,� CITY OF SAN Luis OwsPO .8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003
Issues, Discussion and Supportit.,,hformation Sources Sources Poti y Potentially Less Than No
GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#33 02 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inco orated 2
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource X 7
.onsite or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of X
formal cemeteries?
Preservation of cultural resources is a key General Plan goal. Policies in the Land Use Element (LUE 6.6) provide that
historically and architecturally significant buildings should not be demolished or substantially changed in outward appearance
unless necessary to remove a threat to health or safety and no other means exist to avoid the threat. They also encourage the
preservation of archaeological resources and archaeological sites, and say that changes to historic buildings and new
development in historic districts should reflect the design and materials of the original building and contribute to a
neighborhood's historic patten and architectural character. 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 eight policies
addressing the need to rehabilitate and preserve basically sound housing, protect historic housing and residential districts,
including downtown hotels, ensure new residential development is compatible with designated historic resources, promote
seismic safety upgrades,and the use of state or federal funds to protect and improve existing neighborhoods. 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.
Conclusion: No impact.
6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 1,2,3 X
b) . Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient X
manner?
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource X
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
State?
The General Plan Land Use and Energy Conservation Elements include policies to use land, water, and energy resources
wisely. The Draft Housing Element Update is consistent with these documents in that it promotes housing design that uses
energy and materials wisely, and encourages higher density, infill housing that by its nature, uses land more efficiently than
conventional detached, single-family housing. The draft includes quantified objectives that summarize the number of
dwellings the City plans to accommodate,by income group,within the planning period from January 2001 to July 2008. The
Dian assumes that 60 percent of new housing will be multi-family and 40 percent will be single-family housing, including
both attached and detached dwellings. Through development incentives, selected land use changes.(i.e. rezoning), and
flexible development and architectural review standards, multi-family housing would be encouraged where appropriate to
help meet affordable housing needs, avoid inefficient land use which can contribute to urban sprawl, and to use energy and
materials wisely. The Draft also advocates flexible planning and building standards to encourage "Green Building
Technology" such as hay bale construction, passive and active solar energy design,and use of appropriate siting and energy-
saving features in new housing. Planning and building staff and city advisory bodies that review new housing would, under
the Draft Element's new programs, receive special instruction in encouraging housing design that conserves energy.
Conclusion: No impact.
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would theproject:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse 1,2,3 X
effects,including risk of loss,injury or death involving:
I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated in the X
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?
II. Strong seismic ground shaking? EXXI III. Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction?
CrrY OF SAN Luis O61SP0 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003
-Slo
Issues, Discussion and Supportit., aiformation Sources Sources Pot,- ..y Potentially Less Than No
GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# 33-02 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorated
ac men -�3
IV. Landslides or mudflows? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that X
would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially
result in on or off site landslides, lateral spreading,subsidence,
liquefaction,or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the X
Uniform Building Code,(]994),creating substantial risks to life
or property?
The Draft Housing Element Update policies would prevent new housing on sites with natural hazards, such as geological or
seismic risks, including soil erosion, landslides, or liquefaction. 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. The Draft is consistent with these policies and
standards.
Conclusion: No impact.
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.. Would the Pro`ect:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the:environment X
through the routine use,transport or disposal of hazardous 1,2,3
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment X
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
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?
d) Expose people or structures to existing sources of hazardous X
emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances,or waste?
e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous X
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and,as a result,it would create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
f) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within X
two miles of a public airport,would the project result in a safety
hazard for the people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of,or physically interfere with,the X
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
per?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose,injury, X
or death,involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are intermixed
with wildlands?
The General Plan Land Use and Safety Elements are the primary policy documents addressing hazards and hazardous
materials. The Draft Housing Element Update is consistent with these documents in that it includes polices to prevent new
residential developments from being located on sites subject to natural or rnamnade hazards. Potential airport hazards are of
special concern, since much of the City's additional residential capacity is located in the southern part of the City, near take
off and landing approaches for the San Luis Obispo County Airport. The Airport Land Use Commission adopted a 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
CITY of SAN Luis OsisPo 10 INITIAL STUDY ENv1RONmFNTAL CHEcKusT 2003
t ��
Issues, Discussion and Supportii.y Information Sources Sources Pott-_,dy Potentially Less Than No
GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#33-02 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
housing and airport activities. City land use policies are generally 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.
Conclusion: No impact.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would theproject:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X
requirements? 1,2,3
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere X
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 for which permits have been granted)?
c) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the X
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or
provide additional sources of runoff into surface waters
(including,but not limited to,wetlands,riparian areas,ponds,
springs,creeks,streams,rivers,lakes,estuaries,tidal areas,bays,
ocean,etc.)?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X
area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or
siltation onsite or offsite?
e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X
area in a manner which would result in substantial flooding
onsite or offsite?
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on X
a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map
or other flood hazard delineation map?
g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would X
impede or redirect flood flows?
h) Will the project introduce typical storm water pollutants into X
ground or surface waters?
i) Will the project alter ground water or surface water quality,
temperature,dissolved oxygen,or turbidity9.
New housing development must comply with existing city,regional and state standards for the protection of surface water and
ground water quality. In major expansion areas, where large residential subdivisions will occur (Irish Hill, Margarita, and
Orcutt expansion areas),specific project-related effects on runoff,siltation, flooding,water quality are or will be addressed in
required specific plans and environmental review documents. Residential development anticipated in the Draft Housing
Element Update is consistent with residential growth policies in the General Plan Land Use Element, and Hydrology and
Water Quality impacts were addressed in the Final EIR for the 1994 Land Use Element Update. That document found that
impacts of city development and growth on Hydrology and Water Quality were not significant provided that the following
mitigation measures were implemented: expanded wastewater collection and treatment capacity, buffers/setbacks along
waterways in residential development areas, provisions for natural drainage areas and porous paving, and Regional Water
Quality Board oversight for projects disturbing more than five acres. The City is complying with these requirements in its
capital improvement programs,in specific plans for major expansion areas and as part of development review.
Conclusion: No impact
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would theproject:
UbZM CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003
4� g
Issues, Discussion and Supporting information Sources Sources Pott.___q Potentially Less Than No
GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#33-02 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inco o
a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of X
an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the 1,2,3
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
b) Physically divide an established community? X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural X
community conservationplans?
The Draft Housing Element Update includes numerous programs, or implementation "tools", to implement its goals and
policies. Most of these programs require subsequent discretionary approvals or follow-up actions to take effect. Proposals to
change adopted plans, zoning designations, development or land use;standards or regulations will require environmental
review. For example, policies in the Draft encouraging higher density, infill housing close to jobs and employment centers
would be implemented, in part, through changes to the General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning map. 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. At a broad policy level, such rezoning to accommodate dwellings close to.jobs and schools, along
major transportation routes, and where compatible with adjacent uses, is consistent with General Plan goals and policies.
Individual programs' impacts on City plans, policies, resources, and services will be evaluated for consistency and potential
environmental effects once specific sites and land use changes are identified.
Conclusion: No impact.
11.NOISE. Would the ro'ect.result in:
a) Exposure of people to or generation of"unacceptable"noise X
levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise
Element,or general noise levels in excess of standards
established in the Noise Ordinance?
b) A substantial temporary,periodic,or permanent increase in X
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome X
vibration or grotmdborne noise levels?
d) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within X
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?
The General Plan Noise Element establishes standards and procedures for protecting noise-sensitive uses from stationary and
mobile noise sources. Noise attenuation measures such as land use limitations, distance separation between land toes (i.e.
noise buffers), earth berms, and where appropriate and no other feasible measure exists, noise walls. New residential
development must be consistent with the Noise Element and Noise Ordinance standards. The Draft Housing Element Update
encourages the production of affordable housing through 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 attention must be paid to use compatibility, of which noise is a key factor. Lind use
and design measures, such as building design and construction, types of adjacent commercial uses and hours of operation,
environmental control systems, and location of building entries and exits will be considered on an individual project basis to
assure compliance with adopted noise standards.
Conclusion: No impact.
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly X
(for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or 1,2,3,
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people X
111111111101111 CITY OF SAN Luis GBIsPo 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003
Issues, Discussion and Suppor n., information Sources Sources PC,.-i..ly Potentially Less Than No
GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#33-02 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inco
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
General Plan policies seek to achieve a sustainable level of growth through the City's planned buildout in 2022. The Plan
says the city housing supply should grow no faster than one percent per year, averaged over a 36-month period. This is to
assure population growth does not exceed the City's ability to assimilate new residents and to ensure municipal services are
available for new and existing residents. Under the General Plan Land Use Element(LU 1.11.2)and the Residential Growth
Regulations(SLOMC Ch. 17.88),dwellings affordable to persons with very-low or low incomes are excluded from the City's
one percent growth target.
As required by state law, the Draft Housing Element Update includes Quantified Objectives showing the number of units the
City expects to accomodate in each income group during the planning period from January 1, 2001 to July 1, 2008. The
City's proposed Quantified Objectives are shown in Table 1, below. Under the Draft Update, the City would expect to
accommodate up to 4,087 new dwellings. Of these, 2,167 units will be targeted for very-low and low-income households.
An additional 1,178 units will be located on state-owned land, outside city limits and not subject to city land use controls.
Consequently,during the Housing Element planning period,(4,087—2,167- 1,178=742),742 non-exempt dwelling units are
expected to be developed. The resultant annual average residential growth rate during the planning period is 0.51 percent.
This is within the allowed average residential growth rate of one percent per year.
Table 1
Regional Housing Need Allocation,January 2001-July 2008
City of San Luis Obispo
Income Group Number of New Quantified Objectives
Dwellings Allocated.
Very Low 1,484 1,390
Low 844 777
Moderate 870 817
Above Moderate 1,185 1,103
TOTAL 4,383 4,087
Source: City of San.Luis Obispo,Community Development Department
According to the Regional Housing Needs Plan adopted by the.San Luis Obispo Council of Governments,San Luis Obispo's
Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) during the planning period is 4,383 dwellings. 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.
San Luis Obispo has evaluated its ability to accommodate the RHNA number of 4,383 dwellings by July 2008. Limited water
supplies prevent the City from achieving the.RHNA number within the planning period. The problem is chiefly one of timing,
since there is sufficient land suitable for residential development to accommodate the RHNA number within the planning
period, and additional water supplies are planned which would allow this number of dwellings to be achieved over a longer
period As shown in Table 1, the City's quantified objectives are less than the RHNA number. The Quantified Objectives
include: Dwellings built and granted occupancy during the period from January 1, 2001 through July 31, 2003; Dwellings
expected to be built and receive occupancy between August 1, 2003 and December 31, 2003; potential residential
development between January 1,2004 and July 1,2008,based on anticipated water supplies;and construction of up to 1,178
dwellings on state-owned land for Cal Poly University students,faculty and staff.
Achieving the Quantified Objectives is contingent upon the City having adequate funding to undertake the necessary capital
improvements for the expanded water conservation and groundwater programs in 2005 and 2006, adding water resources to
serve 2,276 additional households, and upon private development decisions and economic factors outside of city control.
And while the attainment of these housing objectives is theoretically possible given available land resources and expected
mad CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONmF-NTAL CHECKLIST 2003
1 -Lp )
Issues, Discussion and Suppor[n._ Aormation Sources Sources Po.,_ .y Potentially Less Than No
GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#33-02 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
IncorporateA
water and sewer capacity, it is highly unlikely this number of dwelling units will actually be produced without significant
local,state or federal assistance.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact., The Draft Housing Element Update and Quantified Objectives are consistent with
the residential growth anticipated by the General Plan and allowed by the Residential Growth Management Regulations.
Achieving residential growth projections are contingent upon availability of water supplies and adequate funding to secure
water resources,and on private development decisions and economic factors outside City control.
13.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision,or
need,of new or physically altered government 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? 1,2,3, X
4,5
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Parks? X
e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? X
Other public facilities? X
The 1994 Final EIR on the Land Use and Circulation Element Updates noted that Public Services, including schools,police
and fire services, parks, and general City administration were considered"marginally adequate" to meet current needs. In
2003, demands for public services continue to expand and municipal resources available to meet those demands face new
challenges due to national economic factors and state fiscal policies. While purely economic or social effects are not
considered environmental impacts under CEQA unless there are related physical effects, City policies do require that
adequate facilities and services be in place before new development is approved. City policies call for new development to
"pay its own way",and for costs of new development not to be shifted to existing residents. As noted above,public assistance
may be needed to achieve affordable housing objectives, meet expanded needs for public services, and not increase costs to
existing residents. City Utilities,parking facilities, recreation facilities and programs,and to a limited degree,public schools,
are enterprise-funded in that they provide services that are, at least in part, funded by service users and new development.
Other public services, like emergency services, general city administration, capital improvements, like roads, bridges, and
public buildings, rely on city General Finds for operation, maintenance and improvement. City fees on new development,
including water, wastewater, traffic, park, and affordable housing fees; and school fees are collected with most new
development to offset added costs and service needs created by the project. The City monitors theadequacy of its public
services and evaluates each major new residential development in terms of its ability to serve new residents. If additional
service capacity is needed, new development will be responsible for providing funding or facilities in proportion to the
increased need.
Draft Housing Element Update policies and programs call for the City to solicit new funding sources to assist in the
development of affordable housing and to work with other jurisdictions in the County to establish an Affordable Housing
Fund to help produce affordable housing. The City of San Luis Obispo already has an Affordable Housing Fund that can be
used to offset costs to provide additional infrastructure orservices for new affordable housing developments. This and other
funding sources will be needed to meet the Quantified Objectives.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact. New residential development will be required to provide or help fund its
proportional share of the cost of additional public service or facility needs.
14.RECREATION. Would theproject:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or X
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or X
expansion of recreational facilities,which might have an adverse
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL.CHECKLIST 2003
Issues, Discussion and Support— iformation Sources Sources Pi. _ Potentially Less Than No
GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#33-02 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
physical effect on the environment?
Same as above.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would theproject:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the X
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system?
b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service X
standard established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads and highways?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features(e.g.sharp X
curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g.
farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? X
f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative X
transportation(e.g.bus turnouts,bicycle racks)?
g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land X
Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards,noise,
or a change in air trafficpatterns?
Refer to Section 3,Air Quality.
Conclusion: No impact.
16.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the roiect:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable X
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water X
treatment,waste water treatment,water quality control,or storm
drainage facilities,the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project X
from existing entitlements and resources,or are new and
expanded water resources needed?
d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider X
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 commitment?
e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to X
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
f) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations X
related to solid waste?
The Draft Housing Element Update includes Quantified Objectives that take into account service capabilities of existing and
planned water and wastewater treatment facilities. New development is contingent upon the availability of adequate water
supplies and water treatment capacity. Based on the 2003 Water Resources Status Report prepared by the City's Utility
Department,the City can reasonably expect to have up to 1,084 acre feet of water available to support new housing during the
planning period — enough water for up to approximately 2,276 new dwellings. Draft Housing Element Update policies
assume the development of up to 2,909 planned in-city dwelling units during the planning period will use up to, but not
exceed, the 1,084 acre feet expected to be available. This also assumes funding is available to provide the necessary capital
improvements,and may hinge on the availability of state or federal funding to achieve the Objectives.
�� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 15 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003
Issues, Discussion and Suppon.. '.iforriiation Sources Sources Pa Potentially Less Than No
GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#33-02 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Attachmpnt
Conclusion: No impact. Based on planned service capacities and assuming adequate public funding is available,the City will
be able to serve up to the number of in-city units anticipated in the Draft Housing Element Update. If funding is not available
through local,state or federal sources,the Quantified Objectives may not be achieved during the planning period.
17.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 prehistory?
Individual development projects' impacts on natural and cultural resources will be evaluated and mitigated regardless,
consistent with.CEQA and with City General Plan policies. The proposed Update will not affect City policies on protecting
and enhancing biological or cultural resources or preclude the City from achieving reservation goals.
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
futureprojects)
The Draft Housing Element Update would accommodate up to 2,909 in-city dwelling units in a 7 %year period. Over %of
these units are targeted to be affordable to very-low and .low-income households and exempt from Residential Growth
Management Regulations. Consequently, the Draft Element is consistent with General Plan Land Use Policies regarding
residential growth. Cumulative implications of General Plan policies are addressed and mitigated in the Land Use Element
Final EIR. It also found 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, employment and
housing.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause X
substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or
indirectly?
ONCECITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 16 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003
18.EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EK 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
should identify the following items: Attachm
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,990 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 excerpt, summarizing environmental impact, mitigation, monitoring and overriding
considerations from the 1994 Land Use Element update.
i) imtigadon 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 project.
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.
19. SOURCE REFERENCES.
I General Plan Digest, City of San Luis Obispo.
2• Final Environmental Impact Report, Land Use Element/Circulation Element Updates, City of San Luis
Obispo,August 1994.
3. Draft General Plan Housing Element Update, City of San Luis Obispo,August 2003.
4. 1999 Guide to the Environmental Quality Act, Solano Press Books, October 1999.
5. 2003 Califomia Environmental Quality Ad, CEQA Guidelines, Consulting Engineers and Land
Surveyors of California.
6. 2001 Clean Air Plan,San Luis Obispo County, San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District.
7. Final Environmental Impact Report, Clean Air Plan, SLO County, San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution
Control District, November 1991.
8. Getting to Smart Growth— 100 Policies For Implementation, International City/County Management
Association ICMA , March 2002.
9. General Plan Safe Element, City of San Luis Obispo,July 2000.
10. General Plan Noise Element and Noise Guidebook, City of San Luis Obispo, May 1996.
Attachments:
1. Draft Housing Element Update
2. Excerpt,Resolution No. 8332 approving the Land Use/Circulation Element Updates and
summarizing environmental impacts,mitigation and monitoring, and overriding considerations.
JWLJHOUSMGELEMENTUPDATE/TNMALSTUDYER33-02
Attachment
RESOLUTION NO. 8332(1994 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION-OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
MAKING NVIRONMENTAL 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 recommendations 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.
D_Q R'17
Attachment
Resolution No. 8332 Page 2 �)
�l
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 adopted 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 hind, 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 environment, 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.
I -��
( r
Attachment
Page 3
Resolution No. 8332
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).
Attachment 3
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 PQ
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.
MR
(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.
Attachment 7j
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.
(1.1) 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 from 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.
t'U9
Attachment 3
Resolution No. 8332 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 summary: 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.
Attachment 3
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 Orcutt 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 summary: 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.
Attachme,.,:3
Resolution No. 8332 Page 8
C. Not significant with mitigation revised from that recommended by draft EIR
or Supplement; 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: �J
(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-level environmental review.
(5) Water quality & flooding - porous paving
' Mitigation summary: Modified policy (6.4.7) added to Land Use
Element. Q
Monitoring: Project-level environmental review.
-qa P
Attachment 3
Resolution No. 8332 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.
' Attachment 3
Resolution No. 8332 Page 10
D. Significant,adverse impacts, despite proposed mitigation, for which findings D
of overriding 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
Wowing facts. Determination of a reasonable share follows consideration of 0
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. t
(2) Street widening land-use impact: Higuera Street, High to Marsh t
Overriding consideration: Accommodating projected traffic levels (due I
to reasonable share of anticipated regional growth), at acceptable level of I
service, and providing a bike lane connection.
94 I
Attachment 3
Resolution No. 8332 Page II
(3) Street widening land-use impact: Santa Rosa Street, Olive 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..
O 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.
- - Attachment
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. (1
6. Conformance with State Law and Guidelines e
Council hereby determines that the revised Land Use Element conforms with
requirements of the California Government Code and the advisory General Plan Guidelines of Q
the State Office of Planning and Research.
7. Regional Housing Opportunities
Council hereby finds that the revised Land Use Element does not contain a policy or p
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.
Attachment,�
Resolution No. 8332 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;
Attachment -�p
Resolution No. 8332 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. Limited 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 I
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 I
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) Environmental 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 0
development capacity if proposed mitigations prove to be inadequate. p
Accommodating an equivalent amount of residential growth within the
compressed time frame of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment would
Attachment 3
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 Consistency
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.
ATTACHMENT
ATTACHMENT 4—ADVISORY BODY MINUTES
At the time of Council staff report preparation, minutes were not available for several
Planning Commission meetings at which the Draft Housing Element was discussed. The
transcripts for the Planning Commission meetings of October 22, 29, November 12,
December 3 and December 17 will be forwarded to Council under separate cover on
Friday, January 23. However, the routine "Planning Commission Meeting Updates"
have been previously provided to the City Council through the meeting of December
I7, 2003.
� 'bv
Planning Commission Min._6� Attachment 4
August 27, 2003
Page 14
Commr. Boswell supported staff' position and felt the issues discussed should be
reviewed by the ARC.
AYES: Commrs. Aiken, Cooper, Ca Loh, Boswell
NOES: Commrs. Christianson and Osborn
REFRAIN: None
ABSENT: None
The motion carries on a 5:2 vote. It was ted the ARC should review the project and
resolve those design issues prior to the pro eturning to the Planning Commission.
4. Citywide. GPA and ER 33-02, Environmental scoping of the Housing Element
Update. This is an opportunity to gather information from the public regarding the
potential environmental impacts of the project that need to be evaluated in the
environmental determination. It is not intended to be a hearing on the merits of the
project. Therefore, members of the public should keep their comments focused on
potential significant changes to the environment that may occur as a direct result of
the Housing Element implementation. It is also an opportunity for the public to ask
specific questions about the Housing Element and what is proposed. (Continued
from August 13, 2003) (Mike Draze)
Michael Draze, Deputy Community Development Director clarified the staff
recommendation. He felt that it might appear that staff is suggesting that the
Commission take an action on a negative declaration at this meeting, which is not the
case. He clarified that the Commission will be reviewing the environmental document,
but the City Council will be taking the final action. He explained this is not a required
meeting, but rather a chance to get an early review of the environmental issues of the
Housing Element Update, as well as receiving comments and suggestions from the
public. He also noted he would be asking the Commission to set up some special
meetings to review the Housing Element document. After discussion, October 1st and
October 29th were decided as special meeting dates on the Draft Housing Element.
Jeff Hook, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, explaining an environmental
study had been prepared on the draft Housing Element that evaluates 17 different
environmental factors. Based on that analysis, the report concludes that the Draft
Housing Element Update will not have adverse environmental effects that have not
already been discussed as part of the 1994 Final EIR on the Land Use and Circulation
Element updates. If additional environmental study is determined to be needed, this
meeting can serve as a scoping session to identify the issues that need to be addressed
in further environmental studies.
Planner Hook emphasized that the Draft Housing Element Update is a very preliminary
document that meets the minimum State requirements for Housing Elements. Although
the basics are there, the document will likely undergo changes during the public hearing
process. He felt the main environmental issue is residential growth.
I. � � I
Planning Commission Min. __s
August 27, 2003 Attachment 4
Page 15
PUBLIC COMMENT
Chairperson Osborne noted he was given a memo from a citizen who was unable to
stay to this late hour, who felt the Negative Declaration is not satisfactory and an in-
depth EIR is needed.
Marybeth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, supported residential growth for homeowners
and families, and opposed more rental units and apartment complexes.
COMMISSION COMENTS
Commr. Loh moved to adopt a resolution supporting the preparation of a Negative
Declaration of environmental impact based on Initial Environmental Study 33-02, and
the goals policies and programs in the Draft Housing Element Update dated August 13,
2003. Seconded by Commr. Boswell.
AYES: Commrs. Aiken, Caruso, Osborne, Loh, Boswell and Christianson
NOES: None
REFRAIN: None
ABSENT: Commr. Cooper
The motion carried on a 6:0 vote.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
5. Staff
A. Agenda Forecast.
September 23`d: Special joint meeting with the City Council to review the Conservation/
Open Space Element Update at 7:00 p.m..
ADJOURNMENT
With no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 12:05 a.m.
to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled for Wednesday,
September 10, 2003.
Respectfully Submitted
Diane Stuart
Management Assistant
I .4a
l7rh 'JJ- v/.
Attachment 4
SPECIAL "TOWN HALL" MEETING
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 1, 2003
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on
Wednesday, October 1, 2003, in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo, California.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Jim Aiken, Allan Cooper, James Caruso, Alice Loh,
Michael Boswell, Carlyn Christianson, and Chairperson Orval Osborne
Absent: None
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
Chairperson Osborne opened the public meeting and noted this was an informal "Town
Hall" meeting for the purpose of gathering public input regarding the progress of the
Draft 2003 General Plan Housing Element. Staff provided a brief PowerPoint
presentation focusing on what the General Plan Housing Element Update process is
about.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Sandra Nielson, 71 Zaca Lane, complained of the difficulty of retaining employees due
to high housing costs in San Luis Obispo. She stated that Cal Poly students rarely stay
on after graduation and that recruiting employees has become nearly impossible in
recent years due to housing costs. She also has issues with the density requirements
and believed the lack of three- and four-bedroom dwellings is due to density constraints.
She felt higher densities would easily be attained if government constraints were
removed. She would like to see the allowance of secondary dwelling units on non-
conforming lots, an increase in the number of dwelling units allowed on lots, and an
easing of parking requirements.
Jerry Bunin, 2078 Parker St. Suite 21.0, Central Coast Homebuilders Association, felt
that in general, the Draft Housing Element was a good first step, but felt the Housing
Element needed to be more incentive driven, and less requirement-driven. He
supported exempting affordable housing and downtown housing from growth
management, establishing a housing programs manager and first time homebuyers'
Planning Commission Mint,. =Town Hall Meeting AttaChment 4
October 1, 2003
Page 2
assistance. Regarding policy 5.2.4 on Housing Variety and Tenure, he insisted that five
units is too low of a threshold to require a mix of unit types. He thought this requirement
would, in effect, act as a no growth policy, and encouraged staff to talk with builders to
see how many units would be needed to make it work. He was supportive of program
6.3.14 on Housing Production and exempting residential developments of four units or
less from architectural review. Regarding inclusionary housing in-lieu fees, he did not
feel the City should disallow payment of in-lieu fees by residential developments to meet
Inclusionary Housing requirements because it is money in the bank for affordable
housing. He disagreed with the demand management section on market forces and
believed that the housing supply and demand imbalance has caused the affordability
problem. He stated that demand cannot be controlled, but supply can be increased.
Requiring citizens to only sell their homes to those already in the area is unfair. He
wants staff to focus on 5.2.4 and inclusionary housing.
Andrew Carter, 1283 Woodside Drive, and Housing Task Force member, noted that
some Task Force recommendations were incorporated into the Housing Element and
others were not. He said the Task Force never collectively reviewed the Draft Housing
Element Update and he did not want the Task Force involvement in the Housing
Element Update process to be oversold. He felt some aspects of the Housing Element
conflict with Task Force recommendations, and some recommendations are not
addressed in the Draft Housing Element. He suggested that staff create a matrix to
compare and contrast the two documents. He also suggested that the current Housing
Element be compared to the Draft Housing Element.
Mr. Carter felt that Inclusionary Housing Requirements are not consistent with Task
Force recommendations. They did not make a recommendation to remove the in-lieu
allowance, did not make a recommendation to increase the requirements in expansion
areas, but they did make the recommendation that the housing requirements for
commercial development in expansion areas are too low compared to residential
requirements. He felt commercial development is creating the housing need and should
have stricter requirements for inclusionary housing. Expansion areas already have
requirements such as the 50% requirement for open space. He did not feel that new
development should have to pay in-lieu fees and build all of their own infrastructure. He
suggested that if affordable housing was a community-wide need, the community
should share in the cost to develop affordable housing. He also felt that trying to
increase the affordable housing requirements further is problematic.
Tom Swem, Housing Element Update Task Force member, stressed the dynamic
diversity of the Task Force in that it represented a cross section of the community. He
acknowledged the consensus reached on many issues by its members. He strongly
recommended looking at the task force document because of the great amount of
consensus reached. He felt that the `Town Hall" meetings are an excellent forum for
discussing these issues and encouraged incentive programs over requirements. He did
not feel that rezoning the downtown office is appropriate and felt there is an
inconsistency between the table on p174 (0 box down) with programs 3.3.5 and 3.3.6
(p30), which effectively rezones the office zoning that is in the downtown. He believed
1 r O 1
Planning Commission Mir,_ :s-Town Hall Meeting
Attachment 4
October 1,2003
Page 3
the Task Force supported planned development of residential in the downtown to
generate a number of residential units at once (e.g. Wineman Hotel), but did not support
the demand scenario for other commercial properties. He preferred the emphasis of
incentive programs to bring more housing to downtown.
Marguerite Bader, President of the League of Women Voters of SLO County, noted they
are preparing a study of workforce housing in the county. The League felt the Draft
Housing Element is an encouraging blueprint for residential growth, and that it will be an
effective tool. It addresses the genuine need for housing among the group that is
earning below 120% of the median income, encourages density bonuses, and allows
mixed and inclusionary zoning as well as second units, and promotes infill development.
It demonstrates a genuine effort to remove the barriers inhibiting the construction of low-
and moderate-income housing and seeks creative ways to finance such construction.
Tom Kentrel, opposed the whole State Regional Housing Needs "exercise; and was
disappointed in the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments for caving in to State
demands. He felt the State has no concept of build-out, as expressed in the City's
General Plan, and felt it was dishonest to assume that cramming everyone by
increasing density will prevent urban sprawl. Everyone voted to accept the State
Housing and Community Development process that assumes no constraints. We
should not presume that anything is going to change the next time it comes around, and
the State will simply increase housing demands. Nobody likes density for its own sake;
we like density because it is cheap. He referred to the whole issue regarding incentives
versus requirements; requirements say that new development should pay for itself while
incentives say they should help pay for affordable housing. Coastal California counties
have higher prices. (Santa Barbara, Orange County, Monterey, San Diego County have
higher median prices.) Programs to help certain people gain housing take money from
one to help another. He would like to see a more direct transfer of wealth approach
because it would be more efficient.
Paul Brown, observed he is one of a small group of people his age (35 years) living in
the City of San Luis Obispo.. He felt that people his age cannot buy a home in San Luis
Obispo. The City has not been producing the housing hoped for over the last 20 years.
He felt we are not creating affordable housing and in many instances we are creating no
housing and no growth whatsoever. He felt it is terrible that the people that work in this
area cannot even come close to living here. He felt we must work with private industry
to create incentives; if we don't, it will not only exacerbate the problem here in our city,
but will expand out to create problems with other cities within the county. We cannot
expect other cities within this county to deal with our problem. We need to create some
of the housing that is necessary for our workforce.
Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, was concerned about the City being
demolished by people coming in from the outside. She felt the City should not need to
copy what other States or communities are doing. She is disappointed that single-family
neighborhoods are not being promoted anymore. She stated that 60% of our homes
were being converted to rentals for Cal Poly students. She felt San Luis Obispo has
( -9c
Planning Commission Minim_ Town Hall Meeting
October 1, 2003 Attachment 4
Page 4
become a haven for developers and real estate. The town has changed: meters, junk
shops, congestion, and cars bumper-to-bumper. Many of her friends are moving away
because they are losing the peace and tranquility that they used to enjoy. She does not
like the rentals, noise and drunkenness prevalent today. She does not want to see
changes in the zoning or open space.
Steve Barasch, Housing Element Update Task Force member, said he develops infill
housing for a living, and noted the median family income in SLO County is $57,000; in
Santa Barbara it is $61,000. The average price of a house in Santa Barbara is $850,000
for a single family home; in the City of San Luis Obispo it is over $640,000 (excluding
condominiums). He noted one cannot find a livable 2-bedroom 1-bath home for much
less than $500,000 in San Luis Obispo today. He felt San Luis Obispo city had the
largest affordability gap on the central coast, since the ratio of median income to median
housing price in SLO is about 9.8. He felt single-family homes are being created on the
urban edges of our community and the percentage of homes being built in the infill area
is probably less than 10-15%. If the median family home is in excess of $640,000 and
the income approaches $50,000 it is obvious that people are priced out of the market in
the percentage of what they can afford versus what they can acquire is very limited. He
noted that a subcommittee of the task force came up with income categories of
"extremely-low" or "very-low" income; people making minimum wage, essential for
providing essential services and making the city operate. The other category was an
"above moderate" category, those that earn 120-160% of the median family income
($90,000 to $95,000). They still can't qualify for a market rate 2-bedroom 1-bath home
with the above moderate category.
Mr. Barasch emphasized that density bonuses were the most realistic and appropriate
way to expand affordable housing. He suggested considering three criteria: 1) How
efficiently the land is used 2) How much affordable housing is created in a given project,
and 3) the location factor that San Luis Obispo city is more expensive than the rest of
the county.
Mr. Barasch further noted that building infill housing within San Luis Obispo is difficult.
He said it takes at least one year to get through the process. He noted that San Luis
Obispo has a very strict zoning ordinance and performance standards that don't allow
flexibility to vary parking, setbacks, height, and solar access. He believed big, bold
moves were needed to change this. He felt R-1 zoned areas are sacred, yet Community
demographics have changed, and the community is becoming imbalanced. The
imbalance between rental and ownership housing is growing and there is tension
between renters and their neighbors who own their homes. Young people and families
cannot afford to live here. Cal Poly graduates cannot afford to stay here. He suggested
looking at what the Task Force has recommended to redefine affordable housing. He
felt the City must find a way to build affordable housing in less than a year.
Sal Orlando, 962 Mill Street, explained that he is a real estate agent. He enjoys helping
young people get into a property and find creative ways to do so. He claims that home
buying has become more and more challenging and would like to see prices go down
I r U W
Planning Commission Mi. :s-Town Hall Meeting Fi[ic- jLch ent 4
October 1, 2003
Page 5
so that more people can buy homes. He liked the work done so far on the Draft Housing
Element, but doubts the policies will ever be truly effective or that it will ever be
affordable to live in this community. He also felt more incentive-based programs should
be included. He believed that in-lieu fees for residential developments in expansion
areas should not be eliminated because they support affordable housing. He suggested
that be easier for developers to build "green building designs" by giving developers
incentives. We should review the requirements for relocation and replacement of units.
To encourage builders to want to build they need incentives. He felt that fees are so out
of line with other cities that developers are more willing to build elsewhere. The demand
management (goal 10.1) of not enticing persons from elsewhere to move to the City
needs to be reviewed as well.
Gary Fowler noted that there were no seniors or students on the Housing Element
Update Task Force. He felt that low-interest loans should be given to people in lower-
paying jobs as well as to City department heads, as well as helping them financially.
Housing units above business should be a priority; seniors and students would love to
live in them. Students don't want to live on campus. They want to get out of that
atmosphere because Cal Poly doesn't allow drinking, smoking, parrying, and doesn't
provide space for them to do things (work on cars). Because of the outrageous taxes
that property owners are forced to pay, they have to raise rents to cover their costs, and
since students are more willing to pay the higher prices, they consume most of the
rental housing instead of families. He felt that given the State's budget problems, the
City probably won't get many housing grants from the State.
Al Barrow, 700 EI Morro Ave., Los Osos, spoke representing The Coalition of Low-
Income Housing. He explained they are promoting a program "Lease to Own" for low-
income families to find housing as well as a tax credit program. He suggested the City
encourage developers to include low- and very-low income in exchange for fast-tracking
their projects to help ensure financial feasibility for new housing developments. The for-
and non-profit community must come together to make this workable. He felt height
allowances should be increased in some areas.
Mr. Barrow further noted that a healthy vacancy rate is about 5-6%. He said in San Luis
Obispo the vacancy rate has been near 0% for the last 5 years. Keeping the supply up
would help keep the vacancy rate up. We should retain a balanced housing stock to
sere all elements of the community (i.e., Warren County, Ohio). Some SLO families
double up on housing in order to function, and some work 2 or 3 jobs per household,
thus creating latchkey children and other social problems. He claimed we've lost 1,500
students and good teachers last year, and felt this was due to the lack of affordable
housing. We should allow mixed-zoning in the low-income areas. He suggested the City
address the need for Single Room Occupancy (SRO) dwellings as a step up for
homeless people. He felt the high cost of housing encourages homelessness.
Ybi Van Ekeren, 731 Santa Ysabel, Los Osos, suggested that General Hospital be
renovated for semi-independent living for seniors. She felt that many of the amenities
were already in place to support older people. She suggested that perhaps the main
Planning Commission Min. Town Hall Meeting AttaChmcnt 4
October 1, 2003
Page 6
floor could be used for a dining area and shops. If General Hospital could house
seniors, then it would open up homes to other people.
Michael Sullivan, 1127 Seaward St., suggests that we review Policies and Programs:
• 2.3.6 (p28) exemption of all new dwelling units that meet the City's affordable
Housing Standards from certain fees.
• 2.3.13 (p29) exempting residential units affordable to moderate-income
households from certain fees.
o For the above two points, he thinks it is a good idea but suggests that we
need a way to enforce this on a long term basis. If regulations are in place,
we need to think of the time frame involved for keeping the units
affordable (20 years, 30 years?)
• 2.3.10 (p28) What does "most" mean? R-2, R-3, R-4, R-1, everything? Is it really
appropriate in R-3 and R-4 zones?
• 5.2.4 (p31) Regarding variety of types, sizes and tenure, what is the policy going
to be on condominiums? Recommended ratio of condominiums versus other
units?
• 6.2.3 (p32) Regarding the rationing of City services, though it is a good policy,
however it isn't being 'implemented at the current time (Dalidio proposal, Frume
Ranch)
• 6.3.5 (p33) How are single-family home areas going to accommodate new
development? How will they fit in? What kind of standards?
Mr. Sullivan felt that in the expansion areas, we are seeing mostly traditional low-
density single-fami)y developments and some multi-family units proposed, but not at
nearly high enough densities. He suggested we follow a European model with very
high densities in a compact urban core to preserve farmland. Also, we should
consider changing the zoning ordinance to allow certain areas to have minimum
density requirements.
Paul Rys, P.O. Box 1502, insisted that people will always come flooding into San Luis
Obispo and that housing prices are driven by market forces, not by government or
realtors. We can build all we want (like Santa Diego), but that isn't going to stop
prices from going up. If we want prices to stop going up, people have to stop having
babies. Good workers cannot afford to live here. Not increasing jobs will not slow
down the demand for housing. The government has to get involved and create
permanent affordable housing. It cannot be sold by the private party for the free
market price in 5 years or 20 years or 30 years. The last person to own it would be
profiting and then the government would have to do it all over again. Economic forces
are global. Welcome to California, the land of unaffordability. Prices are not
unaffordable here, because if they were, real estate would not be selling as it has
been. He expressed some confusion of the 23% of people who can afford to buy..
Chairperson Orval Osborne clarified that it is based on median family income.
Planning Commission M. _ 's-Town Hall Meeting
October 1, 2003 Attachment 4
Page 7
Mr. Rys also commented on the diversity of the Task Force and their reaching
agreement. He felt it must mean that something is going on. This affordability problem
affects all of us. If we could close the doors on California and prevent people from
having babies, prices would stop going up. The State, has no concept of build out. At
some point, we need to tell them that we have finite resources and that we can't
continue to grow indefinitely.
Biz Steinberg, 1030 Southwood Dr., Executive Director, Economic Opportunity
Commission of San Luis Obispo County and member of the Housing Element Update
Task Force, noted that in 1978, Head Start Program families were living in homes, not
campgrounds, or three families in a house. Now, some of the same families are
homeless. People can no longer save up in 3 or 4 months to be able to move out and
afford rental housing; 6 to 8 months is more common. She suggested renovating
hotels to provide single room occupancy opportunities for single, working homeless
people and also recommended more transitional housing to help low-income families
transition into the new affordable housing. She said organizations like EOC need
affordable rentals for entry-level employees. She's also looking at first-time
homebuyers programs. She suggested the City consider increasing height limits and
preserve affordable housing.
Frances Meenan, 2249 Glenn St., Los Osos, said she doesn't want to see San Luis
Obispo turn into the Bay Area. She was impressed by the balance in the community
and loves the locally-based economy. She also brought up the issue of entitlement to
own a home, and felt that the ability to purchase a home is not a "right' for everyone.
People need incomes to sustain their ability to live here. It is a choice made on their
ability to pay. She expressed her fear of increased residential density because she
associates it with the problems, such as crime, that comes with it. Europe might be a
great model, but we are not Europe. She is satisfied with the.status quo and is happy
that the government has been able to do as good a job as they have. She is
concerned about maintaining the balance that we have here.
Brett Cross, 1217 Mariners Cove, spoke of inclusionary housing and the impact that it
has on the amount of housing being.built. He felt that if one looks at other areas with
inclusionary housing, it's apparent that high 'inclusionary housing requirements have
not discouraged developers from building market rate housing. He felt developers
build what is being demanded - large single-family homes. He felt the Planning
Commission should ask developers for specifics about what incentives are needed to
enable them to build affordable housing in SLO. He noted the student population has
a tremendous impact on housing prices in SLO; students can split rent cost five ways,
making it less expensive per person, but making it more difficult for families to rent
because the price is so high. He felt Cal Poly should continue with their on-campus
housing programs, and supported the no net-loss housing policy to discourage
downtown housing conversion to offices. He felt we are losing houses to conversion
and need to have a program to stop that from happening. He asked if affordability
agreements end at 30 years, and if so, they should be lengthened. The last person to
Planning Commission Mi, -Town Hall Meeting
October 1, 2003 - Attachment 4
Page 8
sell (from the affordable to the free market price) receives a windfall. He felt that many
people don't want to live in higher density communities because they assume high-
density developments lack amenities like private open space, large yards, etc. The
City should create design standards so people will want to live in those areas. Mr.
Barasch did not like the idea of smaller lot sizes with large houses, and felt if lots get
smaller, the homes on those lots should be smaller also. He asked, why build above
moderate units when we're talking about affordable housing. He thought the above-
moderate number is too high, and that specific sites need to be designated for
manufactured housing (mobile homes). He suggested a requirement that commercial
projects build housing. He felt that charging more than the market rate defies the laws
of economics.
All Barrow, 700 El Morro Avenue, Los Osos, spoke in support of the San Luis Obispo
County Housing Trust Fund, which has only about $225,000 and is still in the
development stages. He said it has hired its first director, but doesn't have any
housing funding money yet. He encouraged the City to help provide a permanent
revenue stream for it and encouraged the City to partner with other cities and the
county in that effort.
Jerry Bunin, 2078 Parker St. Suite 210, did not feel that new development and
affordable housing should pay for itself if the community places community value in it.
The entire burden should not fall on the new homeowner. Someone has to pay for the
subsidies for low- and very-low market housing. Developers build lower density
because it will be approved. Builders do not want to sell expensive homes because it
is difficult to find buyers. They want to sell homes affordable to more people so that
they have less risk. Developers don't feel that higher density, good quality projects
will be approved by government. Affordability is a community value; everybody has to
buy in. More money would be raised by putting a 1% real estate transfer tax on every
home that sold in SLO than would be raised by putting a 20% tax on new housing.
Andrew Carter, 1283 Woodside Drive, noted the school district decides if a new
school is going to be built. It has been made clear that the current number of
elementary schools can handle the projected needs of the new elementary students
created by all of the construction in the south end of town (Orcutt and Margarita).
They have so much capacity already that they could close another school and
wouldn't need it for another 5 to 10 years. It was his opinion that there is no need for
an additional school.
Ybi Van Ekeren, 731 Santa Ysabel, Los Osos, felt it is possible to build low-income
housing. She talked of unfinished houses that could be finished by the owner while
they are living in them, or may not be finished at all (incremental housing, build as you
need it).
There were no further comments made from the public.
( - 9D
Planning Commission W_ .!§-Town Hall Meeting _ Attachment 4
October 1, 2003
Page 9
COMMISSION QUESTIONS:
Commr. Boswell
• How many non-conforming lots by size are there in town?
• Should we simply prefer building housing to the in-lieu fee? What would a policy
like that look like?
• In-lieu fees leverage $5 - $13 of additional dollars for housing. Staff look into that
and comment.
• Can we write the policy on building affordable units to provide flexibility for
constrained sites?
• Can a no net loss policy for housing in the downtown be treated more as an area
wide goal and not a site-specific regulation? More of a principal?
• Should we anticipate HCD's next round and what it means to our concept of build
out for SLO and our attempts to deal with affordability currently? Should we also be
thinking one more step ahead with regard to our policies and what that may mean?
• How often can we really use density bonuses?
• On enticing people to move from other areas, isn't the point to reduce investment
and speculation from outside areas? Equity refugees? Attraction of employees?
More tailored policy.
• What is the status of the General Hospital Property and have we talked to the
county about doing anything with that?
• If we reduce or eliminate fees where will, or can, the revenue difference be made
up?
• Can we provide incentives that would really achieve a result and a significant
change in housing prices? Are prices so demand driven that it will overwhelm most
incentive techniques? Cost effectiveness of incentives.
Commr.. Cooper
• P34, 6.3.11 Timeline on developing multifamily housing design standards
• P39, 10.2.2 Are we talking about a commercial growth cap?
• P40, Preventing new housing in hazard areas? Rezone areas?
• P40-41 Explore the lease-own incentive program.
• P46 table 5 Affordable student-housing living units?
• P142 and later, Why is public coordination not needed?
• P150 Why are city promotional practices not needed? Explanation.
• P156 10.3.0 Was this taken into consideration around the rezone site locations?
• P160 How do we maintain standards if we waive ARC review for 4 units or less?
• Why didn't recommendations that did get consensus from the Task Force find their
way into the document? (ex: FARs instead of maximum housing densities p163,
utilizing unoccupied hotel buildings in downtown p172, maximizing solar access
and usable outdoor space p168).
Planning Commission W. -Town Hall Meeting Attachmorit 4
October 1, 2003
Page 10
Commr. Loh
• Comparison with the 1994 Housing Element.
• Affordable housing is great, but we can't prevent building of above moderate
housing because there is a need there as well.
• We are trying to help those people who work here and already live here rather than
enticing the people from out of town.
• General terms about downtown area, downtown core, and downtown planning
area. Which is what?
• Incentives for industrial and business people?
• Table D-1 review. Lots of land in C-S & C-N. Include housing or more heavily
emphasize it. C-R says less than 1 acre. Check numbers.
FUTURE MEETINGS:
• October 8th: Two-hour hearing: Detail about goals, policies, programs.
• October 22nd: Recommendations for changes (molding the final document).
• October 29th: Summary review and recommendations compilation.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Teri Bowen
Planning Intern
- Attachment 4
City of SA1 l LUIS OBISPO Department of Co--M,nits nevelnnment
OBISPO
Division
October 28, 2003
TO: File GPA/ER 33-02: Citywide
Jeff Hook,Associate Planner
FROM: Michael Draze, Deputy Director of Community Developme4�
SUBJECT- Review goals, policies and programs of the Draft General Plan Housing
Element Update; including Environmental Review.
The Planning Commission, at its meeting of October 22, 2003, took public testimony
and discussed the Draft Housing Element goals, policies and programs. No formal
Action was taken.
cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office
( -q3
Attachment 4 �
City Of SM WIS OBISPO nepartment of Community n vpinrmrant
Planning Division
November 5, 2003
TO: File GPA/ER 33-02: Citywide
Jeff Hook, Associate Planner
FROM: Michael Draze, Deputy Director of Community Developmerrf6G_/
SUBJECT: Review goals, policies and programs of the Draft General Plan Housing
Element Update, including Environmental Review.
The Planning Commission, at its meeting of October 29, 2003, took public testimony
and discussed the Draft Housing Element goals, policies and programs. No formal
action was taken.
cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office
Attachment 4
C4Of SM l W,S OBISW Department of Community neyelnnment
"J Planning Division
November 1$, 2003
TO: File GPA/ER 33-02: Citywide
Jeff Hook, Associate Planner
FROM: Michael Draze, Deputy Director of Community Developmen#/(—I,.-I
SUBJECT: Review goals, policies and programs of the Draft General Plan Housing
Element Update, including Environmental.Review.
The Planning Commission, at its meeting of November 12, 2003, took public testimony
and discussed the Draft Housing Element goals, policies and programs. No formal
action was taken.
cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office
Attachment 4
Clay Of SM WIS OBISW nenartment of C_nm unitm nevpinpRlPnt
Planning Division
December 12, 2003
TO: File GPA/ER 33-02: Citywide
Jeff Hook, Associate Planner
FROM: Michael Dr , irector of Community Development
SUBJECT: Review goals, policies and programs of the Draft General Plan Housing
Element Update, including Environmental Review.
The Planning Commission, at its meeting of December 3, 2003, took public testimony
and discussed the Draft Housing Element goals, policies and programs, and the
Housing Element Update Task Force recommendations. It completed its review of the
policy matrix presented at the October 22nd meeting, reviewing each draft policy or
program and HEUTF recommendation for possible inclusion in the Draft, with or without
changes.
Commissioners directed staff to revise the Draft, listing specific changes and additions,
and to return with a "Planning Commission Draft" at the Commission's December 17th
meeting.
No formal action was taken.
cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office
- fi iaCili'i1ont 4
Cray pO Or SM JUIS OBISDepartment of comma inatm neyelonmpnt
"J r "1" Planning Division
December 29, 2003
TO: File GPA/ER 33-02: Citywide
Jeff Hook, Associate Planner
FROM: Michael Dr ep irector of Community Development
SUBJECT: Review goals, policies and programs of the Draft General Plan
Housing Element Update, including Environmental Review.
The Planning Commission, at its meeting of December 17, 2003, forwarded the Draft
Housing Element Update to the City Council and recommended that the City Council:
1) Approve a Negative Declaration of environmental impact, and
2) Approve the 2004 Council Hearing Draft Housing Element Update.
The action of the Planning Commission is a recommendation to the City Council and,
therefore, is not final. This matter has been tentatively scheduled for public hearing
before the City Council on January 27 and January 29, 2004. These dates, however,
should be verified with the City Clerk's office at (805),781-7102.
cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office
Attachment 4
Ci ►/ Of SM US 0B,SW [department of Comm, nity 11pvpinnment
�+� T Planning Division
September 18, 2003
TO: File ARC 33-02: Citywide
Jeff Hook, Associate Planner
FROM: Mike Draze, Deputy Director of Community Developmene�'
SUBJECT: Review goals, policies and programs for Draft General Plan Housing
Element Update
The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of September 15, 2003, took
public testimony and discussed the Draft Housing Element policies and programs,
particularly those related to design review. No formal action was taken.
cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office
Attachment 4
CHC Minutes, Regular Meeting of September 22, 2003
Page 2
density for the R-4 zone. Mary Beth Schroed spoke in opposition to the project and said the
buildings should not be demolished.
Chairperson Juelke Carr closed the public he 'ng and asked for comments from Committee
members. The Committee agreed that the buildings had undergone alterations and had
deteriorated to the point that there was not mu integrity left. The setting of the buildings also
compromised the potential of the building to ave historic significance. The Committee urged
the applicant to preserve features of the buil ' gs that can be reused. The Committee discussed
the photo-documentation requirements for project and stated that large-format black and
white photography should be required. On a -0 vote (Carr, Crotser), the Committee determined
that the Historic Resources Assessment dra accurate conclusions and that the project will not
have an impact on significant historical reso ces. move
a
3. Citywide. GPA/ER 33-02. Draft Housing Element Update and Initial
Environmental Study.
Michael Codron presented the staff report and described the major components of the Draft
Housing. Element Update. He discussed the CHC's role in reviewing the document and
discussed the particular policies that relate directly to CHC matters. He suggested that the
Committee use the written staff report to work through those policy areas in particular.
Mary Beth Schroeder provided public comment and suggested that the City should be repairing
older historic homes, without making them larger, for young families that need housing. There
was no further public comment.
After much discussion, the Committee agreed to provide the following recommendations to the
Planning Commission and the City Council:
1) In the absence of a new City-wide survey of historical properties,the City should generate
a list of properties that were built between 1944 and 1958, which have become 50 years
old since the last.Housing Element update, to be evaluated by the Cultural Heritage
Committee for historical significance.
2) The Branch Street neighborhood, roughly bordered by High Street, South Street, Beebee
Street and Broad Street should be surveyed for significant historical properties.
3) The City should develop a list of masonry homes as part of implementing Safety Policy
1.3.4, and should investigate different programs and funding available nationwide for the
rehabilitation of these buildings, many of which may have historical significance.
4) The City should develop a list of buildings and structures that use clinker bricks as a
structural component or as veneer. The list should be evaluated to determine if the
historic use of these bricks constitutes"unique or landmark neighborhood features" under
Policy 3.2.6.
Attachment 4
CHC Minutes, Regular Meeting of September 22, 2003
Page 3
5) To encourage rehabilitation,rather than demolition of older homes, Policy 3.2.1 should
be more specific. Examples of things the City could do to encourage rehabilitation
should include parking reductions and relaxations of other property development
standards that make it difficult to redevelop properties with existing buildings.
6) The plan should include specific references to, and photographs of, the neighborhoods
that we cherish and whose character we want to emulate in our new development.
7) The first sentence of Policy 6.3.11 should be more specific by stating, "Promote
attractive, well-integrated higher-density housing by developing multi-family housing
design standards that reflect the traditional architectural style and predominant
landscaping types for a given neighborhood."
A
8) The plan should encourage the rehabilitation of existing, underutilized industrial
buildings for housing, and-should encourage the construction of new mixed-use buildings
in that historic industrial character.
9) It should be City policy to preserve historic commercial signage on buildings that are
rehabilitated for residential use.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
4. Consider a proposal to instaran-0e
ric monument to the Japanese-American
community of San Luis Obispoippon Tract. Bruce Miller,Applicant.
Bruce Miller described the proposal andt he would.like to place the monument in the
Brook Street Park, but that he is also coplacing it on private property across the street.
Michael Codron mentioned that if the over the Cal Trans yard at the end of Brook
Street, as planned for in the Mid-Higuerment Plan, there would be more opportunities
for the monument. The Committee.genported the proposed monument and suggested
that Mr. Miller contact City staff to fithe required review process for installing the
monument.
5. Summary of course findings frigh Density Housing Infill Development in
Historic Districts.class at Cal PoI3 University. Committee member Crotser.
Committee member Crotser said that .hi students needed additional time to augment their
findings and that he would present a final p oduct at the October meeting.
6. Discuss the possibility of devel 'ing a CHC brochure to describe the Cultural
Heritage Committee's role an duties, and to offer guidelines for public
participation so that comments s on topic and constructive.
^ � DD
/V ��7/dam
r✓�
The Price of Oranges
What if you went to Scolari's, and asked the Produce Manager the price of a dozen oranges. And
he answers: "They're two dollars a dozen,but if you only want four, they're free. And, if you will
take 20, then they're free, too."
Well, that's a little like the latest version of the Inclusionary Housing Requirement.
[Please refer to Tables 2 and 2A in"Goal 2.1: Affordability"in the Draft Housing Element.
They're on page 7 of the "Draft Housing Element Update"in the Councilmember package, and
on pages 27 and 28 of the January 27,2004 revision of the draft.]
Let me introduce myself: I'm Phil Gray,part of a local family-owned homebuilder Mid-State
Properties. We own a small parcel in the Orcutt Area Specific Plan area, and hope to build homes
there. Most of the Draft Housing Element is just fine, and we can live with it. But the effect of
Tables 2 and 2A could stop us. Let me explain.
First, two small points: I'm referring to the lower half of Table 2, as it relates to construction in
'expansion areas'. Second, I'll refer to `paying'the Inclusionary Housing Requirement as if it
were money,because, of course, it is: money spent on homes that must be sold at a huge loss to a
very few,really lucky people..
I want to make two points tonight:
1. It makes no sense to base the Inclusionary Housing Requirement(IHR) on quantity of units.
A.For 1,500 sq ft homes:
1. if I build 1 to 4 homes, I pay 0%M.
2. If I build 5 thru 19,I pay a 15%II-R.
3. If I build 20 or more(with a density 24/ac) , I pay 0% M again! (And 12 units/acre
density would only cost 3.75%)
B For 3,000+ sq ft homes, the result is entirely the opposite:
1. If I build 1 to 4, I pay zero IHR.
2. If I build 5 through 19, 1 pay 15% 1HR.
3. If I build 20 or more(on lots larger than 6,223 sq ft) I pay 30%!
These rules make no sense at all. They encourage small land-inefficient projects, and discourage
larger,more efficient ones. Rather, the same IHR should apply regardless of quantity. Why
exempt fewer than 5 units? They can pay the in-lieu fee.
�. Page
Now, for the second point:
2. The heart of Table 2A is a matrix of factors that are intended to multiply the 15% IHR fee in
Table 2,based on project density and home size. The effect of the matrix is to reduce or
eliminate the M fee on smaller homes. The Home Builders Association has (or will) advised
you that the factor should be zero for homes up to 1,500 sq. ft., to encourage the production of
smaller homes. We agree.
But more is needed. The factors increase with increasing home size until they double the IHR, to
a confiscatory 30%. This rate is unjust,because it unfairly penalizes those needing larger homes.
Homebuilders have no choice but to pass the IHR on to their homebuyers. Why should the buyer
of a 3,100-sq-ft home pay a 30% M "tax"--twice what a 2,000-sq-ft home would pay, and
perhaps eight times what a 1,500-sq-ft home would pay? Each home has already paid all the
impact,water, sewer, school, park, and road fees that are intended to pay their fair share of
community costs related to their home.. And, statistically,the occupants of a large home,while
paying more property taxes, will be less of a burden on community services (schools, police,
fire, etc.) than the occupants of a smaller one.
But this high IHR rate is also counterproductive; the 30%rate will result in fewer market-rate
homes being built, and that will reduce the number of.Affordable homes built. The net result will
be fewer homes built, making our City's hosing problem worse, not better.
The answer into cap Table 2A's factor at 1.Don't put a counterproductive `penalty' factor on
larger homes; they're not the problem. The problem is that Affordable homes aren't
economically feasible. And that problem won't be solved by putting a greater burden on the
backs of homebuilders and homebuyers.
This change simplifies both tables;seethe enclosed `Proposed Changes':
1. In the heading of Table 2's second column, delete the words `549 Dwellings'
2. Also delete the middle column,titled `Residential, 20 or more dwellings'
3. In Table 2A:
a. change the heading of the second column from `Up to 1,200' to `Up to 1;500.'
b. delete the third column,now headed '1,201-1,5 00'.
C. in the fourth column,headed `1,501-2,000', change the last factor from 1.25'
to '1'.
d. change the heading of the fifth column from `2,001-2,500' to `>2,000', and
change each factor to `1'.
e. delete the last two columns,now headed `2,501-3,000' and `>3,000'.
Thank you.
Phil Gray
orPrice0fOranges2.wps 1/27/2004
Table 2
Inclusionary Housing Requirement
Type of Development Project
Residential,5-19 Dwellings Residential 20 or Commercial
more Dwellin 2,1s
Build 3%low or 5%moderate Adjust base Build 2 ADUs per acre,but not less
cost Affordable Dwelling Unitsrequirement per than l ADU per project;
c N (ADUS2),but not less than 1 Table 2A
e ADU per project; Or
Uo or
e W pay in-lieu fee equal to 5%of pay in-lieu fee equal to 5%of building
c building valuation.; valuation.
0
u
° m Build 5%low-and 10% Build.2 ADUs per acre,but not less
..7 u
moderate-cost ADUs,but not than 1 ADU per project;
less than 1 ADU per project;
Adjust base or
c�
a o or requirement per
Table 2A pay in-lieu fee equal to 5%of building
e pay in-lieu fee equal to 15%of valuation.
., building valuation.
'Developer may build affordable housing in the required amounts, pay in-lieu fee based on the above formula, or
dedicate real property.
Affordable Dwelling Units must meet City affordability criteria listed in Goal 1.22.
Building Value" shall mean the total value of all construction work for which a permit would be issued, as
determined by the Chief Building Official using the Uniform Building Code.
TABLE 2A
Project Inclusionary Housing Requirement
Density Adjustment Factor2
(Density
Units/Net Average Unit Size (sq.ft)
Acre)' Up to 1,201-1,500 1,501-2000 2,001-2,500 2,501- >3,000
1,200 3,000
36 or more 0 0 .75 1 1.25 1.5
24-35.99 0 0 .75 1.25 1.25 1.5
12-23.99 0 .25 1 1.25 1.5 1.75
7-11.99 0 .5 1 1.5 1.5 1.75
<7 0 .5 1.25 1.5 1.75 2
'Including allowed density bonus,whcre applicable.
ZMUltiply the total base Inclusionary Housing Requirement (either housing or in-lien percentage) by the adjustment
factor to determine requirement.
Table 2
Inclusionary Housing Requirement
Type of Development Project
Residential esidential 20 or Commercial
ore Dwellin s
Build 3%low or 5%moderate Adjust base Build 2 ADUs per acre,but not less
cost Affordable Dwelling Units quirement r than 1 ADU per project;
E N (ADUS2),but not less than l Table 2
T.Q ADU per project; Or
= c or
c a pay in-lieu fee equal to 5%of pay in-lieu fee equal to 5%of building
c
building valuation.; valuation.
0
° Build 5%low-and 10% K2Apay
2 ADUs per acre,but not less
a
Ea moderate-cost ADUs,but notthan 1 ADU per project;
oNless than 1 ADU per project;
or
or lieu fee equal to 5%of building
pay in-lieu fee equal to 15%of
valuation.
building valuation.
'Developer may build affordable housing in the required amounts, pay in-lieu fee based on the above formula, or
dedicate real property.
Affordable Dwelling Units must meet City affordability criteria listed in Goal 1.22.
3iBuilding Value' shall mean the total value of all construction work for which a permit would be issued, as
determined by the Chief Building Official using the Uniform Building Code.
TABLE 2A
Project Inclusionary Housing Requirement
Density Adjustment FactorZ
(Density Average Unit Size(sq.ft.)
Units/Net
Acre)t Up to 1, 01-1,50 1,501-2000 3,00O®OA,50'
00
36 or more 0 0 _75 1 .2 .5
24-35.99 0 .75 ' 1 5
12-23.99 0 1 15 1
7-1.1.99 0 .5 1 ( 5 71
77-
'Including
.5 ` iy6 I 175 2
Including allowed density bonus,where applicable.
2Multiply the total base Inclusionary Housing Requirement(either housing or in-lieu percentage) by the adjustment
factor to determine requirement.
Linda C. Dalton.
Co-Chair, City of San Luis Obispo Housing Element Update Task Force
January 27, 2004
Testimony to San Luis Obispo City Council Regarding Consistency between SLO
Housing Element Update Task Force Report and Legislative Draft Report
I have reviewed Chapter 3,Goals,Policies and Programs of the Legislative Draft in some
detail, and would like to offer the following comments regarding the consistency of the
Legislative Draft with the Task Force Report. Task Force co-chair Sam Blakeslee has
seen a draft of this analysis and generally concurs that the Planning Commission accepted
the intent of many Task Force proposals but that the Task Force provided more detail
regarding a number of features—neighborhood quality, sustainable design, infill,
incentives (particularly density bonuses), and scaling parking and other standards to
encourage the production of more affordable housing. Other members of the Task Force
also received a draft of my comments, but most have not had time to respond.
The following summary covers each of the Housing Element goals.
1.1 Safety—The Task Force recommended somewhat stronger code enforcement
policies than those in the Legislative Draft,but the intent is consistent.
.2. 1 Affordabilitv—
a. The Task Force proposed to broaden the definition of affordability to include an
"extremely low" level at the lower end and an "above moderate"level at the
higher end to recognize that existing housing is not "affordable" to moderate
income families. The Planning Commission did not accept.our broadened
definition, but the Legislative Draft does clarify the definition in the 1994
Element.
b. In addition, the Task Force took a different approach to inclusionary housing than
the one that emerged from the Planning Commission. I think the Planning
Commission approach incorporates some of the intent of the Task Force
discussions—primarily, differential treatment of different kinds of development
that favors affordable housing.
c. The Task Force called for a thorough review of current policies. The Legislative
Draft recommends a similar program, although the Task Force stated our proposal
more strongly.
3.1 Housing Conservation—Task Force members raised concerns regarding the
distinction between conserving the number of units in an area, such as Downtown,
s
1
vs. protecting the units themselves. The Legislative Draft incorporates some of our
discussion regarding non-historic housing.
4.1 Mixed Income.Housing=The Legislative Draft includes aspects of the Task Force
proposals including live-work and work-live units (5.2.2) and housing above
ground-level for commercial projects (52.3).
5.1 Housing Variety and Tenure—The Legislative Draft is generally consistent with the
Task Force discussions.
6.1 Housing Production—
a. The Planning Commission rejected the Task Force's notion that the costs of
affordable housing be distributed across the community.
b. However, the Commission recommendations include proposals to amend the
City's growth management regulations to allow for exemptions for affordable
housing, including moderate-income households.
7.1 Neighborhood Quality—The Legislative Draft recognizes the importance of
neighborhood compatibility, but is less detailed than the Task Force proposals.
8.1 Special Housing Needs—The Legislative Draft is generally consistent with the
Task Force discussions.
9.1 Sustainable Housing, Site, and Neighborhood Design—The Task Force
recommended a more inclusive approach to sustainability than in the 1994 Element.
The Legislative Draft incorporates some of these concepts here and under Program
2.3.5, although with less detail than the Task Force Report.
10.1 Local Preference—Task Forces recommended more positive wording than in the
1994 Element,as represented by this newly-stated goal.
11.1 Suitability—Task Force members proposed that this goal encourage innovative
subdivision and housing design. The Legislative Draft incorporates some of these
concepts under Program 2.3.5.
In sum, the Legislative Draft of Chapter 3 of the Housing Element notes only two areas
where the Planning Commission did not accept the Task Force recommendations. Thus,
for the most part the Legislative Draft reflects the intent of the Task Force Report even
though Task Force would have liked to see the Planning Commission go further in
several specific areas. In other words, it appears that the Task Force has served the
process well and significantly influenced the goals, policies and programs in the Housing
Element that are different from the 1994 Element.
2
Allen Settle- Housing Element Draft, Iter 3.5 Housing Conservation Policy _ ___._Page 1
RECEIVED
From: "Donna Lewis" <LewisSLO@msn.com> JAN 2 l; 2004
To: <kschwartz@slocity.org>, <asettle@slocity.org>, <jewan@slocity.org ,
<cmullholland@slocity.org>, <dromero@slocity.org> $LO CITY CLERK
Date: Thu,Jan 22,2004 5:21 PM
Subject: Housing Element Draft, Item 3.3.5 - Housing Conservation Policy
Dear Councilpersons:
I wanted to submit my concern over item 3.3.5 (Housing Conservation
Policy) which is a part of the Housing Element draft you will review on
January 27th and 29th. I am concerned that the current wording, "the
city will adopt a"no net loss" housing ordinance"will create a
hardship for property owners who wish to convert their residential
property in a commercially zoned area to commercial use as the zoning
currently allows.
RED FILE ._
I am a loan officer and handle real estate financing for 1-4 single _.. METING AGENDA
family residences and I also service as the Chairperson of the Chamber's
Housing Task Force. I can tell you from my professional experience that DATE t ' TEM #,-f4 1
in many cases, when a property is in a commercial zone, it is often
difficult for the property owner to obtain anything but commercial
financing even if the property is currently used as a single family
residence. From an underwriting perspective,the only way the property
owner can obtain standard residential single family financing (which is
less costly than commercial financing) is if the city/county will allow
that structure to be rebuilt as a single family residence if it were to
burn to the ground. In most cases, within commercially zoned areas, if
a structure burns down,the zoning dictates that the property be rebuilt
as a structure that fits within its zone type- a commercial structure-
regardless of the prior use. Because I finance properties throughout
the County, I am not sure how this situation is treated currently within
the City and downtown area, specifically in areas that are zoned
commercial but which have a single family residence (typically referred
to as "Iegal/nonconforming"). But I know in the past I have run into
this dilemma with clients who own this type of property within the City
limits. The very fact that the zoning is currently written in this way
conflicts with the wording of the "no net loss" policy in the Housing
Element draft. }
CCU JCIL ;/CDD DIR
So from this perspective, many property owners in commercially zoned .%CAO Z'FIN DIR
areas are paying commercial rates to finance the house in which they iQ ACAO GFIRE CHIEF
live, and as a result, they aren't really given an incentive to keep theiZ TORNEY Z,PW DIP,
structure as a single family residence. On top of this, if the property 171 CLERKIORIG ,Z POLICE CHF
burns to the ground,they will be required in many cases to rebuild a ❑ DPT HEADS Z REC DIR
commercial structure. And from a resale standpoint, if the property u i IL DIR
owner is forced to keep a portion of the property for use as a residence D ` —
(if they convert to commercial as this item in the draft suggests), they
may have difficulty selling the property as it's highest and best use in
that zone type may in fact be commercial as the zoning dictates. I also
believe that it is unrealistic to require a property owner to replace
the lost residential unit in any other way as it would likely be at a
significant cost.
I am not completely up on zoning and planning issues so I may be missing ,
something here. I would simply suggest that you pay specific attention
to this particular section of the Housing Element Draft before its
Allen Settle- Housing Element Draft, Iter 3.5 Housing Conservation Policy____ Page 2
adoption. Thank you for taking the time to read my email and receive
input.
Donna Lewis
Pacific Republic Mortgage
560 Higuera Street, Suite B
San Luis Obispo CA 93401
(800) 945-2727, extension 31
Fax to (805) 547-3894
Cell (805) 235-0463
www.pacrep.net/donna.lewis
CC: <redalert@wesburk.com>, "'Patricia Wilmore"' <pwilmore@slochamber.org>
Allen Settle- Housing Element _ ;" Page 1
RECEIVED
From: "Lisa Smith" <Ismith@slorealtors.org> JAN 2 n 2004
To: <asettle@slocity.org>
Date: Thu,Jan 22,2004 3:20 PM SLO CITY CLERK
Subject: Housing Element
Dear Council Member
I would like to express my concern regarding the Housing Conservation Policy item 3.3.5 in the draft of the
new Housing Element. I believe that given the current wording, 'the city will adopt a no net:loss housing
ordinance." many property owners may be negatively affected by the mandatory adoption of such a policy.
I believe the wording should remain the same as it reads in the existing element, 'the city shall consider
adopting a no net loss housing ordinance." (Housing conservation item 1.23.8) The current wording does
not carry the mandate and would allow the public an appropriate voice regarding this issue at the time the
Council would consider a new ordinance. The Council should retain all options regarding a new
ordinance.
RED FILE
Sincerely, — M IG AGENDA
DAT '.721 ITEM #tPW1
Lisa A. Smith
Executive Vice President
San Luis Obispo Assn. of REALTORS
443 Marsh St.
San Luis Obispo CA
93401 USA
805-541-2282
805-544-2813
805-704-9840
Ismith@siorealtors.org www.slorealtors.org
Add this card to your address book
g{y� Y100.�
� ODD DIP.
Lisa A. Smith, a-PRO, WCRCDuIICIL /
� v:7
O FIN DIR
I
Executive Vice President ACRO SIRE CHIEF`
San Luis Obispo Assn. of REALTORS r, A;,,ORNEY -?W �R CHF
443 Marsh St. ;ZCLERK/ORIG (, :PO
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401IJ DEPT EADS _ �REC DIR
http://www.slorealtors.org J y TIL DIR
Ismith@slorealtors.org i� �?_ !V'. DIT; �T
(805) 541-2282
(805) 544-2813 FAX
Allen Settle HousingElement Update _ Page 1
From: "Cathy Francis" <cathy@cathyfrancis.com> RECEIVED
To: <kschwartz@slocity.org>, <asettle@slocity.org>, <lewan@slocity.or >, JAN Z h, 2004
<cmulholland@slocity.org>, <dromero@slocity.org>
Date: Thu, Jan 22, 2004 3:31 PM SLO CITY CLERK
Subject: Housing Element Update
Dear Council Member
I would like to express my concern regarding the Housing Conservation Policy item 3.3.5 in the draft of the
new Housing Element. I believe that given the current wording, 'the city will adopt a no net loss housing
ordinance." many property owners may be negatively affected by the mandatory adoption of such a policy.
I believe the wording should remain the same as it reads in the existing element, 'the city shall consider
adopting a no net loss housing ordinance." (Housing conservation item 1.23.8) The current wording does
not carry the mandate and would allow the public an appropriate voice regarding this issue at the time the
Council would consider a new ordinance. The Council should retain all options regarding a new
ordinance.
RED FILE
SincerelyAGENDA
� ETING S
Cathy Francis DATEr ITEM OTS
i ..n0FIN DIR
I GACAC �=IRE CHIEF
iZ'ATTCRNEY ZP;N DIR
I%CL=RK/ORIG yPOLICE CHF
I ❑ D5-.,T HEADS ;7/REC DIR
i
UTIL DIR
Page 1 of 1
RECEIVED
Allen Settle JAN 2 6 2004
SLO CITY CLERK
From: 'Robert Petterson" <rpetterson@hotmail.com>
To: <dromero@slocity.org>
Date: 1/22/2004 4:43 PM
CC: <cmulholland@slocity.org>, <jewan@slocity.org>, <asettle@slocity.org>;.
<kschwartz @ slocity.org>
RED FILE
MEETING AGENDA
DATE ITEM #21 1+l
Council Members,
I would like to take the time to express my concern over the Housing Conservation Policy 3.3.5 in the
Housing Element Draft. In the current wording,the city "will" adopt a No Net Loss Housing ordinance."
I strongly believe the correct wording should read that the city would "consider" this ordinance as it is
currently stated in the housing element. ( item 1.23.8). This would allow the public an appropriate voice
regarding the issue at the time the Council would be considering a new ordinance and more options
could be considered.
Sincerely,
Robert Petterson
Co-Owner, ComerStone Real Estate
www.robertpettersonsio.com
Scope out the new MSN Plus Internet.Software—optimizes dial-up to the max!
LC_D DLH
/CAO FIN DIR
CACAO gIRE CHIEF
�
� ATTORNEY rL`'W DIR
�Z--�LERK/ORIG POLICE CHF
D T 7EA)s R=C DIR
2!,'UT;LDIR
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\slouser\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}000O1.HTM 1/26/2004
Allen Settle- Housing Conservation PolisPage_1
From: <Chrisinslo@aol.com>
To: <dromero@slocity.org>, <cmulholland@slocity.org>, <jewan@slocity.org>,
<asettle@slocity.org>, <kschwartz@slocity.org>
Date: Thu, Jan 22, 2004 10:36 PM RECEIVED
Subject: Housing Conservation Policy
JAN 2 6 2001",
Dear Council Member
SLO CITY CLERK
I have a concern regarding the Housing Conservation Policy item 3.3.5
in the draft of the new Housing Element. The current wording, "the city will
adopt a no net loss housing ordinance..." may negatively affect many property
owners by the mandatory adoption of this policy. The wording should remain
the same as it reads in the existing element, "the city shall consider
adopting a no net loss housing ordinance..." (Housing conservation item 1.23.8) The
current wording does not carry the mandate and would allow the publican
appropriate voice regarding this issue at the time the Council would consider a new
ordinance. The Council should retain all options regarding a new
ordinance.
Sincerely,
Christine Volbrecht
RED FILE
Mr;FTING AGENDA
DATE t hq ITEM #,� {
CIL .TCDD DIR
C,�O Z FIN DIR
AOAO
AFIRE CHIEF
Ail ORNEY �`OLICE CHF
CLERKIORIG ;EC DIR
= D`� �` DS 7UTIL DIR
Allen Settle- no net loss housing ordinar -- v— - _ Page 1
RECEIVED
From: "R.P. Brown"<r.p.brown@sbcglobal.net> JAN 2 6 2004
To: <asettle@slocity.org>
Date: Fri,Jan 23, 2004 7:44 AM SLO CIN CLERK
Subject: no net loss housing ordinance
Dear Council Member
I would like to express my concern regarding the Housing Conservation Policy item 3.3.5 in the draft of the
new Housing Element. I believe that given the current wording, 'the city will adopt a no net loss housing
ordinance." many property owners may be negatively affected by the mandatory adoption of such a policy.
I believe the wording should remain the same as it reads in the existing element, 'the city shall consider
adopting a no net loss housing ordinance." (Housing conservation item 1.23.8) The current wording does
not carry the mandate and would allow the public an appropriate voice regarding this issue at the time the
Council would consider a new ordinance. The Council should retain all options regarding a new
ordinance.
Sincerely,
Regina P. Brown
Realtor Extraordinaire
Real Estate Broker&Consultant
phone: (805) 550-9340
fax: (805) 546-9292
email: rpbrown@realtor.com RED FILE
web: www.Rea]EstateRanch.com - MEETING AGENDA
DATE � ITEM #TH I
_ 01
J— �g D!R
[%COU?JOIL IN DIR
1 'CAO z'FIRE CHIEF
i ACAOpN!DIR
DJ'ATTOFINEY POLICE CHF
CLERK'ORIG '�REC DIR
D T HEADS i�7IL DIR
HR DI71___---
Allen Settle- Housing_Element _
From: "bjbiames" <bjbjames@pacbell.net>
To: <kschwartz@slocity.org>, <asettle@slocity.org>, <jewan@slocity.or
<cmulholland@slocity.org>, <dromero@slocity.org> RECEIVED
Date: Fri, Jan 23, 2004 9:05 AM
Subject: Housing Element
'JAN
The care and methodology used by the City in preparing the revised housing SIJ0 QTY al EAK
element has been excellent, and you are to be congratulated. The resulting
document is a vast improvement over the original draft, in my opinion.
The one area which I would urge you to reconsider and change is the "No Net
Loss" ordinance provision. That policy is on'e which I believe will not have
the long-term results the City desires, and which I also believe unfairly
affects property owners' rights. Please examine other methods to achieve
the desired result and, in the meantime, do not include the provision as
written.
Beverly James
LANDMARK COMPANY, San Luis Obispo, CA
(805)544-7000,To[[ Free (888)411-7541
Mai[To:bjbjames@LandmarkCompany.net
hftp://LandmarkCompany.net
RED FILE
Ell G AGENDA
�113
"41
DATE% ITEM # -
3�
41C�
'NCIL
ZCAO -yC D D DIR
CACAO /2FIN DIR
If ATTORNEY AFIRE CHIEF
CLERK/ORinz SFW DIR
CT HEADS#) -2 -C POLICE CHF
L 'erg
t DIP
7- UTiL DIR
Allen Settle-Housing Element Update Page 1
RECEIVED
From: "Abbie Woodward" <AbbieW @fix.net> JAN 2 6 2004
To: <kschwartz@slocity.org>, <asettle@slocity.org>, <jewan@slocity.org>, SLD CIN CLERK
<cmulholland@slocity.org>, <dromero@slocity.org>
Date: Fri, Jan 23, 2004 11:56 AM
Subject: Housing Element Update
Dear Council Member
I would like to express my concern regarding the Housing Conservation Policy item 3.3.5 in the draft of the
new Housing Element. I believe that given the current wording, "the city will adopt a no net loss housing
ordinance." many property owners may be negatively affected by the mandatory adoption of such a policy.
I believe the wording should remain the same as it reads in the existing element, "the city shall consider
adopting a no net loss housing ordinance." (Housing conservation item 1.23.8) The current wording does
not carry the mandate and would allow the public an appropriate voice regarding this issue at the time the
Council would consider anew ordinance. The Council should.retain all options regarding anew
ordinance.
Sincerely
Abbie Woodward RED FILE
MEETING AGENDA
DATE ITEM # !i f
CAO Z CDD DIR
�ACAO ,G IN DIR
F
�G FIRE CHIEF
GYAI I ORNEY Z PIN DIR
ei CLERK/O,RIG 2 POLICE CHF
HEAD 2P,EC DIR
IL DIR
H
�' __..r_.r_--• P' R DIFI
Allen Settle-
From: "Chantel Babcock" <cbabcock@firstam.com>
To: <dromero@slocity.org>, <cmulholland@slocity.org>, <jewan@slocity.org>,
<asettle@slocity.org>, <kschwartz@slocity.org> RECEIVED
Date: Fri, Jan 23, 2004 1:54 PM
Dear Council Member JAN 2 6 2004
1 would like to express my concern regarding the Housing Conservation Policy SLO CITY CLERK
item 3.3.5 in the draft of the new Housing Element. I believe that given
the current wording, "the city will adopt a no net loss housing ordinance.."
many property owners may be negatively affected by the mandatory adoption of
such a policy. I believe the wording should remain the same as it reads in
the existing element, `the city shall consider adopting a no net loss
housing ordinance..." (Housing conservation item 1.23.8) The current wording
does not carry the mandate and would allow the public an appropriate voice
regarding this issue at the time the Council would consider a new ordinance.
The Council should retain all options regarding a new ordinance.
Sincerely
Chantel Babcock RED FILE
MEETING AGENDA
DAT '"I ITEM -4 I
CC: <alert@wesburk.com>
�P'dl�ll.-C61Yi.1 p xnn�
P/cOUNCIr,-Doig
ICAO �IN DIR
MACAO Fz FIRE CHIEF
9-14ZPW DIR
,a'CLERK/091G ZPOLICE CHF
❑ �T HEI -s DS Z R=C DIR
fes-- : UTIL DIR
r tCJ 7'H= i;l
Allen Settle- Housing Element Update _--?a9
From: "Jim Smith" <jimsmith@theloanguy.com> RECEIVED
To: <asettle@slocity.org>
Date: Fri, Jan 23, 2004 2:55 PM JAN Z 6 ?011e
Subject: Housing Element Update
Dear Alan: SLO CITY CLERK
The city council is reviewing the updated housing element next week. The
"No Net Loss" provision as it applies to properties downtown is an
unnecessary and unfair burden on property owners. Please reject this
provision in the housing element.
Jim Smith
2246 Santa Ynez Avenue
San Luis Obispo
RED FILE
M ING AGENDA
DAT % Y ITEM #�
TCDD DIF
AO '1N DI
ACAO f F qt CHIEF
ATTORNEY eo-p\"J D I R
CLcRK'ORIG ;c POLICE CHF
DEPT HEADS . DDIIR
-rte z
Allen Settle- No Net Loss Housing 3.3.5-' tsing Element - T —_ Page 1
From: "Sal Orlando" <theslolife@charter.net> RECEIVED
To: <dromero@slocity.org>
Date: Fri, Jan 23, 2004 6:13 PM JAN 2 6 2004
Subject: No Net Loss Housing 3.3.5 Housing Element
SLO CITY CLERK
Dear Council Member
I would like to express my concern regarding the Housing Conservation Policy item 3.3.5 in the draft of the
new Housing Element. I believe that given the current wording, "the city will adopt a no net loss housing
ordinance..." many property owners may be negatively affected by the mandatory adoption of such a
policy. I believe the wording should remain the same as it reads in the existing element, `the city shall
consider adopting a no net loss housing ordinance..." (Housing conservation item 1.23.8) The current.
wording does not carry the mandate and would allow the public an appropriate voice regarding this issue
at the time the Council would consider a new ordinance. The Council should retain all options regarding
a new ordinance.
Sincerely
Sal Orlando
The Real Estate Group
962 Mill St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Office 805-541-2888
Cell 805-235-9770
www.theslolife.net
theslolife@charter.net
CC: <cmulholland@slocity.org>, <jewan@slocity.org>, <asettle@slocity.org>,
<kschwartz @ slocity.org>
RED FILE
- M ETING AGENDA
DAT `o'41 ITEM #'W I
Cie" -Lmado
•f COUNCIL TCDD DIR
,0'CAO �rFIN DIR
,2'ACAO AFIRE CHIEF
2'A7TORN=Y ;PW DIR
2TLERK/ORIG 2'POLICE CHF
❑ EPT HEADS �cR=C DIR
ZUTIL DIR
Allen Settle-Housing element --_ Page1_j
From: <HSweasey@aol.com>
To: <cmulholland@slocity.org>, <jewan@sloccity.org>, <asettle@slocity.org>,
<kschwartz @ slocity.org>
Date: Sat, Jan 24, 2004 6:21 AM
Subject: Housing element RECEIVED
Dear Council Member: JAN 2 6 2004
1 would like to express my concern regarding the Housing Conservation Policy SLO CITY CLERK
item 3.3.5 in the draft of the new Housing Element. I believe that given the
current wording, "the city will adopt a no net loss housing ordinance..."many
property owners may be negatively affected by the mandatory adoption of such a
policy. I believe the wording should remain the same as it reads in the
existing element, "the city shall consider adopting a no net loss housing
ordinance..." (Housing conservation item 1.23.8) The current wording does not carry
the mandate and would allow the publican appropriate voice regarding this
issue at the time the Council would consider a new ordinance. The Council
should retain all options regarding a new ordinance. I would like to express my
concern regarding the Housing Conservation Policy item 3.3.5 in the draft of the
new Housing Element. I believe that given the current wording, "the city
will adopt a no net loss housing ordinance..."many property owners may be
negatively affected by the mandatory adoption of such a policy. I believe the
wording should remain the same as it reads in the existing element, `the city shall
consider adopting a no net loss housing ordinance..." (Housing conservation
item 1.23.8) The current wording does not carry the mandate and would allow
the public an appropriate voice regarding this issue at the time the Council
would consider a new ordinance. The Council should retain all options
regarding a new ordinance.
Hal &Maria Sweasey
1920 Corralitos Ave
SILO, CA 93401
RED FILE
CC: <alert@wesburk.com> MEETING AGENDA
DATE t�ITEM #T 41
ICCUNCIL —CDD DIR
CAO eO-71N DIR
O''ACAO 2fFIRE CHIEF
,Z'ATTORNEY ,G'Pw DIR
LERK/ORIG ,❑'POLICE CHF
❑ D�FPT EADS aREC DIR
_
UTIL DIR
/� — rc�HR DIR
- a
i
RED FILE
ME ING AGENDA
January 27, 2004 DATE-P/-0 f ITEM #��
TO: Ken Hampian, City Administrator
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Direct f� l
By: Michael Draze, Deputy Director of Community DevelopmenrzD
SUBJECT: Letter of January 25, 2004 From Richard Schmidt
In brief response to the letter from Mr. Schmidt relative to staff actions, we do not agree
with the basic assumptions stated or the conclusions drawn. Rhetoric aside, the staff who
worked with the Housing Element Update Task Force and the draft Housing Element
made themselves and materials equally available to all members of the task force. Some
members did ask the staff more questions than others but no early review of the draft
Housing Element was provided outside City staff. The "official task force
representative", whom we believe to be Steve Barasch, did talk with staff more than most
other members but was never accorded any "...extraordinary access and special treatment
by staff." Several members, including both Mr. Barasch and Mr. Schmidt, requested to
see the draft Housing Element before public release. Typically these requests included
comments to the effect that the task force member was interested in seeing how staff had
included task force recommendations. Staff's response was essentially the first sentence
of Mr. Schmidt's footnote (1): "Staffs response was until the draft was release to the
public, the task force couldn't see it, since we were "public"". The remainder of footnote
speculating about who is on the City payroll is assumed to be rhetorical hyperbole, and
not a real allegation (if it were, it would be highly insulting to those who have worked
hard and honestly on this process).
After reviewing Mr. Schmidt's January 25 letter with Jeff Hook, Mike Draze did call Mr.
Barasch to ask him if he had somehow seen any early drafts of the housing element. He
responded that he had not and, in fact, recalled being upset that it took staff so long to
release it. Staff is not sure what the reference to Mr. Barasch supposedly saying on
several occasions "...that he'd seen the draft, and it was "pretty good"", means. If the
comments referred to drafts of the Task Force report, staff did share the various drafts
with any members who asked and regularly sent versions to all members of the task
force. Our position was that this was their draft document and the Housing Element was
the Planning Commissions document.
As for staff sending Mr. Barasch's "...70% density bonus..." to the Planning
Commission, we send all written requests relating to Planning Commission agenda items
to the Planning Commission. It's only fair to note that staff did not support Mr.
Barasch's suggestion on the density bonus.
--j COUNCIL CDD DIR
CAO FIN DIR
ACAC FIRE CHIEF
ATTORNEY PW DIR
CLERK/ORIG POLICE CHF
DEPT HEADS REC DIR
' u UTIL DIR
❑ __
0 HR DIR
SAN LUIS OBISPO ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, INC.
IR 443 MARSH ST/SAN LUIS OBISPO/CA 93401 /(805)541-2282/FAX (805)544-2813/WWW.SLOREALTORS.ORG
REALTORe RECEIVED
JAN 21 2004
January 20, 2004 SLO CITY CLERK
Honorable Members of the San Luis Obispo City Council:
The San Luis Obispo Association of Realtors had members present at the past Housing
Element Update Task Force meetings and the subsequent Planning Commission
discussions. We would like to commend the Planning Commission for their considerable
time, and for attentively listening to input and showing a willingness to change base on
that input..
We would like to express concern regarding an issue in the current draft of the Housing
Element. 3.3.5 states "...the City will adopt a no net loss housing policy...." Although
this is only a slight change from what is in the current Housing Element, the change is
significant. Currently, the Housing Element states in section 1.23.8 "...the City will
consider adopting a no net loss housing policy..."
You will recall that an attempt to adopt a No Net Loss Policy approximately 12 months
ago was met with strong opposition and an outcry from affected property owners.
The wording change mandates that you adopt an ordinance that we do not believe has
even been issued in its final draft form. Additionally,proper notice to those most
affected has not occurred. The.wording change is apparently staff driven, and the
Planning Commission may not fully understand the ramifications to property owners..
We believe that concurrent discussions of a new ordinance and the Housing Element
update are not appropriate, and the issues should be separated.
Our Association not only believes that if a No Net Loss Ordinance is going to be adopted,
it should not only exist in draft form to be reviewed by the public but also those that will
be impacted should be notified and included in the discussions through a public hearing.
The first step towards accomplishing this is to reinstate the word, consider into the
document.
Sincerely d
COUNCIL TCDD DIR
,a CAO -ZwFIN DIA
RED FILE LrACAO -FIRE CHIEF
Wes Burk ME I AGENDA 2rCLERRNEY 2rPO DIR
,0"CLERK/ORIG p'POLICE CHF
President t M DET EADS -E2DIR
DAT ITEM #2j i'�1 O'UTIL DIR
i
RECEIVED
JAN 2 7 2004
SLO CITY CLERK
January 27, 2004
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
VIA: Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Direct( 01
irect X01
BY: Jeff Hook, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Draft Housing Element Chapter 3, Legislative Draft Items 6.23 through
6.26
Attachment 1 of tonight's staff report, Chapter 3 Legislative Draft, inadvertently omitted
legislative draft items 6.23 through 6.26. These are shown on the attached sheet, which
should be added between pages 1-28 and 1-29. The inserted text starts at the top of staff
report page 1-29.
RED FILE
MEETING AGENDA
DATE r` TEM # �i I
Attachment
Q mal
GCOUNCIL 7-CDD DIR
.GCAO ?'FIN DIR
OACAO FrFIRE CHIEF
O'ATTORNEY DePW DIR
P,CLERK/ORIG Z. POLICE CHF
OD T FADS ;ZREc DIR
�ZUTIL DIR
-'_----— SFR DIR_��
Chapter 3—Goals,Policie-,mid Programs Attachment 1
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT ITEMS 6.2.3— 6.2.6
***
1.26.2 To add to the City's residefifial land base, the City 4l eneoufage the
1.26.3 New large Dewwewa eefamreialprejeetsshouid-mehide-hewing.
6.2.3 Provide incentives to encourage additional housing in the Downtown Core
particularly in mixed-use developments. Incentives may include flexibl
density, use, height, or parking provisions fee reductions and streamlines
development review and permit processing.
6.2.4 If City services must be rationed to new development, residential projects will
be given priority over non-residential projects.
***
6.2.5 City costs of providing services to housing development will be minimized.
Other than for existing housing programs encouraging housing affordable to
very-low and low income persons, the City will not make new housing more
affordable by shifting costs to existing residents.
6.2.6 Relax open space requirements in Expansion Areas in return for the provisio
I additional affordable housing units beyond the minimum requirements
provided that such open space is not for the specific purpose of protecting
geographic features like hillsides,wetlands,biological resources and creeks;
***
18
JAN-26-2004 22:46 Jan 8055412239 P.01/05
ERECEIVED
2004
LAW OFFICES OF JAN HOWELL MARLERK
P.O. Box 1 445
Sew Luis OBISPO. CA 93406-1445
(805) 54 1-2716
(805) 54 1-2239 (FAcsIMILE)
FAX COVER SHEET
RED FILE
ME NG AGENDA
DAT=j
''( TEM #—T—k4L
To: San Luis Obispo City Council
FROM; Jane Marx
FAX No: 781-7109
DATE: 1/27/04
TIME; noon
RE: REVISED Comments on the Housing Element from the Sierra Club. Please
replace our 1/26/04 letter with this letter. Thank you, Jan Marx
NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER PAGE):5
PLEASE DELIVER IMMEDIATELY
If you do not receive any or all of the pages, please call us at(805) 541-2716. Fax
No.: 541-2239.
The infomtation comamed in this facsimile message is attorney privileged and confidentwl information
intended for ft use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient,or the employee or agent responsible to deriver it to the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any
dissemination,distribution,or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.. If you have received this fax in
error,please immediately notify us by telephone,and return the original message to us at the above address via the
U.S. postal service.
COUNCIL .TCDD DIR
T CAO FIN DIR
Z`ACAO .e FIRE CHIEF
ETATTORNEY Er PW DIR
-E CLERK/ORIG -f POLICE CHF
❑ DE,pT EADS 2-REC DIR
�l(L -2 UTIL DIR
HR DIR
JAN-26-2004 22:46 Jan 8055412239 P.02/05
Santa Lugs Chapter of the Sierra Club,P.O.Box 15755,San Luis Obispo,CA 93406.
January V. 2004
Dear San Luis Obispo City Council:
Note: This correspondence replaces our
correspondence dated January 26,2004.
The Santa Lucia chapter of the Sierra Club Housing Committee submits the
Wowing comments concerning the draft Housing Element's("RE.")proposed Negative
Declaration("Neg. Dec.")and recommendations concerning Chapter 3,Goals,Policies
and Programs. The Sierra Club is a supporter of affordable housing and"smart growth"
which minimizes environmental impact through excellent planning.
L THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS INADEQUATE.
The City Council in 2002 was wise to mandate analysis of the environmental
impacts prior to adopting anew Housing Element Staff, in its g/19/03 Neg.
Dec.,has dodged this mandate and stated that there will be"Less Than Significant
Impact"or"No Impact"from the adoption of the draft HE. The City Council should
require Planning Staff to do a thorough analysis of the new enviromnental impacts which
would in fact flow from adoption of the draft H.E.,see below. Under CEQA,a focused
EIR or at least Mitigated Negative Declaration is required to give the Council and city
residents the environmental information they need before making important policy
decisions.
The Neg.Dec is largely based on the premise that the impacts of the proposed
Housing Element have already been subjected to environmental review and mitigated by
the 1994 Final EIR,Laud Use/Circulation Element Updates("1994 EW'). This premise
is flawed Under CEQA a Negative Declaration for a new project can only be validly
based on an old EIR if that old EIR considered exactly the saute impacts which are
created by the new the project In outer words,all of the impacts of the new project must
fall within the scope of the old EIR,or else a new EIR is required However,the proposed
KE. creates new impacts not contemplated.in the 1994 EIR and also drops mitigations.
The HE_ also seeks to make Land Use changes, which rightfully should only take place
when the Land Use Element is updated, and does so without adequate environmental
review or mitigation:
New environmental review is required because the proposed Housing Element is
M consistent with existing zoning and general plan policies which were in place at the
time 1994 Land Use EIR was certified. Also, that 1994 Elft did not contemplate the
current state of commercial and residential development The proposed HE exceeds the
scope of the 1994 EIR significantly. The proposed HE contains new impacts which need
new environmental review and mitigation. The Negative Declaration is simply not
adequate,as discussed below:
i
JAN-26-2004 22:46 Jan 8055412239 P.03/05
1. DENSITY. The proposed KE. in many places proposes greater
development density than that established by existing zoning and general plan policies.A
few examples of this are on page 23 "Initiating rezoning of several areas suitable for
higher density, infill housing"and 6.3.66.3.8, 6.3.9,6.3.11, and 6.3.16. The
environmental impact of this proposed increased density in these specific locations has
not been subjected to environmental review or mitigated as required by CEQA. (CEQA
Cruidelines 15183). The locations of this increased density will affect traffic,air quality,
noise,water and sewer infrastructure,as well as park and open space acquisition. Also,
policy decisions regarding density are land use and zoning decisions,which belong in the
Land Use Element,not the Housing Element
2. SPEED OF DEVELOPMENT. The Land Use Element plans for build
out to occur in the year 2022,and this is basis for the 1994 EIR's analysis and mitigation
measures. The proposed KE. plans for build out to occur much,much sooner than 2022,
offers no new mitigation measures for the speed up and eliminates many of the 1994
Land Use and Circulation Element mitigation measures(including traffic impact and park
in-lieu fees among others)which were intended to take place gradually over time as
development occurred. The cumulative impacts of this speed up(and the speed up likely
to occur with another H.E. update in 2008)combined with the loss of 1994 mitigation
measures,requires environmental review and mitigation.
3. TRAFFIC. The impact of significantly reduced funding for transportation
projects,as outlined on pages 6 and 7 of the 2003 Draft Housing Element Fiscal Impact
Assessment("White Papel"), will be indefinite deferral of transportation mitigation
projects required by the Circulation Element of the Creneral Plan, severely impacting
traffic. The CEQA Guidelines Appendix G defines a"significant traffic impact"as one
that causes an"increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic
load and capacity of the street system." The RE. creates new significant traffic impacts
by not only failing to complete the mitigation projects,but also by planning more housing
and increasing density in locations not contemplated by the 1994 Ell. These traffic
impacts require thorough environmental review and mitigation.
4. PARKS. There are also CEQA compliance issues created by not
mitigating the impact of park in-lice fee waivers on the City's General Plan parkland
standards,as pointed out by the White Paper on page 8. The 1994 EIR did not
contemplate these proposed waivers,and therefore the Neg. Dec. is inadequate in this
regard.Creating higher density housing usually reduces back yards. This means that
there is a greater need for parks with higher density housing.Not having enough parks
will have a substantial adverse effect on human beings, which triggers a mandatory
fording of significance under CEQA Park in-lieu fees should not be waived. Reducing
the park ratio is also a Land Use decision,which should not be made in the Housing
Element
5. OPEN SPACE. The draft H.E. at 6.2.6 proposes the City should"relax"
Open Space requirements in expansion area for the provision of additional affordable
housing units." The 1994 ER did not contemplate this proposed"relaxation,"and in fact
2
JAN-26-2004 22:47 Jan 8055412239 P.04/05
built in many specific protections for Open Space. Chang the Open Space policy will
have environmental impacts,which need new environmental review and mitigation
Creating higher density housing usually reduces back yards. This means that there is a
greater need for Open Space with higher density housing. Not having enough open space
will have a.substantial adverse effect on human beings, which triggers a mandatory
finding of significance under CEQA. Also Open Space policy is a Laud Use and
Conservation decision,which should not be made in the Housing Element.
6. GROWTH MANAGEMENT,Exempting housing affordable to those of
Moderate Income would cause the city to exceed its I%cap. One example of this is
6.3.1 on page 33 which proposes to"exempt(from Residential Growth Management)all
new housing in the C-D zone and new housing that is affordable to very low,low and
moderate income households..." The 1994 ER is premised on the growth cap remaining
firmly in place and applying to housing affordable to those of moderate income.
Therefore,the changes proposed regarding growth management are outside the scope of
the 1994 EIR and the Neg.Dec. is inadequate.. An ER is required to analyze impacts of
these changes and to propose effective mitigation measures.
7. SPRAWL BEYOND THE URL. The 1994 ER contemplated
development only within the Urban Reserve Line("URL' . The proposed H.E. section
6.2.6 which ells for the"relaxing"of open space requirements likely would result in
expansion of urban development beyond the URL. Therefore,the 1994 ER is not
adequate to support a Neg. Dec. and an EIR is required.
IL RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING CHAPTER 3.
The proposed H.E. goes way beyond meeting the minimum requirements of the
Housing and Community Development Department. It makes many proposals, which
would burden present residents financially and degrade the environment of the City. We
support the recommendations of Residents for Quality Neighborhoods and also make the
following recommendations:
a. The major planning incentive for low and very low income housing
Production is its exemption from growth management and impact fees. Section 2.3.7
proposes to exempt moderate income housing from impactfees. Other sections exempt
moderate income housing from growth management. This would eliminate the incentive
for low and very low housing production,and we do not support that. we also support a
new section similar to the following. "Encourage pubic employers to provide housing
programs for their moderate income employees such as teachers,police, fire, cit workers,
etc." In contrast,Section 2.3.9 appears to propose using General Fund monies to fund the
programs listed in it,in order to aid unlimited numbers of moderate income persons from
everywhere. This section needs revision. The above changes will go a long way to
lessen the proposed RE's environmental and financial impact on permanent residents.
This will also focus our efforts on helping those who most need the help and on
establishing affordable units,which will remain affordable over time
14
JAN-26-2004 22:47 Jan 8055412239 P.05/05
b. Instruct staff to completely eliminate from the proposed H.E. any language
or figures which exceed the scope of the 1994 Land Use Element EIEL The 1994 Ea
balanced the Laud use Element fiscally and environmentally, as staff has reiterated many
times to the Council and the public. To upset tat balance without environmental review
and mitigation measures violates CEQA. It also creates inconsistencies within the
General Flan, which make it vulnerable to litigation.
C. Do not initiate rezoning or densification without thorough environmental
review and effective,mov itored mitigation measures. 6.3.6, 6.3.81 6.3.9 should be deleted
unless there is a thorough EIR and mitigations for increased density and resulting traffic.
d. Adopt 2.2.3,which extends the time affordable housing remains
affordable. Strike 3.3.7,which would allow reduced terns of affordability to rehabilitated
units.
C. Do not encourage increased housing for above moderate income
households(2.2.4). There is plenty of that kind of housing in the City at present.
f. Require commercial Development to pay 15%m lieu fee in the expansion
areas,just as residential development must do(Table 2).
g. Protect R-1 Neighborhoods. Back yards are important private open space
to human and natural life forms. We support the deleted 1.24.3 rather tham the proposed
Section 4.2.3. Clarification is needed that high density multiple family units are not
being planned on R-1 lots.
h. Enact `night sky"ordinance as a mitigation for the increased lighting,
which will result from increased density and housing.
Please consider our comments and recommendations part of the record. Thank
you for including the environmental perspective as you deliberate regarding this
important topic.
Yours Truly,
an Howell Marx
Chair,Housing Committee
Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club
TOTAL P.05
Lee Price- Inclusionary request — Page 1�
RED FILE
From: Jerry Bunin <jbunin@surfari.neb MEETiNQMEE INGj A
DAT�reQ __
To: <mdraze@slocity.org>
Date: 1/27/04 4:33AM p' gyp{,
Subject: Inclusionary request
Dear Mayor Romero and the City Council:
Since the Home Builders Association will be unable to attend the Jan. 27
City Council meeting but will be present at the Jan. 29 meeting to explain
our position on the inclusionary housing section of the housing element, we
ask the council to delay discussing the issue until the Jan. 29 meeting.
Thank you for considering this request.
Sincerely yours,
Jerry Bunin
Government Affairs Director
Home Builders Association of the Central Coast
(805)459-2807
Jerry Bunin www.slonet.org/-jbunin (home)
jbunin@slonet.org (home) www.hbacc.org (work)
jbunin@surfari.net(home) 805-481-2455 (home)
jbunin@hbacc.org (work) 805-546-0226 (work direct)
Cell 805-550-5334(mine) Cell 805-459-2807 (work)
h"*1 cop a mrc t
COUNCIL CrCDD DIR
u'CAO [!,-FIN DIR
[1-ACAO Ff�FIRE CHIEF
❑ATTORNEY r--,-PW DIR
❑-CLERK/ORIG rPOLICE CHF
❑ DEPT HEADS ❑-REC DIR
V.6 p'UTIL DIR
C.i P.113 I,,.1'-HR DIR
Allen Settle- Housing_Element Dage 1
1V U
JAN 2 7 2004
From: "Cydney Holcomb" <cholcomb@charter.net> SLO CITY CLERK
To: "Ken Schwartz" <kschwartz@slocity.org>, 'John Ewan" <jewan@s >, nsine
Mulholland" <cmulholland@slocity.org>, "Allen Settle" <asettle@slocity.org>, "Dave Romero"
<drom ero @ slocity.org>
Date: Mon, Jan 26, 2004 7:05 PM
Subject: Housing Element
Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council,
Attached is an informational document (in Word& PDF)that we have prepared for our members in
regards to the update of the Housing Element. We will also be sending you our comments on specific
policies and programs contained in the Draft itself, hopefully, tomorrow. I do apologize for getting this
material to you so late. I know you must have a mountain of things to read at this point, so we will try to be
brief and to the point with our remaining remarks.
Sincerely,
Cydney Holcomb
Chairperson, RQN
CC: "Lee Price"<Iprice@slocity.org>
OUNCILDD DIR
1 0 CAO C'FIN DIR
#�ACAO SIRE CHIEF
ATTORNEY �W DIR
RED FILE J�CLERKIORIG 2 POLICECHF
DEPT HEADS 1a REC DIR
UTIL DIR
M SING AGENDA (b J Ha DIP _
DATE ` j 2FlITEM #�— _
RQN
THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE January 26, 2004
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
RE: CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT
WHEN: 7:00 P.M. - JANUARY 27, 2004 AND JANUARY 29, 2004
PLACE CITY HALL, 990 PALM STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO
Dear RQN Members,
The required Housing Element update process which began approximately one year ago has resulted in a
council draft that was crafted by city staff, a council appointed task force and the Planning Commission. If
adopted the revised Housing Element will replace the current 1994 Housing Element and become the
"Blueprint" for housing development in the City for the.next several years..And, if adopted as presented, it
will change several longstanding City Policies, requiring changes to the existing Land Use Element, City
Ordinances and Zoning Regulations.
Attached to this letter is a set of answers to questions designed to help you understand some of the relevant
issues involved with the Housing Element update process. RQN will also be filing written responses to several
policy changes in the draft that we have identified as having serious impacts to the quality of life in our
existing residential neighborhoods. These are some of the proposed changes:
• Amending City policies and regulations to rezone residential areas to encourage infill and
densification.
• Allowing planned developments(PD Zoning) on less than 1 acre.
• Relaxing open space requirements in favor of affordable housing.
• Amending the Growth Management Regulations to exempt moderate-income housing.
• Amending the Inclusionary Housing Requirements.
• Allowing"granny flats" by right on non-conforming lots in all residential zones..
Draft Housing Element: htta://www.slocity.orci/communitvdevelopment/download/heocdraft.r)df
Council Agenda Report: httn://www.slocity.org/cityclerk/agendas/council.asp
WE NEED YOUR HELP — PLEASE WRITE, CALL, E-MAIL, AND/OR SPEAK AT THE CITY COUNCIL
MEETINGS ON JANUARY 27, 2004 and JANUARY 29, 2004
Mayor Dave Romero: 781-7415 dromero@slocity.org
Christine Mulholland: 781-7598 cmulholland@slocity.org
John Ewan: 781-7752 jewan(aslocity.org
Allen Settle: 781-7417 asettleCalslocity.org
Ken Schwartz: 781-7750 kschwartz@slocity.org
City Clerk 781-7104 Iprice@slocity.org
CITY HALL FAX 781-7109 fax only
1/26/04 1
a
RQN
THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE -Q&A
RQN supports: the creation of a substantial number of new "affordable" housing units within the
City of San Luis Obispo; the preservation and enhancement of the City's "established" residential
neighborhoods; and, the "high quality of life" currently enjoyed by City residents. In that spirit we
have prepared the following answers to questions regarding the General Plan Housing Element
Update to assist our members and others in understanding this complicated process.
A. UPDATING THE HOUSING ELEMENTi
1. What is the General Plan Housing Element?
The Housing Element is one of seven required chapters that make up the City's
General Plan. It establishes policies and programs to facilitate and encourage the
provision of safe, adequate housing for current and future residents. The State of
California requires all Cities and Counties to update their Housing Elements every
five years. To be certified by the State Department of Housing and Community
Development. (HCD) our Housing Element must provide "the opportunity to build"
4,087 housing units during the current planning period (2001-08) and it must also
show how the "resources" necessary to build the units will be obtained.
2. What was the City Council's direction for updating the Housing Element?
Their direction was to update the General Plan Housing Element with three specific
goals in mind:
• expanding housing opportunities for very-low, low, and moderate income
households;
• preserving and enhancing residential neighborhoods; and,
• complying with state laws, including the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) (Resolution No. 9387).
3. Does RQN support all three of the Council goals?
Yes. RQN's major focus is the preservation and enhancement of the City's existing
residential neighborhoods, but we also support building a significant number of new
affordable (at or below market rate) housing units in the City of San Luis Obispo.
We believe, however, that this new residential growth should be well planned, as to
its rate, location and environmental effects if we are to preserve the high quality of
life currently enjoyed by the residents of our City.
4. What process for updating the Housing Element did RQN support?
RQN lobbied for a process that would embody the preferences of the City's
resident/voters. A process based on early resident participation in a variety of
different forums such as:
1) outreach meetings in the City's neighborhoods, to involve residents early in the
process as was done in the last housing element update; 2) a survey of City
1/26/04 - 2
resident/voters asking them to define neighborhood problems and their preferences
on critical growth issues; and, 3) a task force made up of City residents, or
alternatively, one in which neighborhood representatives were a voting majority.
Unfortunately this was not the process supported by City staff for the current
update of the Housing Element:and did not happen.
S. What was the make-up and focus of the Housing Element Update Task Force?
Each member of the Task Force represented a specific interest group; however, the
voting majority of the task force was controlled by real estate development/new
housing advocate interests whose focus was on the goal of developing new
housing. It is now up to the City Council to ensure that "preserving and enhancing
residential neighborhoods" and "complying with state laws, including CEQA" receive
equal attention and that the decisions they make reflect all three of the goals that
they established.
6. Does RQN support an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Housing
Element Update?
Yes. RQN believes that better decisions are made when the impacts of different
choices are known before the decisions are made.
• Implementation of the Draft Housing Element Update would, for example,
require modification of the General Plan and existing zoning designations to
accommodate future residential development at densities greater than now
permitted and on sites where residential development is not currently
permitted. These modifications could have significant environmental impacts
and create significant conflicts with the existing policies.
• Additionally, residential development anticipated under the Housing Element
Update during the planning period could result in an increase in San Luis
Obispo's population of approximately 9,277, based on up to 4,087 additional
housing units at an average household size of 2.27 persons (2000 U.S. Census
value). This level of development would exceed current population projections
established in the General Plan for the year 2007 and would be expected to
result in significant effects related to traffic congestion and air quality.
• Many new developments and other physical changes have taken place in the
City and in the law since the last Housing Element Update in 1994, for example,
the Copeland's project and the revisions to the "granny unit" legislation.
Reliance on the 1994 General Plan EIR is not a sufficient substitute for an EIR
based on the current state of the City. In addition, the 1994 EIR was based on
a model of gradual, sustainable development within our 1% growth cap. The
Draft Housing Element Update drastically speeds up the rate of development,
which could increase geometrically if the Housing and Community Development
Department (HCD) has its way. A factually accurate and current EIR would also
provide a baseline for the City in the event the State continues to mandate.
more and more housing.
1/26/04 - 3
• Furthermore, the City Council has decided that our Housing Element must
comply with CEQA. Under CEQA, an up to date EIR is required for the decision-
makers and the public to understand the environmental implications and
cumulative impacts of the proposed Housing Element; short and long term.
For these reasons, RQN, in conjunction with the Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra
Club and the Environmental Center of San Luis Obispo (ECOSLO), made a formal,
written request to the Planning Commission and City Council to prepare a full
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Update of the Housing Element-.
7. Did the Planning Commission support an EIR for the Draft Housing Element
Update?
No. The Planning Commission supported the staff recommendation for a Negative
Declaration.
B WORKFORCE HOUSINg
8. What has RQN done to support the Council goal of expanding housing
opportunities for low, very low and moderate income households?
• RQN requested the City Council change their original Housing Element goal of
creating more housing for "all income levels" to a goal that would concentrate
on providing more "affordable" housing in the City of San Luis Obispo. The
Council agreed and changed the goal to reflect the very low, low, and moderate
income categories only. RQN was the only group to make this request.
• RQN contributed background information to the City Council regarding the State
Housing Mandate and advised the Council not to support the incredibly high
number of housing units (5,450) that the State had imposed on the City of San
Luis Obispo. The Council agreed and that action ultimately resulted in a
reduction of 1,067 units. Even with the adjustment San Luis Obispo's allocation
is still very high compared to other Cities in the State of California.
• RQN representatives lobbied the California State University Board of Trustees at
their meetings in Long Beach to support building more student housing on the
Cal Poly campus. Housing thousands of students on the campus is a very real
way of " freeing up" large numbers of rental and ownership homes in the City's
existing neighborhoods for families and those who work in San Luis Obispo.
RQN was the only San Luis Obispo group to travel to Long Beach to make this
request.
• When a very large student housing project was proposed by Cal Poly and
Capstone Weston a manufacturing site at the corner of Broad Street and Orcutt
Road, RQN argued that the project belonged on the Cal Poly campus, not in the
middle of the City. RQN noted that seven (7) on-campus student housing sites
had already been selected and approved by the CSU Board of Trustees during
the Master Plan process. The City Council advised the developers that they
would not approve a student housing project at the Orcutt and Broad location.
1/26/04 - 4
j
Subsequently, a proposal to build 2,700 beds on the campus to accommodate a
planned enrollment increase of 3,000 additional students was approved by the
CSU Board of Trustees. That project has now been placed on hold. *(It should
be noted that if this project is ever completed it will not alleviate the current
housing situation in the City's neighborhoods. There would still be
approximately 11,000 Cal Poly students looking for off-campus housing every
fall.
• RQN supported rezoning the. Orcutt and Broad property from service-
manufacturing to R-4 (high-density residential) and argued, specifically, for a
significant number of the housing units to be deed restricted"in perpetuity" at
or below-market rate.
• RQN supported the appeal of a use permit allowing Sierra Vista Hospital to
demolish four (4) housing units and re-zone two (2) parcels of R-4 (high density
residential) property to a non-residential use. RQN argued that there is a critical
need for "workforce" housing and that Sierra Vista Hospital, as a large-scale
employer, should contribute to the housing needs of their employees and should
at the very least replace the housing potential that would be lost due to the
demolition and re-zoning. Unfortunately, the Council denied the appeal which
will allow the hospital to expand their campus and add 350 additional
employees without providing one new housing unit.
G POPULATION DENS
Background:
• The City of San Luis Obispo already has an extremely high population density.
According to the 2000 census "the most densely populated part of the County is
the area around Cal Poly, with 8,575 people per square mile". And, overall the
City has a population density of approximately 4,500 people per square mile.
(See: Attachment A). *(It is interesting to note that the much larger City of
Portland, Oregon only has 3,500 people per square mile).
• There are approximately 28,000 college students enrolled at Cuesta College and
Cal Poly. A very high percentage of these students live in the City of San Luis
Obispo. That is clearly illustrated by the Census 2000 finding that the average
age of the City's population is only.26.2 years. This high percentage of college
students has another important "statistical ramification". Because most college
students "technically" have low incomes, the City's median income level is
artificially low. This skews the housing affordability index.
• San Luis Obispo has the highest percentage of rental properties of any City in
the County. Approximately 60% of the City's housing units are rentals.
• Most homeowners in San Luis Obispo could not afford to purchase the home
they Are living in today. It, therefore, follows that the City's most affordable
housing stock is comprised of the homes that people own and currently live in.
Census data reveals that 20% of the City's existing home ownership was lost
through conversions to rentals between 1990 and 2000. The vast majority of
these conversions were to high density, high rent, student rentals.
1/26/04 - 5
• The speculative purchase and conversion of existing single-family homes in
established neighborhoods to high rent, high-density student rentals does not
create"affordable infill housing."
• High density student housing in single-family homes raises rents beyond the
level affordable to most families and drives up housing prices because the sale
price is often based on rental income potential. Conversion of existing single-
family homes to high-density student rentals has repeatedly driven surrounding
families out of homes that were affordable to them. This represents a loss of
housing stock that is affordable.
9. Does RQN support increasing residential densities in the City?
Yes. RQN supports increasing residential density in the annexation areas and in the
commercial and office zones of the City.
10. Has RQN supported increased density in existing residential neighborhoods?
RQN has strongly supported the Secondary Dwelling Unit Ordinance as a valuable
means of adding "affordable" accessory dwelling units within the existing residential
zones of the City. It is imperative, however, that the owner-occupancy requirement
and the architectural guidelines remain in place to preserve the character of the
City's neighborhoods.
11. Does the City need to increase density in the existing R-1 (low-density
residential) neighborhoods to meet its regional housing need of 4,087 dwelling
units?
No. According to City Planning Staff, the City does not need to increase the density
in established R-1 (low-density residential) neighborhoods to meet the regional
housing needs allocation.
12. Does RQN support further density increases in the City's established R-1 (low-
density residential) neighborhoods?
No.
13. Does HCD certify Housing Elements that do not increase density in existing R-1
(low- density residential) zones?
Yes. The City of Pasadena is a perfect example. They have met almost all of their
regional housing needs allocation by adding high density residential to their
commercial and office zones. The density of R-1 neighborhoods was not increased,
and in some cases it was even decreased.
14. Does RQN support Planned Development (PD) zoning in existing R-1 (low-
density residential) neighborhoods, on parcels of less than one (1) acre?
No. Currently, the City of San Luis Obispo allows Planned Development (PD)
zoning in all residential neighborhoods on parcels of one (1) acre or more. City
planning staff has suggested that it would probably be very difficult to meet the
intent of the PD zoning regulations on parcels of less than one (1) acre. RQN agrees
1/26/04 - 6
with that assessment. * ( It is interesting to note that the city of Pasadena only
allows PD Zoning on parcels of two or more acres in their low density residential
zones. RQN believes this should be the requirement for the existing R-1 (low
density residential) neighborhoods of San Luis Obispo.
15.Does RQN support'7nfilln in R-1 (low-density residential).neighborhoods?
RQN is supportive of infill development that is consistent with General Plan Policies,
City regulations, and specifically the following definition contained in the Land Use
Element Glossary:
17nfll is development on vacant sites which are essentially
surrounded by urban development; and inside the city limits
existing when this element was adopted". [Emphasis added.]
D. GROWTH MANAGEMENT/ GROWTH COSTSS
16. What does the curren General Plan Land Use Element say about growth
management and growth costs?
According to the GP LUE the city should achieve a maximum annual average population
growth rate of one (1) percent - the General Plan also manages expansion of growth-
inducing activities.
LU Policy 1.0.1: Growth Management Objectives
The City shall manage its growth so that:
A) The natural environment and air quality will be protected.
B) The relatively high level of services enjoyed by City residents is maintained or
enhanced.
C) The demand for municipal services does not outpace their availability.
D) New residents can be assimilated without disrupting the community's social
fabric, safety, or established neighborhoods.
E) Residents' opportunities for direct participation in City government and their
sense of community can continue.
LU Policy 1.0.2: Development Capacity and Services
The City will not designate more land for urban uses than its resources can be
expected to support.
LU Policy 1.14: Costs of Growth
The costs of public facilities and services needed for new development shall be
borne by the new development, unless the community chooses to help pay the
costs for a certain development to obtain community-wide benefits. The City will
adopt a development fee program and other appropriate financing measures, so
that new development pays its share of the costs of new services and facilities
needed to serve it.
1/26/04 - 7
17. The draft Housing element proposes to amend the general plan and growth
management regulations (SLOMC 17.88)to exempt housing that is affordable to
very-low, low and MODERATE - income housing from growth management. If
development impact costs for very low, low, and MODERATE income development
are not collected from the developer, who will pay these costs?
Generally, everyone in the City will pay these costs, either through increased fees
or taxes on all residents, or by lowering current levels of service valued by the
residents. (See: Fee Waivers and Housing Affordability White Paper & The Draft
Housing Element and Housing Element Task Force Recommendations (October 17,
2003) by the City of San Luis Obispo)
18. If very low, low and moderate income development is exempt from growth
management, do its impacts on air quality, water, road, sewers, schools, and
police and fire levels of service go away?
No.
19. As an incentive to build affordable housing, the City currently exempts low and
very low income housing from impact fees and growth management. What
happens if the same incentives are also given to moderate income housing?
The incentive to build low or very low income housing is severely lessened. And, all
allowable growth, under growth management, will be for above-moderate housing.
E. DEMAND MANAGEMEN71
20. Have City residents supported managing the demand for housing?
Yes. Measure G was on the 1989 City ballot and passed by 68%. It asked City
voters if the City's Growth Management Ordinance should be expanded to include
commercial development.
F. VOTERS AND REFERENDU
21.Is the Housing Element subject to voter referendum?
Yes. A voter initiated petition would have to be circulated to place the issue on the
ballot.
Prepared by: Residents for Quality Neighborhoods
1/26/04 - 8
i
Attachment A
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CITIES & ACCOMMODATION OF GROWTH
• Over what population base has each City stretched its resources?
• What are the population densities of each City?
POPULATION DENSITY
CITY POPULATION SQUARE MILES PERS . MILE
Paso Robles 26,000 27.0 963
Atascadero 26,411 24.38 11082
Morro Bay 10,500 6.16 11750
Pismo Beach 81300 3.50 2,371
Arroyo Grande 16,000 5.0 3,200
San Luis Obispo 44,613 10.7 4,500
Grover Beach 13,132 2.5 5,252
SUMMARY:
The City of San Luis Obispo has accommodated more growth than any other City,
has stretched its resource base over the greatest number of people, and has also
reached one of the highest population densities of any City in the County.
1/26/04 - 9
Allen Settle- Housing Update LL _Page 1
From: Pbuschur@charter.net
To: <dromero@slocity.org>, <cmulholland@slocity.org>, <jewan@slocity.org>,
<asettle@slocity.org>, <kschwartz@slocity.org>
Date: Mon, Jan 26, 200412:28 PM
Subject: Housing Update
Dear Council Member RECEIVED
JAN 2 71 2004
I would like to express my concern regarding the Housing Conservation SLO CITY CLERK
Policy item 3.3.5 in the draft of the new Housing Element. I believe
that given the current wording, "the city will adopt a no net loss
housing ordinance." many property owners may be negatively affected by
the mandatory adoption of such a policy. I believe the wording should
remain the same as it reads in the existing element, "the city shall
consider adopting a no net loss housing ordinance." (Housing
conservation item 1.23.8) The current wording does not carry the
mandate and would allow the public an appropriate voice regarding this
issue at the time the Council would consider a new ordinance. The
Council should retain all options regarding a new ordinance.
Sincerely RED FILE
MEETING AGENDA
DAT X` ITEM #—'P—*�
Paul Buschur
CENTURY 21 San Luis Properties
Phone 800-441-5023 or 805-541-3536 COUNCIL
f�CA0 ADD DIR
1-27"ACAO Zf IN DIR
t�ATTORNEY FIRE CHIEF
- CLER H0RS - RpEC vv�IEL .fsOE4ICE
UTIL DIR
;Allen Settle _ Page 1
From: 'Paul Bonjour" <paulbonjour@msn.com>
To: <dromero@slocity.org>, <cmuIholland@slocity.org>, <jewan@slocity.org>,
<asettle@slocity.org>, <kschwartz@slocity.org>
Date: Mon, Jan 26, 2004 11:20 PM RECEIVED
Dear Council Member JAN 2 7 2004
SLO CITY CLERK
I would like to express my concern regarding the Housing Conservation Policy item 3.3.5 in the draft of the
new Housing Element. I believe that given the current wording, "the city will adopt a no net loss housing
ordinance." many property owners may be negatively affected by the mandatory adoption of such a policy.
I believe the wording should remain the same as it reads in the existing element, "the city shall consider
adopting a no net loss housing ordinance." (Housing conservation item 1.23.8) The current wording does
not.carry the mandate and would allow the public an appropriate voice regarding this issue at the time the
Council would consider a new ordinance. The Council should retain all options regarding a new
ordinance.
Sincerely
,eCOUNCIL LCDD DIR
i,ZCAO ;?'-IFIN DIR
;MACAO FIRE CHIEF
TTORNEY �PW DIR
_,
LERKYORIG POLICE CHF
❑ DEPT HEADS o�REC DIR
RED FILE zUTL DIR
MEETING AGENDA
DAT & "k ITEM
Richard Schmidt _ '25444247 Mi11/26/4 03:37 PM D1/2
RED FILE
RECEIVED
RICHARD SCHMIDT - MEETING AGENDA
P 204
A 5J 4 -4 47
CAO ErFIN DIR SLO CITY CLERK
ZrACAO 21-FIRE CHIEF
January 25, 2004 eATTORNEY 2rp1w DIR
2rCLERK/ORIG ('POLICE CHF
❑ DEPT HEADS fGG
R=C DIR
Dear Mayor Romero: LITIL DIR
hR_DIR-
These are difficult times for governmental integrity. At the national level, we see crony politics
in daily action, marching forward under pleasant-sounding slogans like Healthy Forests and
Clean Skies which are mere fig leaves for programs that loot the public welfare for private
gain.
Unfortunately, similar crony politics appears to have spread to San Luis Obispo. The housing
element update is one example. The normal update process would begin with an energetic
effort by the city to ascertain what residents want.. Instead, for reasons that remain hidden, this
time city staff forged an alliance with a formal coalition of developers, realtors, and fellow
travelers, and created a one-sided "task force" process designed to let these vested interests
hijack the General Plan. The result is a draft document which advances a list of radical
changes intended to break apart a 27-year community consensus about the broad direction of
our community's general plan. It can fairly be called the No Developer Left Behind act of 2004.
It puts the aspirations and needs of city residents behind satisfying the greed of those the city
invited to shape the update.
As you know, this plan is coming before the city council this week.
One of the most strident developer coalition members is the San Luis Obispo Property Owners
Association, which had three of its board members on the city's housing task force. Its official
task force representative was accorded extraordinary access and special treatment by staff.
When other task force members, including myself, questioned why they were being denied all
knowledge about draft element policies being written by staff, (1) this member volunteered --
several times-- that he'd seen the draft, and it was "pretty good," and that he regularly
provided staff input, which they were incorporating. Indeed, when the draft first emerged into
daylight, it contained many of his proposals. When staff forwarded the draft to the planning
commission, they also sent along this member's lengthy writeup of a 70% density bonus, an
idea rejected even by the task force, a favor accorded no other task force members' rejected
proposals. (This same idea was also published in the SLO Property Owners newsletter,
suggesting the organization's support.) It was unclear why staff accorded the SLO Property
Owners representative such favored treatment and access.
Whatever the reason, this looks pretty bad to the public, especially when we learn that our
mayor sits on the SLO Property Owners board.(2)
Mr. Mayor, with all due respect, your sitting on the board of an advocacy group which has
helped hijack the housing element update, and then presiding over the review of that hijack on
behalf of the public, presents you with an untenable common law conflict of interest. This is the
classic divided-loyalties-type conflict of interest, akin to sitting in judgment of your mother-in-
Mayor Romero, Page 1
Richard Schmidt 4 5444247 ME 1126/4 03:37 PM p212
law's rezoning application (to borrow an analogy from Judge Picquet). Others would say it
cannot pass the "smell test."
Mr. Mayor, I don't for a moment question your honesty, but I do question the ability of any
human being to participate in a public process as essential to our city as this one will be while
simultaneously serving two masters with opposing interests -- the public interest, and the
private interests of those most close to him -- and pulling it off in a manner that doesn't raise
serious questions about propriety and fairness. Compounding the problem are two additional
issues:
1. 1 don't recall, when the process for the housing element update was being discussed by the
council, ever hearing you note, for the public record, your apparently long-term personal
involvement in an interested organization, let alone your board membership, when said
organization was being provided such great influence over the outcome. Isn't this information
the public and your fellow council members deserve to know? (Perhaps the council needs to
improve its interest disclosure policies.)
2. 1 also find it unsettling that, in addition to direct involvement with SLO Property Owners, the
list of your campaign contributors (noting, also, that it is mainly your very well-financed
campaigns that have multiplied the cost of seeking local elective office) is remarkably close to
the list of those lining up to hijack the general plan. At the very least, this creates an awkward
situation, since your siding with them would be perceived by the public as a payback, your
snubbing them might be perceived by them as ingratitude.
Clearly, Mr. Mayor, for the integrity of the public process, you need to recuse yourself from
consideration of this housing element. Your involvement with SLO Property Owners puts you
too close to the fray. I fail to see how you can participate, as mayor and as a partisan, in this
element's review and adoption without raising numerous questions about fairness, propriety,
ethics, the integrity of the public process, and so on.
I am therefore asking you to recuse yourself from acting on the housing element. For the good
of the city and your own reputation, please step down when the housing element comes
forward. Your esteem in the public's eyes will rise if you do.
Sincerely,
Richard Schmidt
(1) Staff's response was until the draft was released to the public, the task force couldn't see it,
since we were "public." So why was the SLOPOA representative treated differently? Perhaps
he is secretly on the city's payroll and therefore not "public"?
(2) Both the 2003 board roster and the fall/winter newsletter list this board membership.
cc: 1. Members of the city council
2. FPPC
Mayor Romero, Page 2
COUNCIL � CDD DIR
ICAO -?jFIN DIR
ACAO ,7oFIRE CHIEF
ATTORNEY .a"PW DIR FEEED
MEMO Z CLERKORIG 2rPOUCE CHF
❑ D T HEADS 2-REC DIR 004
10 -0 H.R L DIR
January 26, 2004 -- _ _z HR DIR ERK
To: Jeff Hook, aze, John Mandeville
From Ken Schwart RED FILE
Copy' Ken Hampian MgETING AGENDA
Re: Housing Element Update DATEIaLk ITEM #-21±J
You asked to be alerted to issues/questions prior to the public hearings slated for Tuesday
and Thursday, January 27 and 29.
I have concentrated my reading as you have recommended on Chapter 3, consequently
there may be answers to a couple of my concerns located elsewhere in the documents. If
so, I need to be directed to those locations.
1. I find it very puzzling that in all of the verbiage about `housing' and `housing units'
and `households'that there is no definition of`house.' Just what is a house?
I get the idea that we all think that a "Housing Element"is an important unit of our
General Plan—at least the State does—yet this document comes across as a huge
impersonal compilation of rules and directions,goals,polices and programs without ever
getting to the heart of why a `housing element' is important. I presume that a `house' is a
unit of`housing,'but ifthis `housing element'never defines house,then the importance
of the housing element is lost on me.
The term`dwelling unit'is used a lot. If we substitute `house unit' for `dwelling unit'
does the meaning remain the same? When does the term`home' enter the picture?
2. The assignment of responsibilities for improving the inventory of housing units in
SLO appears to be laid at the doorstep of the city. I don't accept this premise.
I remember that it was the Chamber of Commerce who identified the lack of workforce
affordable housing as one of the major problems effecting business in SLO. And the
Chamber published a housing study in supportof their position. I also remember very
vividly that the State's Housing and Community Development Department identified the
lack of housing as one of the major deterrents to maintaining the State's economic
position. HCD then dictated that each local government entity throughout California
would be held responsible for accommodating a proportional share of this perceived
housing need. No ifs ands or buts.
As I read the docaments presented, I find no assignment of a share of the responsibility
for producing more housing to the private sector. I think this is a huge and unacceptable
void.
MEMO:page 2
I want to know what goals will be established for the private sector to meet in return for
the relaxation of city regulations that have allegedly restricted housing growth. For
instance, what will the real estate industry contribute;what will the financial community
contribute;what will the developer community contribute;what will the design
community contribute;and what will the homebuuRders contribute? All of these private
interests add a cost to the price of housing. If the City is expected to reduce regulations
to help cut the cost ofhousmg,what kind ofhelp can City taxpayers,the Chamber of
Commerce and HCD expect of the private sector?
If the answer is `nothing,' then I have a problem
3. Where are the illustrations? Where are the examples of good housing? We show all
kinds diagrams and pictures in our other documents. Why do we not have illustrations
showing what a good workforce affordable house looks like? Surely there must be a
passel of examples of good designs. In fact,why doesn't this document contain a number
of"Stock plans"with the proviso: `Build Plan 101A and the City will issue you a
building permit over the counter at 50%of the normal permit fees." "Construct a four-
plex using Plan 4144P and the City will issue you a building permit over the counter at
30% of the normal permit fees." "Add a floor of apartments to your downtown
commercial building using apartment units conforming with Plan 603-CD and the City
will grant you use of use of X parking spaces within the DT parking district." Etc., etc.
There has been much talk of`incentives.' OK, I favor incentives,but on terms that return
a measurable benefit to the City.
The only reference I find to `design' is 6.3.11 on page 22. Why is this? If we really want
to produce affordable housing we are going to have to come to terms with simplicity.
Merchant homes are just like SUV's. We need to unload all of the gewgaws and get
down to the basics of what constitutes the essentials of a good house(dwelling unit). The
building industry(and city folks too)have gotten so far away from simple,well-designed
housing units that we(collectively)have forgotten what they look like. IF the city is
going to subsidize housing, then we absolutely must subsidize good design.
4. Last, but not least, I find far too much unnecessary repetition throughout chapter 3.
Program language is very,very similar to Policy language. Can some ofthis be cleaned
up?
I
RECEIVED
Monday, January 19, 2004 RED FILE JAN �/ �`j 'ZUU'i
IVIEFTINQ AGENDA SLO CITY CLERK
San Luis Obispo City Council DATE L* ITEM #'�i
990 Palm St.
San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401
Dear Mayor Dave Romero and City Council:
San Luis Obispo's Planning Commission did an excellent job reviewing and making
recommendations on the draft Housing Element during weeks of detailed review and discussion.
Commissioners built on good ideas the staff recommended to help the city and private sector
work more effectively together to provide a full range of housing options.
The San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce, Association of Realtors, Property Owners
Association, Downtown Association and Home Builders Association jointly reviewed each draft
of the Housing Element and attended every commission meeting. We were consistently
impressed with how carefully commissioners listened to, weighed and responded to public input
and carefully considered recommendations from the city-appointed Housing Element Task
Force.
Our coalition particularly endorses commission decisions to:.
• Retain the in-lieu fee option in the inclusionary housing program. This will help
builders meet the city's housing needs on land with environmental constraints
(Program 2.3.1).
• Require affordable units in mixed-income projects to "be comparable in
appearance and basic quality to market-rate units." This flexibility will let
builders provide the best possible market-rate and affordable units (Policy 4.2.2).
^CIL _-CDD DIR
2-CAO ZFIN DIR
y"7rACAC 2rFIRE CHIEF
.I1-ATTORNEY B"PW DIR
ZCLERK109IG rPOLICE CHF
❑ DEPT HEADS 0"REC DIR
7 :XV @"UTIL DIR
_ ei HR DIR
• Change the maximum number of very-low income units in a project to 23. That
will allow enough units to include an onsite manager. That will make affordable
housing easier to operate after construction(Policy 4.2.3).
• Require developments of 20 or more units to offer a variety of dwelling types and
sizes or forms of tenure. Commissioners made this more effective by raising the
number of units from four and increasing builder options(Policy 5.2.4).
• Use incentives such as increased building heights and reduced parking or open
space requirements to promote housing in such desired places as the downtown
and expansion areas. Home builders report that development standards now stop
them from achieving densities land is zoned for(Policies 6.2.3 and 6.2.6 and
Program 6.3.2).
• Initiate amendments where appropriate to rezone commercial, manufacturing or
public facility.zoned areas to promote higher-density, infill or mixed-use housing.
Home builders report that the biggest factor in the rising cost of housing is the
lack of available land to meet the residential demand (Program 6.3.6).
• Adopt flexible zoning and subdivision standards in return for providing affordable
housing or mixed uses. Allowing builders to know in advance what flexibility will
apply will assist in the construction of more moderately priced units. (Program
6.3.8)
• Balance efforts to encourage infill with annexing land to meet all housing needs.
Communities need to provide affordable rental and for sale units to prevent their
workforces from commuting long distance (Program 6.3.9).
• Exempt residential projects fewer than four units from architectural review. This
will cut costs for smaller projects by speeding the development review process on
simpler applications (Program 6.3.14).
• Clarify and focus the former"Demand Management" section so it emphasizes
"local preference."This will help achieve the desired outcome (Goal 10.1)..
• Add a section that ensures the ability of legal, conforming, non-residential uses to
continue where new housing is proposed on adjacent or nearby sites. (Goal 11).
We encourage the City Council to support the overall concepts that the commission
recommends. We believe they did a yeoman's job in their review of the Housing Element draft
we hope that you will choose to approve their recommendations.
Sincerely yours:
6
��i�i�T ���cJL-✓i S �/S�d �Ss� Or �c�ii L/C7�
C
\(�?S��ler. l ( ✓�PJ'S I�SSDC rcn-Arv-
��� a x ,570 (D
\40
Richard Schmidt V 544-4247 1&1/23/4 02:21 PM D1/3
RED FILE RECEIVED
MEETING AGENDA
RICHARD SCHMIDT
DAT `� 20.1TEM # l IAN 2 3 2004
SLO
CITY CLERK
112 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 544-4247
'COUNCIL 2-CDD DIR
January 23, 2004 ,ICAO ;F N DIR
VIA FAX ACAO al -,FIRE CHIEF
To the Council ATTORNEY a"PW DIR
Re: Housing Element and Mixed Use Expectations �CLERK/ORIG fZ'POLICE CHF
� DST HEADS fZ'REC DIR
ATTORNEY
2 UTIL DIR
Dear Council Members: t•- _ t'HR DIR
I remain concerned that staff continues to undersell to you the value of mixed use as a way to
provide lots more housing and lots better land use in San Luis Obispo than any other method
contemplated in the draft Housing Element!
This is not a propagandistic statement -- it is fact. Please note on the next page the potential, over
time, to nearly double the number of housing units in the city by taking one simple step-- applying the
MU overlay zone to suitable commercial property. I remain totally baffled at the city's unwillingness to
apply the MU zone as was intended upon its creation -- namely, as an overlay zone that would
produce upper story residential units above new businesses and rebuilt businesses throughout town.
This can be done without disrupting our existing neighborhoods through haphazard densification,
such as the building industry/speculator class people have selfishlyhad inserted into the draft HE. In
fact, mixed use's contribution to the housing stock dwarfs anything that could conceivably be
accomplished by those neighborhood-bashing proposals (advanced largely by people who will not be
affected by them because of where they live).
I have watched as large parts of our commercial land base, areas where mixed use would be a
wonderful adjunct to commercial use, have redeveloped with no housing component, including: Taft-
California, where service stations have been replaced with strip malls; Foothill Square and Foothill
Plaza; Foothill-Chorro (Ferrini complex); Copeland Center/Court Street; Downtown Center; Madonna
Plaza; San Luis Mall/Promenade; Broad-Orcutt; Brickyard; among others. We've lost far too much
opportunity to date. We need to implement MU now, before more opportunities are lost. To that end:
flegardina the draft Housing Element:
Policy 6.2.3 is fine for downtown, but it's not enough for the city as a whole. Please add 6.2.x, an
additional policy, to read:
"6.2.x. Apply the mixed use overlay to suitable commercial properties throughout the city
so new development and redevelopment will incorporate housing."
and a corresponding new program,
"6.3.x. As a priority matter, review all commercial areas throughout the city for mixed use
Richard Schmidt 1W 544,4247 _MD 1/23/4 02:21 PM 02/3
housing potential, and Institute application of the MU zoning overlay to the city's zoning
map for all found suitable for such use."
Regarding the discussion of mixed use potential on page 136 of the draft HE, this is a remarkably
underwhelming assessment of the mixed use potential to supply housing, which actually cuts the
potential from the existing Housling Element Table 6 by two thirdsl
It is evident howthis has been done -- by considering only "vacant and underutilized land that could
accommodate mixed commercial and residential uses" -- but not why it has been done. As should be
clear from my recitation above of selected "lost opportunities," considering vacant and underutilized
land isn't enough. We should be looking ahead to future redevelopment of everldhilig, which takes
place incrementally about once per generation in our throwaway stripmall culture, andup t in1p ace
today the '
ectation about the makeup of that redevelopment when it occurs some years
down the road. If we don't, we'll continue to miss this opportunity.
Please give mixed use the front and center position it deserves in the housing policy of this
increasingly urbanized place.
Please adopt the additional policy and program suggested above.
Please, finally, direct staff to revise the discussion on page 136 to include the expectations
due to incremental redevelopment of commercial property throughout the city, and to
revise its expected numbers upward accordingly.
Thank you, for the good of our city and our neighborhoods.
Sincerely,
Richard Schmidt
Attached: "Housing Potential in Commercial Zones by Applying the Mixed-Use Zone Overlay"
Richard Schmidt 4544-4247 It 1/23/4 02:23 PM ❑3/3
A
To Housing Task Force
From Richard Schmidt
Housing Potential in Commercial Zones by Applying the Mixed-Use Zone Overlay(Some
Sample Density Scenarios)
Zone Acres' R-1 Overlay R-2 R-3 Allowed "Expected"'
(6 units/acre) (12 u/a) (18u/a) (by zoning)
CC 43 258 516 774 1548 1548
CN 51 306 612 918 612 153
CR 168 1008 2016 3024 6048 4536
CS 465 2790 5580 5580
O 168 1008 2016 3024 2016 504
Total Units Possible 5370 10740 16110 10224 6741
Food for thought: This chart shows the housing potential we're losing by failure to apply the mixed
use zone as an overlay zoning designation to the various commercial districts where mixed-use
housing is feasible. (I've used the "traditional" zoning densities only as a way to translate this
information into familiar conceptions of density.) Obviously, one doesn't gain all this overnight, but as
long as the mixed use zone isn't applied, we're unlikely to get any of it. We've already "lost" hundreds
of potential units by delay (for a decade) in implementing an existing zoning classification.
Worth noting:
1. We could theoretically meet our entire regional housing numbers without annexing another square
inch of land to the city. The statement that "to meet our needs we must annex large new areas and
build to higher density in them" thus doesn't withstand a simple mixed-use analytical test.
2. In theory, we can nearly double the number of housing units without annexations.
3. Infrastructure is already in place in these zones. Development costs to city and developers are
therefore much less than when developing raw land at the urban edge.
4. Given their locations, many commercial districts are efficiently served by public transportation,
which outlying subdivision development cannot be, even if laid out along so-called "new urbanist"
principles. Mixed-use applied to existing commercial areas thus promotes compact urban form as well
as efficient use of already-urbanized land and infrastructure.
5. In practice, it would make sense to apply a mixed-use overlay to the zoning map rather than to an
entire zone classification so that those areas best suited for housing can be selected for this
application. One could then mix-and-match densities from the appropriate column above, for
example, depending upon the specific situation at hand.
In existing city limits. Future annexations will add more acres to these zones.
2 The "expected"density is from Table 6 in the Housing Element, indicating a best guess about actual density likely.
i
Home Builders Association RECEIVED
OF THE CENTRAL COAST JAN 2004
providing quality housing and communities SLO CITY CLERK
Jan.23,2004
Mayor Dave Romero and City Council RED FILE
990 Palm St. MEETING AGENDA
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 1 a
DAT ITEM #3�1
Dear Mayor and Council Member:
The Home Builders Association has mostly high praise for the Planning Commission's draft Housing Element
update.However,when the City Council begins considering the update Tuesday,January 27,we recommend
revising the inclusionary housing section so it is more incentive driven and encourages building more moderately
priced homes.
Table 2A in the inclusionary section 2.3 uses a sliding scale to determine the number of affordable homes required
in the annexation areas based on the average square footage of units.As the average square footage increases in a
project,more affordable units are required. The commission recommends that units averaging less than 1,200 square
feet have no inclusionary requirement because they would be small enough to be considered affordable.
That is a clearly a step in the right direction. But the inclusionary waiver should include units up to 1,500 square
feet.A typical new single-family home built in San Luis Obispo County today is about 2,200 square feet. Homes
that are one-third smaller than the typical unit will sell for less,should be considered moderately priced,and
encouraged by government. You can offer that encouragement by increasing the size for which the inclusionary
waiver is granted. Such an action would be good land use, social and environmental policy,by promoting a denser
use of residential land,and it also would signal home builders that the city wants to work with the private sector to
find solutions to the community-wide housing affordability problem.
Inclusionary housing programs are generally unproductive since they produce few units and put upward pressure on
the price of market-rate housing.They aggravate the affordability problem and unfairly burden home builders.
Home builders wind up bearing almost the entire fiscal responsibility for constructing affordable housing that
benefits everyone in the community.The affordability problem is the result of a supply-demand imbalance created
by bad land use policy,neighbor opposition to most residential developments,and existing homes being resold for
top dollar.The problem has not been created by new construction,but the home building industry is very interested
in partnering with local government to help address this problem.
I cannot attend the January 27 City Council meeting,but will attend the January 29 meeting to discuss this with you.
Thank you very much for considering our ideas.
L ll can be reached at(805)546-0226 or jbunin(a,hbacc.org if you would like to further discuss our letter.
'COUNCIL TCDD DIF Sincerely yours
2-CAO Z,`-IN DIR
Z'ACAO Z. FIRE CHIEF
ATTORNEY 21:1WW DIR Jerry Bumn
Z'CLERKIORIG 2,yPOUCE CHF Government Affairs Director
0 DUT HEADS Z REC DIR Home Builders Association of the Central Coast
�rCC
,Er UTILDIR
�HR DIR
P. O. Box 13010 805.5460418 : voice
2078 Parker Street, Suite 210 805.546.0339 : fax
San Luis Obispo, California 93406-3010 www.hbacc.org : internet